Frederic Louis Godet argues that the "me" in John 14:14 seems to be an "absolutely impossible" reading since it makes little sense to ask Jesus something in his own name. Compare John 15:16; 16:23-24. This commentator also insists that Tischendorf, Weiss and Westcott defend the indefensible when they argue for the genuineness of the reading "me."
See Godet's Commentary on the Gospel of John, With an Historical and Critical Introduction (page 154). It is available on Google Books for free.
10 comments:
Here it is:
http://archive.org/stream/commentaryongospelhistoric02gode#page/277/mode/1up
Godet was a respected 19th century trinitarian theologian that subscribed to the kenoticist movement wich arose in the later 19th century within German theological circles. his exposition of john 1:14 regarding the the mechanics of what happened during the Word becoming flesh' event were also spot on.
Hola,
Sorry, I don´t find the correct edition. There are a lot of editions. Page 154, page 277??? Nothing ...
http://archive.org/search.php?query=godet%20commentary%20john%20AND%20mediatype%3Atexts
Can you help me?
googlebooks don´t work
Anonymous, I was using google reader. But here is the same book on google books: http://books.google.com/books?id=zx8WAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Try page 277
Hey Edgar,
Thank you for sharing Godet's comments, which reflect sound judgment. As we've discussed in the past, John 1:18 is another place where I'm inclined to favor the reading with the least textual support, again for logical reasons.
I've contemplated John 14:14 in an effort to discern what it could potentially mean if the more common reading should turn out to be original. The only interpretation that seems plausible to me is that by "in my name" Jesus meant something like "in recognition of the authority given me (Jesus) by the Father." If so, then this is another case where a comment made by Jesus, while quite striking, is nevertheless in harmony with the agency model.
~Kaz
Hello Kaz,
John 1:18 is a good case to ponder in this regard. There are good arguments for either reading.
Regarding John 14:14, Godet suggests that "name" (in this context) could refer to the person himself or it could reference the cause of someone. But he denies that "name" has that meaning in John 14:14. Maybe we could understand the text in the way you propose. There is evidently good evidence for construing onoma that way too.
I have a question on this verse if I may. I have been in a discussion with someone who says the NWT leaves out the ask "ME" because of theological bias when our Kingdom Interliner uses ME. Several translations, based on textus receptus, such as the KJV also do not say ME, but because older greek manuscrits have ME then ME should be in the translation.
I have found that the coptic does not, but he says coptic is a translation and we have older manuscrits that say ME. I belive that verse 13 says ask in my name. Who do we ask? Jesus said to ask the father in my name. To me "Ask me in my name makes no sense" What are your thoughts on this verse. Thanks much in advance
People have to understand that the NWT doesn't accept something just because it's in the KIT. Westcott's acceptance of ":me" likely explains why it appears in the KIT, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily genuine. Personally, I don't have a problem with viewing "me" as genuine; however, I can see why it might not be original too. Then there's the problem of sense.
Bruce Metzger's textual commentary gives the "me" reading for John 14:14, a B rating and he's seems favorable to its inclusion. As this blog entry illustrated, Godet thinks the verse is most certainly not original. In the final analysis, we can discuss the issues in a footnote, then let the reader decide.
http://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/2018/03/john-1414-and-missing-me.html?m=1
Thanks, T. Helpful info.
Post a Comment