Is it possible to ask Jesus for something in His name?

In the Nov 2 Narrow Path broadcast, Steve Gregg was discussing John 14:14 with a caller and indicated that this doesn’t make sense. Some versions based on the Sinaiticus and/or the Vaticanus manuscripts have “ask me” in the verse, while those based on Alexandandrinus do not have the “me”. For example, note the following two modern translations:

If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. (English Standard Version)
If you ask anything in My name, I will do it. (New King James Version)

I can see Steve’s point. To do something in someone’s name normally means that in your action, you represent that person.
In the old days, a police officer in England might shout to a suspected thief, “Stop in the name of the king!” The officer represents the king in making that request.
But would it make sense for a police officer to say to the king, “Stop in the name of the king!”
Jesus is our advocate with the Father, and so it makes perfect sense to ask the Father for something in the name of Jesus. But it doesn’t seem to make sense to ask Jesus for something in the name of Jesus.

Now in my opinion, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are more likely to be closer to the original manuscripts than Alexandrinus. But could it be that they are wrong in this particular case and Alexandrinus is right?

I decided to check it out in the ancient manuscripts, papyrus 66 and papyrus 75.

Papyrus 75 from the latter part of the 2nd century (maybe about 175 A.D.), has the word με (me) just as Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do.

Papyrus 66 from the middle part of the 2nd century (maybe about 150 A.D.) contains the expression “ται μαι” (tai mai) instead. I have never encountered the word “ται” or the word “μαι” at any time in my Greek studies. I did a search for each of these words in New Testament Greek editions as well as the Septuagint and found neither word. I actually checked a photograph of the ancient papyrus 66 on the page in which John 14:14 is written, and it’s definitely “ται μαι”. Is there any Greek scholar among our members who can explain this?

I have been pondering whether it is possible to ask Jesus for something in His name. Does anyone have any ideas? Jason?

I am partial to Alexandrinus. However, I do not think the meaning is jeopardized by either translation. Most “errors” are only based on a pedantic fixation of a particular interpretation. The basic meaning, for the basic person, is not troubled.

Those source texts with “με” …
p66 p75vid ‭א B E H S U W Δ Θ 060 f13 28 33 579 700 892 1006 1230vid 1242 1342 1646 Byzpt Byz2005 l64 l184(1/2) l219 l514 l547 l672 l673(1/2) l813 l890(1/2) l1231 itc itf vg syrp syrh goth Fulgentius [WH] NR CEI TILC Nv

Those without it …
A D G K L M Q Π Ψ 180 597 (1010) 1071 1079 1195 1216 1241 1243 1292 1344 1424 1505 1546 2148 2174 Byzpt Lect ita itaur itd ite itq itr1 vgmss copsa coppbo copbo copach2 copfay eth slav Diatessaron Victorinus-Rome Augustine2/3 Cyrillem Euthymius ς ND Riv Dio NM

Perhaps, if the inclusion of “με” is correct, then God Himself was speaking with the mouth of Jesus;
after all this is the book of John, where the lines between them are rather obscured …
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (Darby)

And there is Deuteronomy (Sh’ma Yisrael),
and the Jewish monothestic objection to Jesus being God Junior; “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one”
That is, might Jesus be speaking here (in John 14:14), as if He were God, because He is God … God in a different mode?

I certainly dont know the nature of God, but this could be an answer, one way to answer your question …
Hence my question (under the Heritic thread), about how to read Gal 1:3 … Haven’t a clue what’s correct, do you?

LOL. We all do this occasionally.

No luck on “μαι”… but “ται” is otherwise rendered as aἱ – the nominative, plural, feminine of the article, ὁ

(Robin)
That would be the “ai” without the “h” sound “hai,” right Dave … but Paidion says that what he’s seeing is “tai” … not exactly the same?
But Sonia found on Perseus that “tai” (and variations) are … apparently … simply different modes (indecilforms or indices) of expressing the
(nominative [not dative], plural, feminine) article in different dialects of Greek (for instance, the Aeolic dialect was spoken mainly in
central Greece around Boeotia; and the Doric dialect in Peloponnese, Crete, and Rhodes) …“the ones” (T-NPF) …

(Sonia)
τᾶι article pl fem nom epic indeclform
τᾶι article sg fem dat doric aeolic indeclform
ταί article pl fem nom epic indeclform
ταί article sg fem dat doric aeolic indeclform

(Paidion)
My guess was that the phrase “ται μαι” meant “to me.”
If that were the case, then John 14:14 in papyrus 66 would read:
“If you ask to me anything in my name, I will do it.”

(Robin)
Apparently, Paidion agrees (that it’s nominative plural), and that he reads “ται μαι” as “to me” …
But I find this confusing (sorry) since first of all, it is (apparently) only an article, not a pronoun, and it’s plural …

Also, intriguing (to me) is that when actually looking at the p66 papyrus, he sees the words “ται μαι”
and yet my manuscript comparator (Laparola) says nothing about there being a “ται μαι” variation?
Am I just not looking correctly at what Laparola is showing me, or is Laparola wrong?

All this Greek stuff aside, the original question still remains …

(Sonia)
From the context, it does seem that Jesus is saying that he will do what we ask him in his name,
and that what he does is the Father working in him. Do you have any more thoughts on this?

(Robin)
And, it’s a very good question!
I truely wish that others would join in … any and all opinions, statements of fact, conjectures
would be greatly appreciated (by me, at least) …

This might be helpful: perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor … ek#lexicon

Sonia

Thank you, Sonia. Going to Perseus had crossed my mind, but I never got around to it.

After going to the link you provided, I also found “μαι”:

perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=mai&la=greek#lexicon

I had suspected both words were feminine, and I also thought both were dative. My guess was that the phrase “ται μαι” meant “to me.”

If that were the case, then John 14:14 in papyrus 66 would read:

I was thinking that, too, but my Greek isn’t good enough yet for me to feel comfortable proposing it.

From the context, it does seem that Jesus is saying that he will do what we ask him in his name, and that what he does is the Father working in him. Do you have any more thoughts on this?

Sonia

Some experts say that both p66 and p75 include “me”, but actually p66 has this “τια μια” thing, whereas p75 does use the word "με"which is one of the accusative singular form of the personal pronoun.

The only other thought I have is that which I expressed in the original post. If Jesus had said, “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it,” what would be meant by asking Jesus something in His name? That is, what would “in His name” mean? It couldn’t have the usual meaning. So would it mean simply uttering the words “in Your name”?

(Robin)
Why would some experts say that p66 included “με,”
when as you say, anyone just looking at the text can plainly see
that it says “τια μια” …that is, if it can so planly be seen by anyone, why would the experts say differently?

(Robin)
Again, this is confusing … that is, the question is not simply our …“asking in His name” or “en tw onomati mou” (in the name of Me),
but rather our asking Him …directly …in His name;
two compleatly different ideas.

Also,
Isn’t the pronoun “your” a differnt word than “me” …
that is, isn’t “your” some variation of the pronoun “hymeteros” …

But I dither, let’s get back to the basis of your original question, our asking of Him, directly … “με” …
It was you, afterall, Paidion that raised this pithy question, so what, indeed, is your opine on the matter?

That is precisely that of which I am wondering. My guess is that these experts are equating “τια μια” to “με”. If the former means “to me”, then the idea of asking “asking to me in my name” would not be much different from “asking me in my name.”

That was the point of my original post. The Greek text of Textus Receptus has “asking in my name” whereas those of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have “asking me in my name.”

This is not a variation of the text. I was saying that if we ask Jesus in His name, we might say when we pray to Jesus, “And so I ask this in Your name.” My question was, "Is the simple utterance of the phrase, “I ask this in Your name” sufficient? Or does asking Jesus in His name mean something more. And if so, what?

I have no opinion. I am trying to determine if possible, which text is the correct one, and if it is the one which contains “me”, then what does it mean to ask Jesus for something in His name.

How does one delete a duplicate post?

It’s been my understanding (fwiw) that asking in Jesus name refers to asking in a way consistent with all that His name represents and encompasses. In other words, to ask in His name, one must ask according to His nature and purposes. I’m sure you’ve heard of this, Paidion (and the others who’ve commented as well). Is this an option? Is there any reason to accept/dismiss it?

(Robin)
That’s what I find so strange … I mean, that the experts usually (if not always) show us the slightest of spelling
variations, even when such things make no difference at all, (not even to show a difference in dialects,)
and yet, here you’re suggesting (?) they are not acknowledging the actual difference between “τια μια” to “με,”
but just equating the words, as if there weren’t any physical difference …

(Paidion)
I have no opinion. I am trying to determine if possible, which text is the correct one,
and if it is the one which contains “me”, then what does it mean to ask Jesus for something in His name.

(Robin)
Then, what would your “conjecture” be,
if the verse correctly contained … “me” …

However, the “με” is noted as questionable text (bracketed), so maybe we can ignore it,
especially since John gives us yet another verse (16:26), which doesn’t have it.

Darby’s English Translation
16:26 In that day ye shall ask in my name; and I say not to you that I will demand of the Father for you,

But, again, back to asking for your opion on the matter (if the word is really there),
wouldn’t our directly asking Jesus for something, in His name,
only make sense, if He (Jesus) were actually God, Himself?

Again, I dont know the nature of God,
but I am open to at least intertaining the idea of God in the mode of Jesus,
since it seems to fit with “the LORD our God, the LORD is one”

Robin, I don’t see that it would make sense in that case, if the usual meaning of doing something in the name of an authority means representing that authority. For example, in a country ruled by a king, a police officer could say to a thief, “Stop in the name of the king”. The officer is saying that he has authority from the king to arrest thieves. But suppose the police officer sees the king himself stealing from a citizen. Would it make sense for him to say to the king, “Stop in the name of the king.” How could the officer be representing the king TO the king?

Similarly it doesn’t seem to make sense to pray to Jesus, “Lord Jesus please provide me with the needed funds to go on this missionary trip. I ask this in the name of Jesus. Amen.” For how can the man represent Jesus when he is addressing Jesus?

(Robin)
Well done … will be interesting to see, if anyone else sees …
Where have all the good teachers gone; dead and buried every damn one of them.

I might be wrong, but I think Paidion is right. I don’t think that asking Jesus “in the name” of Jesus requires that Jesus is God; although (I think) Paidion does approve of the divine relationship between the Father and Son. That relationship, however one explains it, is truly a unique relationship between God the Father and God’s only begotten Son. Therefore, the authority which Jesus is given is the authority vested in Him by the father… “All authority has been given to me in Heaven and in the earth…" (Matthew 28:18)

Some people seem to think that if their prayer is terminated with the mantra “in the name of **[size=150]Je[/size]**sus” then their incantation will be validated and the magic formula has to be honoured as it says in ‘the Word’. Abracadabra!
The only interpretation that has made sense to me is the one expressed extremely clearly by Cindy. I agree wholeheartedly and could not put it better. I also believe that if this is the case, then their is no real problem in petitioning Jesus or Father.

So where’s the LIKE button…