I have been following a Logos reading plan to read the GNT in a year, but am a bit behind. One of last week’s readings was John 16, and I came across an interesting difference between the SBLGNT and the NA27 regarding the basis of our requests to the Father. Here is the text of NA27, since that is likely the most familiar.
22 καὶ ὑμεῖς οὖν νῦν μὲν λύπην ἔχετε· πάλιν δὲ ὄψομαι ὑμᾶς, καὶ χαρήσεται ὑμῶν ἡ καρδία, καὶ τὴν χαρὰν ὑμῶν οὐδεὶς αἴρει ἀφʼ ὑμῶν. 23 Καὶ ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἐρωτήσετε οὐδέν. * ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἄν τι αἰτήσητε τὸν πατέρα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου δώσει ὑμῖν. 24 ἕως ἄρτι οὐκ ᾐτήσατε οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου· αἰτεῖτε καὶ λήμψεσθε, ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ὑμῶν ᾖ πεπληρωμένη.1
The issue at hand is where the phrase ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου belongs. Or more specifically, to which clause does it belong. The traditional reading of the text would be to understand it as “whatever you ask the Father in my name,” which assumes that the clause uses default ordering of the constituents. Take a look at the SBLGNT reading:
22 καὶ ὑμεῖς οὖν ⸂νῦν μὲν λύπην⸃ ἔχετε· πάλιν δὲ ὄψομαι ὑμᾶς, καὶ χαρήσεται ὑμῶν ἡ καρδία, καὶ τὴν χαρὰν ὑμῶν οὐδεὶς ⸀αἴρει ἀφʼ ὑμῶν. 23 καὶ ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἐρωτήσετε οὐδέν· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ⸂ἄν τι⸃ αἰτήσητε τὸν πατέρα ⸂δώσει ὑμῖν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου⸃. 24 ἕως ἄρτι οὐκ ᾐτήσατε οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου· αἰτεῖτε καὶ λήμψεσθε, ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ὑμῶν ᾖ πεπληρωμένη.2, Jn 16:22–24.))
Note that the phrase is placed at the end of the main clause rather than at the end of the topical frame ἄν τι αἰτήσητε τὸν πατέρα. So in this reading, Jesus’ name is not the manner in which we ask, but the manner in which the Father gives or answers. Here is the manuscript evidence regarding the issue from the NA27 apparatus:
†5 6 1-4 P5vid א B C* L Δ l 844 pc sa ac2 (SBLGNT reading)
❙ 5 6 118 pc
❙ txt P22vid A C3 D W Θ Ψ f 13 I. (33) M lat(t) sy pbo bo (NA27 reading)3
Regarding the † symbol on the first line, the apparatus has the following note: “A cross marks a change in the text from the 25th edition, where the reading so marked stood in the text (cf. Mt 7,18 and; 20,18). These passages always represent very difficult textual decisions.”4 This means that the SBLGNT reading is not so much a novel one as “going retro” so to speak. Food for thought.
The syntactical analysis of both Cascadia and OpenText analyze the NA27 reading as the prepositional phrase ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου modifying the topical frame, not the main clause. Interestingly, the Cascadia analysis of the SBLGNT links the prepositional phrase in question with the topical frame by crossing the main clause. Here is a snapshot.
I am not really sure what motivated the crossing, as it doesn’t really seem to represent what is going on in the syntax. This does not seem like a likely instance of discontinuous syntax, something normally associated with fronting for marked focus/emphasis.
The NA27 reading is somewhat ambiguous regarding which clause ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου should be affiliated with. The traditional reading has been that it goes with “whatever you ask,” which is consistent with v. 24a, that up to this point they have not asked for anything in his name. The alternative understanding, one which reconciles the manuscript evidence regardless of its placement, is to understand ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου as part of the main clause rather than part of the topical frame. If this is correct, then the change in the SBLGNT is a reduction in prominence on the phrase from either marked focus/emphasis or a frame of reference to default focus. Thus, our receiving things from the Father would not be based on the manner in which we ask–appealing to Jesus. Rather, the Father would give to us on the basis of Jesus’ name.
I’ll leave it to the text critics to debate the merits of each reading, but the two need not be viewed as radically different, if one changes the traditional understanding of the NA27 reading. I’d be interested in hearing thoughts. I must admit I had never really given this issue much thought, and I do not have the time to do so at the moment.
- Eberhard Nestle et al., Novum Testamentum Graece (27. Aufl., rev.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1993), 303-04. [↩]
- Michael W. Holmes, The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition ( (Logos Bible Software, 2010; 2010 [↩]
- Eberhard Nestle et al., Novum Testamentum Graece (27. Aufl., rev.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1993), 304. [↩]
- Eberhard Nestle et al., Novum Testamentum Graece (27. Aufl., rev.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1993). [↩]
Well Steve,
It seems you’ve given it a lot more thought than most, for not having time!
I was wondering “which is the harder reading?” If they work out the same, it doesn’t matter. If “I and the Father are one,” applies, then I think the real issue is that if we are involved in that union, we won’t ask for things that are not “in Jesus’ name,” you know, the silly things, like pink cadillacs, etc.
Thanks for posting.
John
the notes from metzger provide some basic comments
16:23 ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου δώσει ὑμῖν {C}
A majority of the Committee preferred the reading that places ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου between the verbs αἰτήσητε and δώσει, because (a) the external support for this reading is more diversified, whereas the witnesses that support the order δώσει ὑμῖν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου are chiefly Egyptian, and (b) the context has to do with prayer, which the evangelist elsewhere links with the name of Jesus (14:13, 14; 16:15, 24, 26). (should be 15:16 not 16:15 in his notes)
It would be provacative to look into some possible reasons why there was an Egyptian emphasis on moving the clause to the end. It is interesting theologically that the SBL rendering reminds me of a Pauline like thought (Phil 1:29).
I agree with you that the SBLGNT reading has default focus in the main clause on “in my name,” while the NA27 reading is ambiguous as to default focus in the topical frame or strong focus in the main clause. (I disagree with the Cascadia analysis, and it looks like that its syntax tree was not updated in response to the change in surface order. This is not an uncommon problem throughout the guild.)
As for the text critical angle, unfortunately both P66 and P75 are unhelpful for this verse due to lacunae in their manuscripts, but I would tend to favor the SBLGNT reading based on external evidence. Of course, a final judgment would have to depend also on evaluating the intrinsic probabilities (what the author most likely would have written) and transcriptional probabilities (what scribes would have most likely changed). It is in examining the intrinsic probabilities that I think discourse analysis promises to be the most useful for TC.
Thank you for your thoughtful analysis. Given v. 24, I think both the OpenText & Cascadia analysis of the NA27 text are more probable. (However, perhaps this reading resulted from accidental or intentional harmonization to v. 24, in which case the SBLGNT reading would have superior claim to originality.) As for the Cascadia analysis of the SBLGNT, this is a case of an automatic mapping of one text to another that produced a valid tree automatically & so eluded my detection. (The computer produced the harmonization in this case, instead of a human.) I have changed it now on my end. The correction will be reflected in any future update we may release. (We have implemented a significant number corrections & updates to the Greek treebank that have yet to be released.)