04-08-2025, 02:35 PM
Does the Greek NT Mt 5:37 "let your word be, Yes, Yes, No, No" accurately characterize what Jesus said in Aramaic?
Matthew 5 (Literal Standard)
https://biblehub.com/lsv/matthew/5.htm
33 Again, you heard that it was said to the ancients:
You will not swear falsely,
but you will pay to the LORD your oaths;
34 but I say to you not to swear at all;
neither by Heaven,
because it is the throne of God,
35 nor by the earth,
because it is His footstool,
nor by Jerusalem, because it is [the] city of [the] great King,
36 nor may you swear by your head,
because you are not able to make one hair white or black;
37 but let your word be, Yes, Yes, No, No,
and that which is more than these is of the evil [one].
Matthew 5:37 (based on Younan)
Your 'yes' word should be but 'yes,'
and (your) 'no' (word should be but) 'no.'
Anything which is more than these is from evil.
Matthew 5:37 (EBV Dutch Peshitta)
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/index.php
Matthew 5:37 - Laat jullie 'Ja!' 'Ja!' zijn en (jullie) 'Nee!' 'Nee!'. Wat daarboven uitgaat, is uit de boze."
Laat jullie 'Ja!' 'Ja!' zijn - letterlijk: 'Laat jullie woord 'Ja!' 'Ja!' zijn'.
based on google translate:
Matthew 5:37 - Let your "Yes!" be "Yes!"
and "No!" be "No!"
Whatever is more than these comes from evil."
Let your "Yes!" be "Yes!" - literally, "Let your word 'Yes!' be 'Yes!'"
T. W. Manson (1893-1958), _The Sayings of Jesus: As Recorded in the Gospels According to St. Matthew and St. Luke_ (1957), 352pp., on 159
https://www.amazon.com/Sayings-Jesus-T-W-Manson/dp/B000XTBMN2/
https://archive.org/details/sayingsofjesusas0000mans/page/158/mode/2up?q=mistranslation
Page 159
37. What is required is something that cannot be supplied by oaths, however solemn-- a disposition to speak the truth.
Given that inward honesty all oaths become superfluous.
Indeed, the plain Yes or No of an honest man is more reliable than the word of a liar, even though that word be supported by the most solemn oath.
For 'Let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay' James (5^12) has 'let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay.'
The form in Mt. can be explained as mistranslation due to following an Aramaic original word by word.
There can be little doubt that James 5^12 here gives the correct rendering.
This is confirmed by the fact that in Jewish teaching the doubled yes or no is regarded as a form of oath.
There is ample evidence that the fortifying of statements by oaths of various kinds was a common Jewish practice, and also that the Rabbis disliked and condemned idle swearing.
There are also Rabbinic parallels to the saying 'Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay.'
R. Huna said,
'The yea of the righteous is a yea;
their no is a no.'
(For this and other examples, cf. Montefiore, _op. cit_., pp. 48 ff.)
But the Rabbis never prohibited entirely the taking of oaths.
C. G. Montefiore (1858-1938), _Rabbinic literature and Gospel Teachings_ (1930), on 49
https://www.amazon.com/Rabbinic-literature-Gospel-teachings-Montefiore/dp/B00085IEJQ/
https://archive.org/details/rabbinicliteratu0000mont/page/49/mode/1up?q=swearing
R. Huna said,
'The yea of the righteous is a yea ;
their no is a no' (Ruth R. vii. § 6, on iii. 18).
Matthew 5 (Literal Standard)
https://biblehub.com/lsv/matthew/5.htm
33 Again, you heard that it was said to the ancients:
You will not swear falsely,
but you will pay to the LORD your oaths;
34 but I say to you not to swear at all;
neither by Heaven,
because it is the throne of God,
35 nor by the earth,
because it is His footstool,
nor by Jerusalem, because it is [the] city of [the] great King,
36 nor may you swear by your head,
because you are not able to make one hair white or black;
37 but let your word be, Yes, Yes, No, No,
and that which is more than these is of the evil [one].
Matthew 5:37 (based on Younan)
Your 'yes' word should be but 'yes,'
and (your) 'no' (word should be but) 'no.'
Anything which is more than these is from evil.
Matthew 5:37 (EBV Dutch Peshitta)
http://dukhrana.com/peshitta/index.php
Matthew 5:37 - Laat jullie 'Ja!' 'Ja!' zijn en (jullie) 'Nee!' 'Nee!'. Wat daarboven uitgaat, is uit de boze."
Laat jullie 'Ja!' 'Ja!' zijn - letterlijk: 'Laat jullie woord 'Ja!' 'Ja!' zijn'.
based on google translate:
Matthew 5:37 - Let your "Yes!" be "Yes!"
and "No!" be "No!"
Whatever is more than these comes from evil."
Let your "Yes!" be "Yes!" - literally, "Let your word 'Yes!' be 'Yes!'"
T. W. Manson (1893-1958), _The Sayings of Jesus: As Recorded in the Gospels According to St. Matthew and St. Luke_ (1957), 352pp., on 159
https://www.amazon.com/Sayings-Jesus-T-W-Manson/dp/B000XTBMN2/
https://archive.org/details/sayingsofjesusas0000mans/page/158/mode/2up?q=mistranslation
Page 159
37. What is required is something that cannot be supplied by oaths, however solemn-- a disposition to speak the truth.
Given that inward honesty all oaths become superfluous.
Indeed, the plain Yes or No of an honest man is more reliable than the word of a liar, even though that word be supported by the most solemn oath.
For 'Let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay' James (5^12) has 'let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay.'
The form in Mt. can be explained as mistranslation due to following an Aramaic original word by word.
There can be little doubt that James 5^12 here gives the correct rendering.
This is confirmed by the fact that in Jewish teaching the doubled yes or no is regarded as a form of oath.
There is ample evidence that the fortifying of statements by oaths of various kinds was a common Jewish practice, and also that the Rabbis disliked and condemned idle swearing.
There are also Rabbinic parallels to the saying 'Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay.'
R. Huna said,
'The yea of the righteous is a yea;
their no is a no.'
(For this and other examples, cf. Montefiore, _op. cit_., pp. 48 ff.)
But the Rabbis never prohibited entirely the taking of oaths.
C. G. Montefiore (1858-1938), _Rabbinic literature and Gospel Teachings_ (1930), on 49
https://www.amazon.com/Rabbinic-literature-Gospel-teachings-Montefiore/dp/B00085IEJQ/
https://archive.org/details/rabbinicliteratu0000mont/page/49/mode/1up?q=swearing
R. Huna said,
'The yea of the righteous is a yea ;
their no is a no' (Ruth R. vii. § 6, on iii. 18).