Mark 6.23 & 14.71 and swearing.

[Ben C. Smith]

Matthew 5.33-36 gives us the dominical saying:

33 "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not make false vows, but shall fulfill your vows to the Lord.' 34 "But I say to you, do not swear [ὀμόσαι] at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 Nor shall you swear [ὀμόσῃς] by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black."

Mark uses the verb ὄμνυμι only twice. The first time is in Mark 6.23:

23 And [Herod] swore [ὤμοσεν] to her, "Whatever you ask of me, I will give it to you; up to half of my kingdom."

The second time is in Mark 14.71:

71 But [Peter] began to curse and swear [ὀμνύναι], "I do not know this man you are talking about!

Both of these are, in context, unwise instances of swearing. Was Mark aware of a saying (dominical or otherwise) against swearing or making oaths, and did he decide to illustrate the principle in stories rather than to simply place it on the lips of Jesus? Or did Matthew take the principle from Marcan storytelling and turn it into a dominical saying? Or are there other, more likely options? What is the relationship, if any, between these verses?

Ben.

[John2]

Regarding Matthew 5:33-36, Nehemia Gordon notes that this is yet another instance where the Hebrew Matthew makes more sense than the Greek. I'm at work right now so I don't have his book in which he discusses this at hand, but I found this webpage that mentions it.

The Greek translation of Matthew inadvertently dropped the word falsely from the Hebrew Matthew. This erroneously made it appear Jesus said one is never to take an oath ... Jesus' criticisms imply the Pharisaic quibbling with Lev. 19:12 led the Pharisees to sanction false oaths as long as not in God's name. Implied from Jesus' criticisms is that the Pharisees obviously said Lev. 19:12 meant one could falsely swear even if you invoked objects closely associated with God, like the Temple. You supposedly would transgress the command only when God's name is actually used ... Thus, the Pharisees diminished the Law once more. Gordon detected the difference in the Hebrew version of Matthew (i.e., the Shem-Tov) where Jesus corrected them, saying "do not swear falsely at all," whether by the temple or anything else. The Greek translation inadvertently dropped the word falsely. This led us to misapprehend Jesus' meaning.

http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/books/215 ... iants.html

[John2]

It is viewable in Howard's book in Hebrew and English on pages 20 and 21 (you'll have to scroll down to them).

https://books.google.com/books?id=4tdEB ... 05&f=false

[Ben C. Smith]

Regarding Matthew 5:33-36, Nehemia Gordon notes that this is yet another instance where the Hebrew Matthew makes more sense than the Greek. I'm at work right now so I don't have his book in which he discusses this at hand, but I found this webpage that mentions it.

The Greek translation of Matthew inadvertently dropped the word falsely from the Hebrew Matthew. This erroneously made it appear Jesus said one is never to take an oath ... Jesus' criticisms imply the Pharisaic quibbling with Lev. 19:12 led the Pharisees to sanction false oaths as long as not in God's name. Implied from Jesus' criticisms is that the Pharisees obviously said Lev. 19:12 meant one could falsely swear even if you invoked objects closely associated with God, like the Temple. You supposedly would transgress the command only when God's name is actually used ... Thus, the Pharisees diminished the Law once more. Gordon detected the difference in the Hebrew version of Matthew (i.e., the Shem-Tov) where Jesus corrected them, saying "do not swear falsely at all," whether by the temple or anything else. The Greek translation inadvertently dropped the word falsely. This led us to misapprehend Jesus' meaning.

I have to admit that I am tempted to view that variant as a watering down of an originally strict dominical command, toning it down from "do not swear" to "do not swear falsely". Similarly, the adverb "vainly" is added in some texts to Matthew 5.22, toning it down from "do not be angry" to "do not vainly be angry":

Matthew 5.22, minuscule 1424, marginal note: Τὸ «εἰκῆ» ἔν τισιν ἀντιγράφοις οὐ κεῖται οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊκῷ. / The "vainly" does not stand in certain copies, nor in the Judaic. [The word εἰκῆ appears in א, D, W, Θ, ƒ1, ƒ13, and the Byzantine text.]
NA27: «ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ <εἰκῆ> ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει· ὃς δ᾽ ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ· ῥακά, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ συνεδρίῳ· ὃς δ᾽ ἂν εἴπῃ· μωρέ, ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός».
NASB: "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell."

I can be persuaded otherwise, and I know that "do not swear" seems to contradict loads of sayings throughout the NT, but that is the temptation for me.

[John2]

But it fits the context of the chapter better, given that 5:18 says, "Truly I say to you that until heaven and earth (depart), not one letter or dot shall be abolished from the Torah or the Prophets, because all will be fulfilled."

[iskander]

It is viewable in Howard's book in Hebrew and English on pages 20 and 21 (you'll have to scroll down to them).

https://books.google.com/books?id=4tdEB ... 05&f=false

Interesting, This is what the CCC says.

2153 In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus explained the second commandment: "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.' But I say to you, Do not swear at all. . . . Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from the evil one."82 Jesus teaches that every oath involves a reference to God and that God's presence and his truth must be honored in all speech. Discretion in calling upon God is allied with a respectful awareness of his presence, which all our assertions either witness to or mock
82 Mt 5:33-34,37; Cf. Jas 5:12.
Jas 5.12
12 Above all, my beloved,* do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your ‘Yes’ be yes and your ‘No’ be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... s2c1a2.htm

[Michael BG]

It has been suggested that Matthew has a source for some of his sayings in chapter 5 which Luke did not have or maybe just didn’t use.

“You have heard that it was said to the men of old, …” 5:21a and with the addition of “again” 5:33a.

“You have heard that it was said” 5:27a, 5:38a and 43a.

The five sayings are:
Kill (21)
Adultery (27)
Swear falsely (33)
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth (38) possible Q
Love your neighbour and hate your enemy (43) possible Q.

Killing and Adultery are clearly from the Ten Commandments but the other three are not. It is possible that all five were together in Q and Luke edited them and used part of only two of them.

It has been suggested that both kill (21) and swear falsely (33) both go back to Jesus, but the 5:33-37 saying has been expanded with the original being only:

[33]"Again you have heard that it was said to the men of old, `You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.'

[34] But I say to you, Do not swear at all,
[37] Let what you say be simply `Yes' or `No'”.

If one thinks this saying was in Q and that Mark knew Q then you can conclude that Mark was aware of the saying.

[Ben C. Smith]

If one thinks this saying was in Q and that Mark knew Q then you can conclude that Mark was aware of the saying.

Sure, that is one way.

[Ben C. Smith]

But it fits the context of the chapter better, given that 5:18 says, "Truly I say to you that until heaven and earth (depart), not one letter or dot shall be abolished from the Torah or the Prophets, because all will be fulfilled."

I wish I shared your confidence that this chapter was assembled all at once, by one person, out of whole cloth. But I suspect it was not.

[John2]

Ben wrote:

"I wish I shared your confidence that this chapter was assembled all at once, by one person, out of whole cloth. But I suspect it was not."

Not to say that I am confident, but I'm curious why you aren't.