Complete textual-variant dossier
No adverse entailment · agrees with the received text
Sections distinguish readings, edition history, evidence, theological consequences, and the Research Center's evaluation. CBGM is an analytical tool; editorial committees—not the software—make textual decisions.
1Passage and issue
Passage
Issue
> “But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay.”
Variant class
Punctuation
2Textus Receptus
Greek reading
The received text reads ἔστω, “let it be.”
Authorized Version
“But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay.” — Matthew 5:37
Edition note
The Research Center uses the received Greek text underlying the Authorized Version as its baseline; edition-specific differences are recorded when the variation unit requires them.
Historical annotation witness
Erasmus’s Annotationes
Erasmus’s printed Greek text, his Latin annotation, and the Research Center’s evaluation are distinct evidence. Each edition remains separately identified because Erasmus revised the Annotationes across his five editions.
Not yet assessed. No inference about Erasmus’s silence has been made. A Latin annotation and translation will appear here only after an edition and exact locus have been verified.
The Erasmus annotation audit has not yet been completed for this locus. Do not infer from this status that Erasmus was silent.
Westminster and Dutch annotation witnesses
Westminster Annotations
Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.
Dutch Annotations
Not yet assessed. No inference from silence is made.
3NA28 baseline and critical-text rationale
NA28 baseline reading
A critic may call it the harder reading and suggest that scribes changed it to an unmistakable imperative, perhaps under the influence of James 5:12.
Translation or explanation
A critic may call it the harder reading and suggest that scribes changed it to an unmistakable imperative, perhaps under the influence of James 5:12.
Metzger’s report of the UBS committee
Metzger reports the UBS4 committee's treatment of the variation unit. The note grounds the relevant decision in the balance of external and internal evidence described in the entry; the printed confidence rating represented here is {B}. This is a controlled synopsis rather than a quotation.
Locator: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed., note on Matthew 5:37
ECM / CBGM evidence and editors
No passage-specific ECM/CBGM editorial explanation is attached to this record. Official method sources describe the CBGM as a set of coherence procedures, not a decision-maker: editors define variation units and local stemmata and evaluate pre-genealogical, genealogical, and stemmatic coherence together with transcriptional, intrinsic, and other philological evidence.
4UBS6 and intended NA29 revision
UBS6 retains the NA28 / UBS5 Greek main-text wording in Matthew, so no main-text change is shown for this passage. The separate project ledger covers Acts, Mark, and Revelation.
No change row is attached to this passage.
UBS6 is published, and the German Bible Society identifies its Greek main text as identical to the intended NA29 main text. The complete NA29 volume and its apparatus remain forthcoming. Project-ledger rows retain their source and verification statements until they are checked against the published UBS6 text and, when available, the NA29 apparatus.
5Doctrinal and four-point analysis
Effect class
Exegetical or interpretive consequence
Exact proposition affected
No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
Doctrinal analysis
Exegetical or interpretive consequence. The record does not establish that the variant by itself removes an entire Christian doctrine; explicit wording, exegesis, and cumulative testimony must be distinguished.
Bahnsen four-point examination
Arbitrariness
At Matthew 5:37, the critical choice avoids arbitrariness only to the extent that it states public manuscript, transcriptional, and intrinsic grounds. The Textus Receptus and the modern critical text agree on the imperative. A critic may call it the harder reading and suggest that scribes changed it to an unmistakable imperative, perhaps under the influence of James 5:12. Sinaiticus, the broad Greek tradition, and the major modern editions retain the command.
Inconsistency
The criteria used at Matthew 5:37 must be applied to comparable readings as well. A principle such as age, difficulty, brevity, or coherence cannot be decisive here and quietly reversed elsewhere merely to escape a historical, grammatical, or theological difficulty.
Consequences
Exegetical or interpretive consequence: No single doctrinal proposition is directly changed; the principal consequence is exegetical, historical, or cumulative.
Preconditions of intelligibility
The argument presupposes stable authorship, meaningful language, objective logical norms, transmissible evidence, and a coherent account of how Scripture can be received and identified by the church. The analysis tests whether the method can make those conditions intelligible without reducing the text to an indefinitely revisable editorial construct.
This framework examines an argument and its conditions; it does not claim to read an editor's private motives.
6Argument for the received reading
External and historical evidence
A smaller ancient stream reads ἔσται, “it will be.” “Communication” in the Authorized Version means ordinary speech, not a message platform. God swears by himself, Paul calls God as witness, and lawful courts may require testimony.
Internal and transcriptional evidence
A critic may call it the harder reading and suggest that scribes changed it to an unmistakable imperative, perhaps under the influence of James 5:12. The imperative has the stronger external case and the exact contextual fit. The parallel may tempt a copyist to harmonize Matthew, but it also shows how the apostolic church received the command.
Reception and ecclesiastical use
The received text reads ἔστω, “let it be.” The Textus Receptus and the modern critical text agree on the imperative. Sinaiticus, the broad Greek tradition, and the major modern editions retain the command.
Providential-preservation analysis
Providential preservation is not used as a substitute for evidence at Matthew 5:37. It supplies the confessional context in which manuscript transmission, broad reception, and the church's actual possession of Scripture are evaluated together.
Canonical coherence with the rest of Scripture
Canonical coherence remains an explicit test: a proposed reading must make grammatical and theological sense within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. No conflict is asserted merely because two editions differ; the claimed incoherence must be demonstrated at this passage.
Canonical-coherence verdict
The Authorized Version is retained where its representation of the TR forms a coherent reading within the immediate context and the rest of Scripture. Any competing form must demonstrate an equal or better canonical fit rather than merely invoke an edition or method label.
Response to the principal critical argument
The Textus Receptus and the modern critical text agree on the imperative. A critic may call it the harder reading and suggest that scribes changed it to an unmistakable imperative, perhaps under the influence of James 5:12. Sinaiticus, the broad Greek tradition, and the major modern editions retain the command.
Conclusion
The future reading also shows why “harder” needs definition. An unexpected form may be original because scribes smooth authors. It may be corrupt because eyes and ears make mistakes. A one-letter future in a chain of imperatives is not valuable merely for being awkward. Its origin must explain the stronger and wider command form.
Truthful speech finally reaches the apparatus itself. A witness that differs should be named; an inference should be marked; a conclusion should not be inflated beyond its evidence. The verse’s ethic and its textual study meet in the same demand: say what is so.
Logical entailment
The Authorized Version serves as the faithful English representation. The preservation claim applies immediately to the authentic Hebrew and Greek texts—not to an English translation as though it were the inspired source.
Canonical-status rule: Physical printing is not canonical inclusion. If an edition prints a passage in double brackets while judging it secondary or non-original, it disagrees with the received text concerning the identity and extent of inspired Scripture.
No adverse entailment: agrees with the received text.
Necessary reasoning chain
- The current critical main-text reading assessed at Matthew 5:37 agrees with the received Hebrew/Greek reading at the variation unit governed by this card.
- An adverse preservation entailment at this locus would require the current critical form to displace a different received reading.
- Because no such displacement occurs at the assessed locus, no adverse preservation consequence follows here.
Sources
- Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)Chapter 1, section 8 — Governing confessional preservation claim
- German Bible Society — UBS6 publications and relation to NA29Current critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- German Bible Society — The Sixth Edition of the Greek New TestamentCurrent critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- INTF — Online Tools for the ECMCurrent critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
- German Bible Society — Interview with Hugh HoughtonCurrent critical-edition, ECM, or editorial documentation
Read the full research essay and its sources
“But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay.” — Matthew 5:37
One final vowel changes the verb from command to prediction. The received text reads ἔστω, “let it be.” A smaller ancient stream reads ἔσται, “it will be.” The Textus Receptus and the modern critical text agree on the imperative.
A command in a chain of commands
Jesus has said, “Swear not at all.” He forbids appeals to heaven, earth, Jerusalem, and one’s own head. Then he gives the positive rule: let your word be yes or no. The imperative completes the movement from false supports to plain speech.
The future form is grammatical and can carry command-like force. Vaticanus supports it. A critic may call it the harder reading and suggest that scribes changed it to an unmistakable imperative, perhaps under the influence of James 5:12.
But ἔστω and ἔσται are easy to confuse by sight or sound. Their first letters are identical; later pronunciation could blur the final sounds. A copying slip can produce difficulty without preserving originality. Sinaiticus, the broad Greek tradition, and the major modern editions retain the command.
“Communication” in the Authorized Version means ordinary speech, not a message platform. Christ forms people whose words correspond to fact and intention. A truthful no may refuse sin; a truthful yes creates a duty to perform.
The command does not forbid every solemn oath. God swears by himself, Paul calls God as witness, and lawful courts may require testimony. It forbids the manipulative habit of making ordinary claims sound reliable by sacred decoration while the speaker’s plain word cannot be trusted.
Textual argument falls under the same rule. Evidence must not be called unanimous when it is divided. A possible scribal cause must not be reported as a known motive. A source must not be quoted beyond what it says.
The imperative has the stronger external case and the exact contextual fit. Christ does not merely predict a truthful community. He commands one. Let the yes be yes, the no be no, and the text be stated as the witnesses give it.
James 5:12 repeats the saying in a church facing suffering, impatience, and careless speech. The parallel may tempt a copyist to harmonize Matthew, but it also shows how the apostolic church received the command. Agreement can arise from literary dependence, shared oral teaching, or the Lord’s repetition. The manuscript must be weighed before one cause is assumed.
The future reading also shows why “harder” needs definition. An unexpected form may be original because scribes smooth authors. It may be corrupt because eyes and ears make mistakes. A one-letter future in a chain of imperatives is not valuable merely for being awkward. Its origin must explain the stronger and wider command form.
Truthful speech finally reaches the apparatus itself. A witness that differs should be named; an inference should be marked; a conclusion should not be inflated beyond its evidence. The verse’s ethic and its textual study meet in the same demand: say what is so.
Sources and further reading
- Matthew 5:33–37; 23:16–22; James 5:12; Hebrews 6:13–18.
- Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, note on Matthew 5:37.
- Westminster Confession of Faith 22.
7Related materials
Open a group to follow connected articles, books, biographies, media, research notes, variants, or downloads. Research Center relationships use permanent record IDs; external items retain their actual link.
- Record
- VAR-1020
- Status
- Preliminary
- Version
- 1.1-dossier
- Review
- Level B — Editorial synthesis
- Editor
- Chris Thomas
- Reviewer
- Independent reviewer pending assignment
- First date
- 2026-07-22 · Exact Day
- Last revised
- 2026-07-22
Evidence and editorial controls
- Verification
- Recovered project data; bibliographic and source-level verification remains record-specific. Metzger commentary entries were matched by exact passage where present; ECM/CBGM rationale is passage-specific only when an official editorial explanation is cited. Ledger rows are identified as UBS6 / intended NA29 data but retain their row-level verification caveats pending direct collation.
- Rights and access
- Original editorial synthesis; cited sources retain their stated rights.
- Known limitations
- Staging record; independent review remains open.
Links from this record
No public outgoing links are recorded.
Records that cite or connect here
No public backlinks are recorded.
Corrections and evidence submissions
No correction submission is presently attached to this record. Submit evidence or read the correction policy.
Chris Thomas, “Matthew 5:37 — “Let Your Communication Be, Yea, Yea”: The Imperative Form of the Saying,” VAR-1020, Confessional Bibliology Research Center, version 1.0-staging.
Revision history
- — Chris Thomas
- — Chris Thomas