The expression el SoO^aerai o-TjMf'o" (literally 'if a sign shall be given') in Mk 8'-, if an abbreviated oath-formula, goes far to decide the practice of Jesus. In opposition, however, to Piscator's ^^rd/- mich-Gott-Bibel (Herborn, UilHi), and to various commentaries, it nnist be questioned whether the invocation of God's punishment, undoubtedly absent from His words, was present to His mind. Nothing could be more foreign to His usual atti- tude to the Father. Much more prominence has been assigned to His habitual expression ' Verily ' ( = 'Amen'), which He used in an unprecedented way (G. Palman, The Words of Jesus, Eng. tr., 1902, pp. 226-229). It iends some support to the double and thus emphatic 'yea' and 'nay' in Mt 5*', though the view can scarcely be accepted (see, e.ff., E. Klostermann, and cf. H. J. Holtzmann, in loc.) that this doubling constituted not only an emph.asis but an oath, for then the whole context makes v.^' impossible, and Ja 5'^ must be substi- tuted. Dalman speaks as if Jesus, feeling the need of asseveration, and embarrassed by the recol- lection that He had said ' Swear not at all,' fixed upon ' Amen ' as an evasive but virtual oath (cf. Achelis on early 'Christian' oaths [CAristentum, 1912, Excursus 62]). But it is only fair to suppose that .Jesus regarded 'verily 'as difi'ering from the oath in principle ; for by it a man neither cringes before God's punishments, nor presumptuously otters to suffer them on certain conditions of his own.
Regarding He 6"'- V'- and Rev 10"'-, from which the conclusion is often drawn that Jesus cannot have forbidden all oaths, since oath-taking is here ascribed to God and His angels, and com- mended when practised by men, it may be said : (1) that not all the genuine teachings of Jesus were everywhere known, understood, and practised in the churches of the 1st cent. ; (2) that the Divine example, especially in the handling of something dangerous, is not always enjoined upon man. The lex talionis is forbidden to men that it may be left entirely to God (Mt 5"-«, Ro 12'^ 2 Ti 4'*). There are also the objections that the ascription of oath-taking to God may be simply anthropomorphic • — which is the very opposite of following a Divine e.x.ample ; and that His swearing 'by Himself is irreconcilable with the ordinary definition of an oath (see above), for it avowedly does not include an appeal to a higher power (He 6'^), still less the invocation of a penalty.
Exegetically, the best conclusion is perhaps Augustine's : that to .swear falsely is perdition, to swear truly is perilous, and that the only safe course is to leave the oath alone. Practical ex- perience tends in the same direction. Defender after defender admits that perjury is committed constantly, increasingly, and with impunity. This has the most deadening efl'ect on morality and religion alike, and there is a very general desire to limit oaths to a few matters on which truthfulness is specially vital, or to abolish preparatory oaths altogether and accept sworn testimony only to evidence already given. The latter suggestion, however, would have positively bad efl'ects unless witnesses were solemnly reminded beforehand that they would have to take an oath afterwards ; otherwise, if they had once uttered falsehood, they would almost certainly not go back on it. On the
Continent there is a strong movement within the legal ju'ofession to substitute ileclarationsfor oaths (cf . F. 1 'aulsen. System der Eth i/r- ', 1 906, ii. 208-209 ) ; in certain Swiss cantons, where the experiment has been tried, false evidence has not increased. In any case, the best deterrent would be more frequent prosecutions and severer sentences for untrue witness. It would prob.-ibly be best to lay upon the magistrate the duty of impressing on witnesses the seriousness of their position, but to leave him free to do this when aiul how he thought best. A set form becomes almost inevitably a formality. Finally, it is necessary to realize that much of the argumentation on this whole subject is double- edged. If, for instance, as the advocates of the oath .s.ay, the word 'verily' is practically the equivalent of an oath, conld they not be satisfied with this equiv.alent ? They could then, perhaps, settle the controver.sy by accepting as adequate some such words as these : ' Recognizing the solemn duty of truthfulness, I verily promise that the evidence which I shall give in this case shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.'
Literature. — Besides the works mentioned in the art., see nrtt. 'Oath' in HDB (G. Ferries), 'Oaths' in DCG (G. Wauchope Stewart), and ' Eid (lithisch) ' in IIGG (O. Scheel), witli the recent literature there quoted. Reference may also be nuide to the Commentaries on Matthew, by B. Weiss"' (in Meyer's Koinmcntar, 1910), T. Zahn^ {Komiiifntar zum AT, 1910), E. Klostermann and H. Gressraann (in Lietzniann's tlandtnichzum NT, 1909), H.J. HQ\tzmdinn-''{Ilandk(iViiwutar zum XT, 1901), W. C. Aliens (/C'C, 1912), A. B. Bruce {F.GT, 1897), A. Plummer (1909) ; on Mark, bv B. Weiss' (in Meyer, 1892), G. Wohlenbergi 2 (in Zahn, 1910), E. Klostermann and H. Gressmann (in Lietzniann, 1907), H. J. Holtzmann^ (Uandkom., 1901), E. P. Gould (ICC, 1S96), A. B. Bruce (^GC, 1897), H. B. Swete (19()2) ; on Uebrews, bv B. WeissH (in Meyer, 1897), E. Riggenbach (in Zahn, 1913), H. Windisch (in Lietzmann, 1913), M. Dods (KCJ?', 1910); on James, by W. Beyschlag(in Mever, 1S97), W. O. E. Oesterley (£6:r, 1910), R. J. Knowling (1904), J. B. Mayo: (31S10). See also the text-books on Ethics bv I. A. Dorn'jr (Enfj. tr., 1SS7), C. E. Luthardt (Eng. tr., 1889), H. Martensen (Eng. tr., 1881-85), G. C. A. V. Harless(EnE. tr.«, 180S), R. Rothe (21867-71), F. H. R. Frank (18S4-87), K. KSstlin (1S87), L. Lemme (1906). Nearly all the German work is marked by a strong emphasis on loyal citizenship ; see especially Lemme and Frank.