I. Scriptural rc?-ms.—-' Oath" is the rendering in the A.V. of two Hebrew words, alah', tlbx, and shcbuah', il>"!12':3, each of which is used in the three significa- tions: I. An oath as an appeal to God in attestation of the truth of a statement (Neh. x, 30; Exod. xxii. 10) ;
2. A sivorn covenant (Gen. xxvi, 28 ; 2 Sam. xxi, 7) ;
3. A curse or imprecation (Numb, v, 21 ; Dan. ix, 11). In the first of these senses, which answers to our word
" oath," the Sept. renders both words by opKOQ, and the Yulg. hy juramentum or jusjui-andum ; while in the last sense we have the rendering dpa, maledictio.
The two words HSN and n"1-Ty, however, are by no means synonymous. They denote two different modes of swearing, or rather two classes of oaths. Thus ilPX (from P5X, to lament, to icail, to express woe; or, according to Gesenius, Thesaur. p. 44, 99, akin with PX, God) properly means the invocation of woe upon one's self, and shows that the mode of swear- ing which it describes was connected with an invoca- tion of divine vengeance on the party, if the assevera- tion made were not true; whUe tlS'lSD (from "3U3, seven') literally signifies to seven one^s self, to p)roduce seven, i.e. to make a declaration confirmed by seven victims, or before seven witnesses, because, as Ibn-Ezra (comp. niniJ, p. 41 a), who is followed by most modern expositors and lexicographers, rightlj"- remarks, seven animals were used in ancient times when mutual prom- ises were given and when alliances were effected (Gen. xxi, 28-30). This is moreover confirmed by the prac- tice of the ancient Arabians, who, in pledging their faith, drew blood by an incision made in their hands, and smeared it on seven stones (Herod, iii, 8). The primary distinction, therefore, between the two oaths is, that in the case of the former an imprecation was used, while in the latter no imprecation was employed. Hence in Numb, v, 21, where an oath with an impreca- tion is described, the phrase flPXil r"13i:3 is used, and the formida of imprecation is forth\vith given.
II. Nature and Sanction of Oaths. — The term jusju- randum is defined by Cicero {De Officiis, iii, 29) as an affirmation vouched for by an appeal to a divinity. To these two elements which every oath contains — 1, an affirmation or promise ; 2, an appeal to God as om- niscient and the punisher of falsehoods — a third is com- monly added, a solemn or judicial occasion. To these three requisites the canon law refers when it enumer- ates j«(7jci«w?,, Veritas, justitia, as entering into the con- stitution of an oath. An oath is accordingly a religious undertaliing either to say {jxiramentum assertoi-iuni) or to do {juramentum jjromissorium) something entered into voluntarily with the customary forms. Being a religious undertaking, the appeal will vary according to the religion of him who makes it. In some instances it will be an appeal immediately to God; in others, to objects supposed to have divine power; and by a natu- ral declension, when men have left the only true God, they may appeal in their oaths even to stocks and stones. Accordingly the Romans swore by their own heads or those of their children, or by the genius of the emperor. We shall find similar errors and abuses among the Jews.
The essence of an oath lies obviously in the appeal which is thereby made to God, or to divine knowledge and power. The customary form establishes this, " So help me God." The Latin words (known to have been used as early as the 6th century), whence our English form is taken, run thus: "Sic me Dens adjuvet et hsec sancta Evangelia," So may God and these holy Gospels help me; that is, "as I say the truth." The present custom of kissing a book containing the Gospels has, in England and the United States, taken the place of the latter clause in the Latin formula.
1. The cardinal principle on which an oath is held to be binding is incidentally laid down in Ileb. vi, 16 — viz. as an ultimate appeal to divine authority to ratif^^ an assertion (sec the principle stated and defended bj- Philo, De Leg. A Ucg. iii, 73 ; i, 128, ed. Mang.). There the Almighty is represented as promising or denouncing with an oath, i. e. doing so in the most positive and solemn manner (see such passages as Gen. xxii, 16 and xii, 7 compared with xxiv, 7; Exod. xvii, 16 and Lev. xxvi, 14 with Dan. ix, 11; 2 Sara, vii, 12, 13 with Acts ii, 30 ; Psa. ex, 4 with Heb. vii, 21, 28 ; Isa. xlv,
OATH
257
OATH
23; Jer. xxii, 5; xxxii. 22). With this divine assev- eratiou we may compare the Stygian oath of Greek mythology (Homer, IL xv, 37; Hesiod, TJieog. 400, 805; see also the Lmvs of Menu, ch. viii, p. 110; Sir W. Jones, Works, iii, 291).
2. On the same principle that oath has always been held most binding which appealed to the highest au- thority, both as regards individuals and communities, (u) Tims believers in Jehovah apjiealed to him, both judicially and extra-judicially, with such phrases as '•The God of Abraham judge;"' "As the Lord liveth;" " God do so to me and more also ;" •• f iod knoweth," and the like (see Gen. xxi, 23 ; xxxi, 53 ; Numb, xiv, 2; XXX, 2; 1 Sara, xiv, 39, 44; 1 Kings ii, 42; Isa. xlviii, 1 ; Ixv, 16; Hos. iv, 15). So also our Lord him- self accepted the higli-priest's adjuration (Matt, xxvi, 63), and Paul frequently appeals to God in confirmation of his statements (Acts xxvi, 29 ; Kom. i, 9 ; ix, 1 ; 2 Cor. i, 23; xi, 31 ; Phil, i, 8; see also Eev. x, 6). (b) Appeals of this kind to authorities recognised respec- tively by adjuring parties were regarded as bonds of international security, and their infraction as being not only a ground of international complaint, but also an of- fence against divine justice. So Zedekiah, after swear- ing fidelity to the king of Babylon, was not only pun- ished by him, but denounced by the prophet as a break- er of his oath (2 Chron. xxxvi, 13; Ezra xvii, 13, 18). Some, however, have supposed that the Law forbade any intercourse with heathen nations which involved the necessit}' of appeal by them to their own deities (Exod. xxiii, 32 ; Selden, De Jur. Nat. ii, 13 ; see Livy, i, 24; Laws of Menu, ch. viii, p. 113; Smith, Diet, of Antiq. s. v. Jus Jurandum).