On the same analogy witnesses laid their hands on the head of the accused (Gen. xiv, 22 ; Lev. xxiv, 14 ; Deut. xxxii, 40 ; Isa. iii, 7 ; Ezek. xx, 5, 6 ; Sus. v, 35; Rev. X, 5 ; see Homer, II. xix, 254 ; Virgil, yEn. xii, 19t> ; Carpzov, Apparatus, p. G52).
Oaths were sometimes taken before the altar, or, as some understand the passage, if the persons were not in Jerusalem, in a position looking towards the Temple (1 Kings A'iii, 31 ; 2 Ciiron. vi, 22 ; Godwyn, I. c. vi, C ; Carpzov, p. G54 ; see also Juvenal, Sat. xiv, 219 ; Homer, //. xiv, 272).
VI. Sanctity of an Oath. — The only oath enacted in the Mosaic code is a clearance oath, i. e. the prosecutor is not to be put on his oath to prove the guilt of the ac- cused, but the defendant is to swear and thereby clear himself of the charge or suspicion (Exod.xxii, 11 ; Lev. V, 1 ; vi, 3 ; Numb, v, 19-22). Hence the great care ex- ercised in inculcating the sacredness of oaths, and the heavy punishment for perjury or frivolous swearing (Exod. XX, 7 ; Lev. xix, 12 ; Deut. xix, 16-19 ; Psa. xv, 4 ; Jer. v, 2 ; vii, 9 ; Ezek. xvi, 59 ; Hos. x, 4 ; Zech. viii, 17 ; jMishna, <S'Ae6«o?/;, iii, 11 ; iv, 3). Whether the " swearing" mentioned by Jeremiah (xxiii, 10) and by Hosea (iv, 2) was false swearing, or profane abuse of oaths, is not certain. If the latter, tlie crime is one which had been condemned by the Law (Lev. xxiv, 11, 16; Matt, xxvi, 74).
From the Law the Jews deduced many special cases of perjury, which are thus classified: 1, Ju.ynrandum pi-omissorium, a rash inconsiderate promise for the fut- ure, or false assertion respecting the past (Lev. v, 4) ; 2, Vanum, an absurd self-contradictory assertion ; 3, Depositi, breach of contract denied (Lev. xix, 11); 4, Testimonii, iui\icia\ jjerjury (Lev. v, 1 ; see Nicolaus and Selden, De Juranientis, in Ugolini, Thesaurus, xxvi ; Lightfoot, IJor. Hebr. on Matt, v, 33, vol. ii, 292 ; Mish- na, Shebuoth, iii, 7 ; iv, 1 ; v, 1, 2 ; Otho, Lex. Rabb. s. v. Juramentum).
Tlie Jewish canons enacted that when the demand of the prosecutor is very trifling, the defendant's simple denial is sufficient, and he cannot be compelled to take the judicial oath to clear himself (Mishna, Shebuoth, \\, 1-3). For the same reason it is enacted that when the complainant is deaf and dumb, silly, or a minor, the de- fendant need not take the oath, liecause such people, not being able to appreciate the solemnity of an oath, may multiiily swearing on too trivial grounds; and that a minor is not to be asked to take an oath (Shebu- oth, vi, 4). Women, though forbidden to bear witness on oath (Deut. xix, 17 with Mishna, Shebuoth, iv, 1), may take the clearance oath (^Slishna, ibid, v, 1). If one simply says to another, " / adjure thee," the oath is valid ; but if any one swears by heaven, earth, or Jeru- salem, or any other creature, the oath is invalid (Mish- na, Shebuoth, iv, 13). As this oath could be taken with impunity, it became very common among the Jews, who thought that, because it involved nothing, it meant nothing. Hence the remarks of our Saviour (Matt, v, 34-36 ; xxiii, 16-22). If any one swears frivolously, which is defined by the Jewish canons as follows: If he swears that something is different from what it is known to be, e.g. if he says tliat a stone pillar is gold, that a woman is a man; or if it is about anytliing impossible, that he saw a camel flying in the air; or if any one says to witnesses, "Come and give testimony to what you have seen," and they say, "We swear that we will not bear witness" (Lev. v, 1) ; or if one swears to trans- gress a commandment, e. g. not to make a tabernacle, or not to jnit on phylacteries, this is a frivolous oath, for which, if taken deliberately, the man must be scourged {'S\\s\\\mi, Shebuoth, iii, 8). So great was the sanctity with which the pious Jews, prior to the days of Christ, regarded an oath, tliat they discountenanced swearing altogether (conip. Ecclus. xxiii, 11, etc.; and especially Philo, De decern orarulis. sec. xvii, in 0pp. ii, 194, etc., ed. Mang.). The Pharisees took great care to abstain from oaths as much as possible (comp. She- ,
OATH
259
OATH
hioth, 39 b; Gitiin, 35 a; ]\[idrash Rahba on Numb, xxii), while the Essenes laid it down as a principle not to swear at all, but to say yea yea, and nay nay. IIow lirmly and conscientiously they adhered to it may be seen from the fact that Herod, who, on ascending the throne, had exacted an oath of allegiance from all the rest of the Jews, was obliged to absolve the Essenes from it (comp. Joseph. A nt. xv, 10, 4; Ginsburg, The Es- senes, their Bistort/ and Doctrines [Lond. 1864], p. 34). Whether our Saviour's prohibition of swearing (Matt. V, 33-37) refers to the same total abstinence from all judicial oaths, or to profane and careless oaths, is a matter of dispute.