The form of swearing by Jehovah, always the most usual oath (see above), was very simple—" The Lord do this or that to me if I swear falsely" (Ruth i, 17 ; 2 Sam. iii, 9, 35; 1 Kings ii, 23; 2 Kings vi, 31),or "As Jeho-
SWEARING
49
S^YEARING
vah liveth" (miTi in, or d^l-l'^X "^n, Ruth iii, 13; Jiulg. viii, 19; 2 Sam, ii, 27; Jer. xxxviii, IG) ; at greater length, "Jehovah be a true anil faithful wit- ness between us" (rpx ivh !133 ."l"'"^ ^T}'', Jer. xlii, 5). Formulas of terrible import were used by the later Jews (see Josephus, LiJ'e, § 53 ; comp. Lysias, Pi-o. Con. Aristoph. 32). Of the ceremonies usually observed by those who took oaths we know but little. In patri- archal antiquity it was usual to put the hand under the thigh (Gen. xxiv, 2; xlvii, 29). On this practice Aben- Ezra observes, "It appears probable to me that the meaning of this custom was as if the superior said, with the consent of his slave, 'If thou art under my jiower, and therefore prepared to execute my commands, put thy hand, as a token, under my thigh.'" Winer, how- ever, thinks that, as it was usual to swear by the more important parts of the human frame, so this was a ref- erence to the generative powers of man. But see on this interpretation, as well as on the general question of swearing by parts of the body, INIeiner, Gesch. dei- Re- Uff. ii, 286 sq. It is, however, certain that it was usual to touch that by which a person swore. Other instances may be seen in Niedek, De Popular. Adorat. p. 213 sq., and p. 218, which go immediately to confirm the idea advanced by Winer. The Targum of Jonathan (on Gen. xxiv, 2) supposes the hand to have been placed on the section of circumcision (comp. Jerome, ad loc). Graraberg {Rdigionsid. i, 439) most strangely connects this custom with the licentious worship of Baal and Astarte. (For other views see Dreyer, Miscel. iib. eiidge Gryenst. des teutsch. Rechts, p. 115 sq. ; Miihn, in Ber- tholdt's Joiini. vii, 118 sq.).
The more usual emplo^vment of the hand was to raise it towards heaven ; designed, probably, to excite atten- tion, to point out the oath-taker, and to give solemnity to the act (Gen. xiv, 22, 23). In the strongly anthro- pomorphitic language of parts of the Scripture even God is introduced saying, " I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live forever" (Deut. xxxii, 40). Some sup- pose that a similar license is em|)loyed whenever the Almighty is represented as in any way coming under the obligation of an oath (Gen. xxii, IG, 17 ; Exod. vi, 8; Ezek. xx, 5; Heb. vi, 17). Instead of the head, the phylactery was sometimes touched by the Jews on taking an oath (Maimon. Shebuoth, c. 11). Even the Deity is sometimes introduced as swearing by phylac- teries {Tanch. fol. vi, 3; Otho, Lex. p. 757). "Giving the hand" (Ezek. xviii, 12) was a ceremony used be- tween equals; the violation of this pledge was believed to be a most atrocious crime, and hence the prophet denounces vengeance on the king of Babylon, who hail broken a covenant after having "given liis hand." We meet with the representation of the pledge given by the joining of hands, in connection with some relig- ious ceremonj^, on many ancient coins, of which the accompanying engravings are specimens. They are taken from golden coins in the British Museum. See Hand. Swearing by dipping the hands in the blood
Coins struck to Commemorate Peace.
of a victim was the most solemn form of oath among the ancient (i reeks, and was chieflj' used in concluding alliances offensive and defensive. See Covexant.
The Rabbinical writers indulge in much prolixity on
the subject of oaths, entering into nice distinctions, and
showing themselves exquisite casuists. A brief view
of their disquisitions mav be seen in Otho, Lex. p. 347
X.— D
sq. Some oaths they declared invalid : " If any one swear by heaven, earth, the sun, and such things, al- though there may l)e in his mind while using these words a reference to Him who created them, yet this is not an oath; or if any one swear by one of the proph- ets or by some book of Scripture, having reference to Him who sent the prophet and gave the book, never- theless this is not an oath" (Maimon. Hal. Shebuoth, c. 12). So the Mishna {Shebuoth, c. 4): "If any one adjures another by heaven or earth, he is not held bound by this." It is easy to see that oaths of this nature, witli authoritative interpretations and glosses so lax, could hardly fail to loosen moral obligation, and to lead to much practical perjury and impiety. Mi- nute casuistical distinctions undermine the moral sense. When a man may swear and yet not swear, by the same formula appear to bind liimself and yet be free, contract with his associates an obligation from winch he may be released by religious authorities, the basis of private virtue and the grounds of public confidence are at once endangered. Besides, the practice of un- authorized and spontaneous oath-taking, which seems even in the earlier periods of Jewish history to have been too common, became, about the time of our Lord, of great frequency, and must have tended to lower the religious as well as weaken the moral character. Pe- ter's conduct is a striking case in point, who "began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man" (Matt, xxvi, 74). An open falsehood thus asserted and main- tained by oaths and imprecations shows how little re- gard there was at that time paid to such means of sub- stantiating truth. The degree of guilt implied in such lamentable practices is heightened by the emphasis with which the Mosaic law guarded the sanctity of thp divine name and prohibited the crime of perjury and profanation (Exod. xx, 7; Lev. xix, 12; Deut. v, 11; Matt. V, 33).