92 Paul Sanders In a similar way, King David swears (6) that he will abstain from food and drink all day because of the murder of general Abner: “So may God do to me and more also, if I taste bread or anything else before the sun goes down” (2 Sam 3,35). The focus is on the oath, which is underscored by self- imprecation. This is no different in 2 Sam 19,14, where David promises Amasa to appoint him commander-in-chief: “So may God do to me and more also, if you will not be the commander of the army before me all days instead of Joab”, a promise that David will prove to keep. In other cases, the self-imprecatory phrase occurs syntactically disconnected from the solemn pledge that follows. When Ruth promises never to abandon her mother-in-law Naomi while she is still alive, she says: “So may YHWH do to me and more also! Indeed, death will make separation between me and you” (Ruth 1,17) (7). Similarly, Jonathan, Abner and Solomon pronounce the self-imprecatory phrase, which is followed up by a syntactically independent sentence (1 Sam 20,13; 2 Sam 3,9; 1 Kgs 2,23). It may be clear that in such cases the self-imprecation still functions as a reinforcement of the pledge. In all the instances mentioned so far, the speakers also fulfilled the promises they made. 2. An accompanying gesture The repeated use of the word hk “so” in the self-imprecatory phrase has always raised questions. It has been suggested that the word originally referred to some gesture or symbolic act that made clear exactly what kind of punishment the speaker had in mind (8). In 1 Sam 11,7, l hç[y hk “so may be done to” refers to Saul’s act of cutting a yoke of oxen in pieces in order to demonstrate what will happen to the oxen of those who are unwilling to join the army. Supportive of the view that hk refers to a symbolic act is the fact that the phrase per se is meaningless, even to the extent that it does not make clear whether what God may do to the speaker is a positive or a negative thing. What words fail to make clear, may have been compensated for by a non-verbal act. Å. Viberg discusses two symbolic acts that may accompany oath-taking: raising the hand and, secondly, putting the hand under someone (6) The direct speech is introduced by the phrase: rmal dwd [bçyw “And David swore, saying ...”. In 1 Kgs 2,23, the verb [bv nif. is also used in the introduction to the direct speech beginning with the self-imprecation. For the close connection between oath and self- imprecation in the Hebrew Bible, see I. KOTTSIEPER, “[b'v;”, TWAT VII, 974-1000. (7) The usual phrase is: “So may God do to me and more also”. Only in the self- imprecations in 1 Sam 20,13 and Ruth 1,17 is hwhy (YHWH) used instead of the usual µyhla (God). In 2 Sam 3,9 and 1 Kgs 2,23, with nearby occurrences of the use of hwhy, the self- imprecation itself has the usual µyhla. This suggests that the phrase with µyhla had become worn-out at this stage. (8) See A.D. CROWN, “Aposiopesis in the O.T. and the Hebrew Conditional Oath”, Abr-Nahrain 4 (1963-64) 96-111 (esp. 107-108). However, S.H. BLANK, “The Curse, Blasphemy, the Spell, and the Oath”, HUCA 23 (1950-51) 73-95 (esp. 89-92), does not assume the word hk to refer to a gesture. On the contrary, he believes that people shied away from being more specific about the nature of the punishment: “The formula is neutral and evasive, as though the oath-taker is reluctant to define the curse” (p. 90). Blank’s view is convincingly countered by H.C. BRICHTO, The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible (JBLMS 13; Philadelphia 1963) 210-211.