94 Paul Sanders the disappearance of the self-imprecation. Hence, it is likely for conditional self-imprecations to have occurred in Mesopotamia as well (16). It remains doubtful, though, whether the gesture was still in common use among the Israelites in the period during which the Hebrew Bible was written. In the Hebrew Bible, there are no allusions to the touching of the throat in combination with oath-swearing to be found. Besides, if touching the throat were still common practice, there would probably still be a lively awareness of the imprecatory quality of the phrase. The big issue is, however, whether this awareness was still alive then. 3. Lost awareness So far, I have only referred to passages in which they who uttered self- imprecations indeed kept their promises. However, some biblical figures do not live up to their oaths, although they had reinforced their oath with a self- imprecatory phrase. Because they fail their promise, the self-imprecation should take effect. The question is, however, whether the promise-breaker was aware of this, or whether the narrators mention that the person in question was struck by divine punishment. I will now briefly deal with the relevant passages. A king of the northern kingdom of Israel, whose identity remains unknown, is devastated at seeing how badly the inhabitants of Samaria, under siege by Aramaic troops, are suffering from starvation. Apparently, he blames the prophet Elisha for the gravity of the situation, for he swears to behead him: “So may God do to me and more also, if the head of Elisha, son of Safat, will remain on him today” (2 Kgs 6,31). The king’s malignant plan fails, but remarkably he does not seem to be bothered about his self-imprecation. As Elisha remains alive, the self-imprecation ought to take effect and the king ought to be terror-stricken. However, the king seems to have forgotten completely about his pledge and even the narrator makes no reference to it anymore. Ahab’s wife Jezebel and Ben-Hadad, king of Aram, use the polytheistic variant of the phrase — “So may the gods do (17) and more also” — to underscore their vicious pledges (1 Kgs 19,2; 20,10). Their plans come to nothing, but they do not seem to be too worried that the gods will punish them now that the self-imprecation should take effect. Also, the narrator is not remindful of the self-imprecation. Likewise, Saul for once does not abide by his own announcement that he had confirmed on an oath of self-imprecation. 1 Sam 14 tells the story of a battle between the Israelites and the Philistines. Saul requires that the (16) See W. VON SODEN, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik (AnOr 33; Roma 1952) § 185 g-i; W. FARBER, “Wehe, wenn ...!”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 64 (1975) 177- 179. The Hebrew Bible also contains solemn assurances consisting only of a clause beginning with the Hebrew particle µa “if”. For this manner of speaking, it is also assumed that it must be explained from the omission of a self-imprecatory phrase; see W. GESENIUS – E. KAUTZSCH, Hebräische Grammatik (Leipzig 281909) § 149; CARTLEDGE, Vows in the Hebrew Bible, 15-16. Some doubt is expressed by P. JOÜON – T. MURAOKA, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica 14/II; Roma 1991) § 165. (17) The majority of Masoretic manuscripts omit yl “to me” in 1 Kgs 19,2, while the Septuagint has moi.