96 Paul Sanders altered circumstances. However, nothing points to any concern on David’s part that he had used words of self-imprecation. On the contrary, he is relieved for not having to kill Nabal’s men. Those who copied the texts could not believe that as pious a king as David would dismiss his oath so readily without begging from God to invalidate his self-imprecation. For less God-fearing kings, such as Saul and Ben-Hadad, and for the evil queen Jezebel, such negligent behaviour was apparently taken for granted. David’s reputation, however, needed to be salvaged. Besides, those who copied the text could, if necessary, interpret the tragic deaths of Saul and Jezebel (22) as the fulfilment of the self-imprecation, even though this interpretation is not suggested by the biblical text itself. The older reading of 1 Sam 25,22 confirms the impression that the self- imprecatory phrase had lost much of its original meaning at a rather early stage. On the other hand, the later textual alteration of 1 Sam 25,22 reveals that certain copyists were indeed inclined to take the self-imprecation literally. In 1 Sam 25 and in several other cases mentioned above, the speakers did not keep their oaths, though stressed by self-imprecation. They seem to have been unaware of the original meaning of the phrase. In these cases, it is not very likely that the verbal act of self-imprecation was still accompanied by a gesture indicating a certain cause of death. However, those who kept the promise, which they had reinforced by uttering the phrase, may also have been unaware that the phrase was in fact self-imprecatory. We may conclude that the phrase πyswy hkw µyhla yl hç[y hk and its variants expressed a firm intention. It seems that those using the phrase were quite determined to keep the oath following the self-imprecation at the very moment they pronounced it. One may wonder whether the self-imprecators could not have anticipated how difficult it might eventually prove to live up to their promise. However, no instance in the Hebrew Bible intimates that the self-imprecation would take effect automatically if the promise was broken (23). The supposed earlier version of 1 Sam 25,22 suggests that breaking a promise when circumstances had changed, was sometimes considered acceptable. However, in the case of the king of the northern kingdom, Jezebel and Ben-Hadad, the narrators seem to mention their self- imprecations on purpose, thus mocking their overconfidence. 4. Confined later resistance It is not clear for how long the Hebrew self-imprecatory phrase, or its possible Aramaic or Greek counterparts, remained in use. The New Testament contains no expression that resembles the Hebrew phrase. Yet we may assume that the self-imprecatory phrase had not yet become obsolete. (22) See 1 Sam 31; 2 Kgs 9,30-37. (23) Others have suggested that in the Hebrew Bible, imprecations, once uttered, would take effect automatically; cf. J. HEMPEL, “Die israelitischen Anschauungen von Segen und Fluch im Lichte altorientalischer Parallellen”, ZDMG, Neue Folge 4 (1925) 20-110; BLANK, “The Curse, Blasphemy, the Spell, and the Oath”, 73-95; I. KOTTSIEPER, “Zur Etymologie von hebr. πb` I”, UF 22 (1990) 149-168.