So May God Do To Me! 97 Acts 23 mentions that a group of more than forty men are plotting an attack on Paul. They take the solemn oath not to take any food before they have succeeded in assassinating Paul (Acts 23,14.21). The conspirators utter a form of self-imprecation (24). It is very well possible that they used the Old Testament phrase: “So may God do to me and more also, if I take any food or drink before we have killed Paul” (25). As the story continues, Paul escapes being murdered. As a consequence, his enemies are forced to break their oath to abstain from food and drink. As in the case of Jezebel, Ben-Hadad and the anonymous king of the northern kingdom of Israel, the narrator seems to mock the conspirators’ overconfidence (26). The question arises whether both Acts 23 and the Masoretic version of 1 Sam 25,22 do not also mirror resistance against the use of the self- imprecation in itself. Such resistance would not be inconceivable, since the interpretation of the Third Commandment came to be progressively uncompromising. The Third Commandment (Exod 20,7; Deut 5,11) makes it clear that those, who abuse the name of YHWH, are considered punishable by him. It is not clear, however, to which kinds of abuse of God’s name the commandment exactly refers. At the time when the Hebrew Bible was being composed, the commandment seems to have had a relatively small scope, though this abuse evidently included the use of God’s name to underscore false oaths (27). However, as I have indicated above, there are no signs that the narrators considered the use of the Hebrew self-imprecation πyswy hkw µyhla yl hç[y hk as a way of abusing God’s name. Reinforcing an oath by self-imprecation seemed quite an acceptable thing to do. In the last centuries B.C.E. and in the first century C.E., the Third Commandment was seen to apply to more situations. More and more, people avoided the use of the name hwhy (YHWH) and there was growing criticism of the use of oaths as such (28). In a similar spirit, Jesus takes a radical stand against the use of oaths, and his disapproval concerns sacred and less sacred purposes alike (Matt 5,33-37; cf. Jas 5,12). (24) Acts 23,14: ajnaqevmati aneqematisamen eJautouv". j v (25) Cf. F.F. BRUCE, The Book of the Acts (NICNT; Grand Rapids 1988) 431. Bruce’s view seems cogent on the grounds that also in 2 Sam 3,35, the self-imprecatory phrase reinforces a pledge to abstain from food. Cf. also 1 Sam 14,24 with 1 Sam 14,44. (26) It is doubtful whether Mark 14,71 and Matt 26,74 also make allusions that Peter used the phrase from the Old Testament to stress that he does not know Jesus. Perhaps Peter cursed Jesus, or maybe even the bystanders who had got him into this delicate situation. See further C.S. MANN, Mark. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB; New York 1986) 632; W.D. DAVIES – D.C. ALLISON, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew (ICC; Edinburgh 1997) III, 548. (27) See T. VEIJOLA, “Das dritte Gebot (Namenverbot) im Lichte einer ägyptischen Parallele”, ZAW 103 (1991) 1-17; W.H. SCHMIDT, Die Zehn Gebote im Rahmen alttestamentlicher Ethik (EdF 281; Darmstadt 1993) 80-82; both with reference to Lev 19,12; Hos 4,2; 10,4; Ps 24,4 (MT), as well as the relevant Egyptian inscription of Nefer`abu. (28) See Sir 23,9-11; Philo of Alexandria, De decalogo, § 82-95. Cf. also SCHMIDT, Die Zehn Gebote, 84-85, as well as the early Jewish literature mentioned by P. LAPIDE, Die Bergpredigt. Utopie oder Programm? (Mainz 1982) 72-78; R.P. MARTIN, James (WBC; Waco 1988) 200, 204; W.D. DAVIES – D.C. ALLISON, The Gospel according to Saint Matthew (ICC; Edinburgh 1988) I, 534-535; VEIJOLA, “Das dritte Gebot”, 14.