Abstract
This is a critical reply to G. Dautzenberg's arguments against the authenticity of Jesus' prohibition of swearing (Mt. 5.33-37), which are: (1) widespread Jewish negative attitudes towards oaths, (2) a tension between the prohibition and Jesus' use of asseverations and 'amen', (3) James' ignorance of its dominical origin (Jas 5.12) and (4) Paul's ignorance of the prohibition. Against these, the following arguments should be put forward. (1) However fine the distinction may appear, Jesus' prohibi tion is more radical and comprehensive than other Jewish negative attitudes. (2) Although a tension can be detected, it is quite possible to harmonize it. (3) Although James does not attribute the prohibition to Jesus, he probably assumes its dominical origin. (4) Although Paul does not acknowledge the prohibition, we can detect his awareness of it. Therefore, Dautzenberg's arguments are not sufficient to disprove its authenticity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.