The meaning of the noun ὁρκισμός in 1 Macc 6:62

The discussed text of 1 Macc 6:62 contains the noun ὁρκισμός, which defines an oath givento the leader of the Maccabean revolt by the king, and which is worthy of investigation. The fact that this oath is taken by the most noble person in the country, and is given to his adversary who played the highest role in the insurrection, i.e. that of the leader, reveals the term’s significant value. Additionally, the two surrounding verbs related to the activity of taking an oath show that the term must be interpreted as an extremely important activity undertaken solemnly with a high degree of responsibility on the part of the one who takes it, so that he can keep it. What is at stake is personal honor, which guarantees the trust of the other party. An oath taken in such a way should be kept by any means necessary, even if this would require the highest costs and efforts from the one who made an oath to its beneficiary. If breaking the oath entirely ruins one’s honor, then no office can compensate for one’s loss of authority. In the discussed book, this downfall is also related to the fact that, contrary to the Jews, promises are never kept by the Gentiles.

The discussed text of 1 Macc 6:62 contains the noun ὁρκισμός, which defines an oath given to the leader of the Maccabean revolt by the king, and which is worthy of investigation. The fact that this oath is taken by the most noble person in the country, and is given to his adversary who played the highest role in the insurrection, i.e. that of the leader, reveals the term’s significant value. Additionally, the two surrounding verbs related to the activity of taking an oath show that the term must be interpreted as an extremely important activity undertaken solemnly with a high degree of responsibility on the part of the one who takes it, so that he can keep it. What is at stake is personal honor, which guarantees the trust of the other party. An oath taken in such a way should be kept by any means necessary, even if this would require the highest costs and efforts from the one who made an oath to its beneficiary. If breaking the oath entirely ruins one’s honor, then no office can compensate for one’s loss of uthority. In the discussed book, this downfall is also related to the fact that, contrary to the Jews, promises are never kept by the Gentiles.