A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law

to indicate a manifestation of a god to a person who has in some

way been sacrilegious and sinned. The most usual cause of such

divine anger is perjury.

3.3.3.5 The Tomb Robbery papyri provide much information con-

cerning perjury. Each witness took an oath concerning false witness,

declaring: “If I speak falsehood, may I be mutilated and sent to

Kush.”^260

3.3.3.6 The royal oath was often sworn in court, while the divine

oath is taken in private situations.^261 Papyrus Lee begins where one

of the defendants has been accused of breaking a particularly

powerful royal oath of obedience by giving a “magical roll” (?) to a

conspirator.

3.3.3.7 A subordinate could be released from his service, in which

case he might be freed from his oath in a court.^262 Inheritors might

swear an oath regarding adherence to a settlement,^263 but wills do

not, it seems, generally contain oaths.^264 The s≈f3-try.thas been inter-

preted as a “negative promissory oath,” whereby one swears, for exam-

ple, not to use one’s office for treasonable or criminal purposes.”^265

3.3.4 Ordeal

There is no explicit evidence for the ordeal in New Kingdom Egypt.^266

Thus, a person may become blind, and attribute this affliction to the god. In such

a case, he or she may declare “The anger of god happened to me.” O. Gardiner

166 contains a verbal statement to the court concerning a theft. A woman steals a

cake. The thief returns, presumably with compensation for the theft, declaring “‘A

manifestation’ (or ‘the anger’) of the god has happened to me.” Her confession

apparently brings the case to an end; there is no further record of action taken by

the court. See, in general, Borghouts, “Divine Intervention.. .”

(^260) Lorton, “Treatment.. .,” 32–33.
(^261) Kaplony, “Eid,” col. 1189.
(^262) See, e.g., P. Bologna 1094, 9,7–10.9, Junge, Neuägyptisch.. ., 258.
(^263) Allam, “Familie.. .,” 38.
(^264) Théodoridès, “Le testament de Naunakhte.. .,” 557.
(^265) Baer, “Oath.. .” Cf. the negative promissory oath in connection with a sex
case; Toivari, “Man versus Woman.. .,” 164. See also Théodoridès, “Dénonciation.. .,”
28–29; Eyre, Employment.. ., 100–8; McDowell, Jurisdiction.. ., 202–8.
(^266) Allam, “Sur l’ordalie.. .”, and “Legal Aspects.. .,” 139–40. Pirenne, “Preu-
ves.. .,” 39, denies the existence of an ordeal.
  315
WESTBROOK_F9_289-359 8/27/03 1:43 PM Page 315