Is "By Jove" a minced oath?
- Thread starter Rufus
- Start date
- Status
That's something of a difficult question. Formally, it's not minced because it's not toned down in any way. If you were a serious Roman polytheist swearing to confirm the truth of a statement you might say something like that. Of course, used in a context where no one actually believes in Jove it may functionally be a minced oath - a mild (because disbelieved) replacement for swearing by the name of the true God. I would take it that this is how the people Wodehouse writes of actually used it: not intending a statement about paganism at all, simply trying to express their feelings without running too obviously afoul of reverence for the Lord's name.
Blasphemy is more complex than simply asserting non-existence. Blasphemy can involve a sort of deliberate challenge, where you are saying that the object of your blasphemy does not exist or at any rate is powerless to uphold the honor of his name. But in certain cases (casual blasphemy comes to mind) it also involves a recognition that the object of blasphemy is of significance for you, that it belongs to your culture. Swearing by the name of the Lord is a mark of the restoration of true religion; swearing casually by that name is an indication that true religion is in decay, but still recognized. Swearing seriously by the name of another god is idolatry (and secondarily blasphemy), because it formally violates the first commandment; swearing lightly by the name of God is blasphemy, because it violates the third commandment.
The line from that to reading P.G. Wodehouse being a sin is not quite so straightforward, however. It will depend on your view of literature in general, and what is permissible and not, and in what quantities, and to what end.
Blasphemy is more complex than simply asserting non-existence. Blasphemy can involve a sort of deliberate challenge, where you are saying that the object of your blasphemy does not exist or at any rate is powerless to uphold the honor of his name. But in certain cases (casual blasphemy comes to mind) it also involves a recognition that the object of blasphemy is of significance for you, that it belongs to your culture. Swearing by the name of the Lord is a mark of the restoration of true religion; swearing casually by that name is an indication that true religion is in decay, but still recognized. Swearing seriously by the name of another god is idolatry (and secondarily blasphemy), because it formally violates the first commandment; swearing lightly by the name of God is blasphemy, because it violates the third commandment.
The line from that to reading P.G. Wodehouse being a sin is not quite so straightforward, however. It will depend on your view of literature in general, and what is permissible and not, and in what quantities, and to what end.
I grew up in the habit of saying "gosh" by way of an all-purpose exclamation, but a few years ago a friend alerted me to the fact that it caused offence to her little girl, since it was an obvious euphemism (not the word the little girl used). It hadn't even occurred to me before but it was obviously true, so I stopped saying it.
I would have said that "by Jove" was a euphemism in a very similar way, and the same with all those ingenious phrases that just happen to have the initial letters j and c.
I would have said that "by Jove" was a euphemism in a very similar way, and the same with all those ingenious phrases that just happen to have the initial letters j and c.
Wayne
Tempus faciendi, Domine.
Some guidelines, recently posted:
Minced Oaths « - The Continuing Story -
Set a watch over it! « - The Continuing Story -
Minced Oaths « - The Continuing Story -
Set a watch over it! « - The Continuing Story -
But it's mocking and showing disbelief to a false God.
it may be if you say it with that conscious understanding, but don't most people use it (the ones who use it at all) just as a substitute for the more standard thoughtless blasphemy?
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Upon reflection, my original post was too narrow. In addition to the invocation of a false god, there are also oath taking implications. I'd also reference WCF 22:2
"II. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence.Therefore, to swear vainly, or rashly, by that glorious and dreadful Name; or, to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred....
"II. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence.Therefore, to swear vainly, or rashly, by that glorious and dreadful Name; or, to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred....
caoclan
Puritan Board Freshman
I'm sorry... this may be a stupid question... but who gets to define what a minced oath is? Who defines it? Is it prohibited in the Bible, if so, where? I don't think one's conscience should be bound on a made-up objection (if, indeed, it is made up). Is saying something like "Oh my gosh/goodness" or "By jove" or "holy moley" taking an oath or swearing? BTW, this is a serious question, not a snide post.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
The Ten Commandments.
I'd suggest that you start with them, and the Westminster Larger Catechism's explication in Questions 99-148, and the accompanying scripture proofs. Westminster Larger Catechism 91-150
Miss Marple
Puritan Board Junior
Not everyone thinks so, Sean. I have heard godly people on both sides of the "minced oath" question.
Mrs. Rothenbuhler, I see statements like yours above brought in to a variety of contexts, so I'd like to take this opportunity to make a remark about that. "Godliness" is not defined by "what godly people do or think." As the old saw goes, the best of men are men at best. Since we all have fairly generous portions of indwelling sin remaining in us, since God sanctifies us all at different rates and with a differing order of treatment, and since the amount of thought put into something and the amount of light received on it vary from person to person, it is always inadequate to say, "Well X does or says so and so, so it must not be outside the pale." The conclusion doesn't follow. A man after God's own heart was also capable of adultery, murder, and bad parenting. While we rejoice in the truth that an overall pattern of godliness is not destroyed by an occasional lapse or the existence of a blind spot, it does not mean that the lapses and blind spots can be considered as part and parcel of godliness, or even as in principle consistent with it. David was godly - but not when it came to Uriah. A generally godly person who holds to an ungodly position on that point is not godly, even if the existence of that sin or blind spot does not overthrow the whole work of grace.
Or to put it more succinctly, such cases must be decided on the merits not by a comparison of the advocates.
Or to put it more succinctly, such cases must be decided on the merits not by a comparison of the advocates.
Last edited:
There are two parts to a "minced oath." The "minced" part, and the "oath" part.
"Minced" means "trying to reduce the force of." It also has connotations of being affected in pretense of delicacy. A minced oath is therefore an oath that the speaker is trying to make seem not like an oath, or trying to make it an inoffensive oath.
"By Jove" is clearly an oath, even if a mocking one. It is calling upon a false god. And it may not be taking the name of the True God, but it is an oath in vain nonetheless.
And Jesus taught us that making oaths is a serious matter, not to be trifled with. He criticized the blind guides who tried to come up with distinctions between valid and invalid oaths in Matthew 23:16 and following.
"Minced" means "trying to reduce the force of." It also has connotations of being affected in pretense of delicacy. A minced oath is therefore an oath that the speaker is trying to make seem not like an oath, or trying to make it an inoffensive oath.
"By Jove" is clearly an oath, even if a mocking one. It is calling upon a false god. And it may not be taking the name of the True God, but it is an oath in vain nonetheless.
And Jesus taught us that making oaths is a serious matter, not to be trifled with. He criticized the blind guides who tried to come up with distinctions between valid and invalid oaths in Matthew 23:16 and following.
caoclan
Puritan Board Freshman
This is the kind of response that bugs me. I ask a serious question, then get a wide open "The Ten Commandments". How condescending! That's akin to me asking someone where they are right now and they respond "on planet Earth." I've read those before, and have never come across the part which defines and explains minced oaths, at least not in most of the examples I gave above. I could see how "By Jove" could be considered taking an oath or swearing, but in the other examples I gave, I do not (i.e. "oh my goodness" or "gosh").
Is "Jove" a pagan god (I have never heard that expression, BTW, I just inserted it into my post because it was the example used in the OP)? It seems to me for some, it could cause offense because it could sound as a replacement for swearing, possibly. It is certainly not the intention with which I use it. It is simply an exclamatory phrase, with no hidden meaning. Is there an inspired list of "minced oaths" or is that left up to each believer/community of believers in each language to make those calls?
Also, you "cite" 49 catechism questions for me to review. Do they all speak on minced oaths? Not helpful, Edward.
Victor, your response was more in line with what I was looking for, and I see your point with the "by Jove" phrase (and again, I have never heard of that phrase before). But, how about my other examples?
This issue interested me, because one day, while listening to Wretched Radio, Todd Friel was going through a whole list of supposed "minced oaths" and it seemed to me to fall into the "binding another's conscious" realm.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Up thread, I referenced the Question and answers and the portion of the confession that directly address your question. Since you seemed unfamiliar with our confessional standards, I do commend to your attention the entire section on the 10 Commandments.
Your initial question suggest a lack of understanding of the difference between taking the name of the Lord in vain (minced oath) and swearing by a false god (idolatry).
But, since you want it spelled out, start with
Thou shall have no other gods before me
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain
These are specifically dealt with in 103 - 106 and 111-114.
In addition, since it swearing by 'something', Chapter 22 of the Westminster Confession is implicated. Chapter XXII
Surely it is not too much to ask of a sincere seeker to read 17 questions and answers, and 7 short paragraphs of the Confession, and take a glance at the scriptural support.
As a member of the PCA, you are not required to subscribe to the confessional documents. You have, however, taken an oath to uphold the peace and purity of the church and "that you will endeavor to live as is proper for the followers of Christ". That means guarding your tongue (and pen).
You might also search the PB. We've had discussions of this question before. Just type 'minced oath' in the site search box.
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
If you wish to participate in this discussion please take the few minutes necessary to read the two linked documents provided here.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
I'm sorry, but I don't understand that comment.
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
Edward the two links provided by Wayne are spot on and to refuse to take a few minutes to read them not only despises proffered help but invites rehashing points that have been answered.
JoannaV
Puritan Board Sophomore
Perhaps it is safest to retrain our tongues to say "eek" and "ow" and "argh" and "aahh" and "um" and "hmm" and "uh" and "whoa". In cases when we need a longer phrase, how about "oh my heart!" (as in shock/excitement/astonishment could cause your heart to skip a beat?) or you know, I'm sure there are other satisfactory phrases we could think up.
There are some sounds/words which are considered by some to be minced oaths but others may view them as pure sounds. Perhaps in one region/country it's used more in one way than the other. So we can learn from one another, both to avoid certain words and to be gracious in our assumptions when we run across a random person in the street who utters something slightly questionable. Personally I wince when I hear "Yikes" but had always thought of "gee" (both hard and soft g) as some kind of American word similar to "um". As in a sound made to tell someone you heard their question and are responding but need to think a bit. I see that link says golly is an euphemism for God. If I thought about it at all, I would associate it with golliwogs. So I learnt something
There are some sounds/words which are considered by some to be minced oaths but others may view them as pure sounds. Perhaps in one region/country it's used more in one way than the other. So we can learn from one another, both to avoid certain words and to be gracious in our assumptions when we run across a random person in the street who utters something slightly questionable. Personally I wince when I hear "Yikes" but had always thought of "gee" (both hard and soft g) as some kind of American word similar to "um". As in a sound made to tell someone you heard their question and are responding but need to think a bit. I see that link says golly is an euphemism for God. If I thought about it at all, I would associate it with golliwogs. So I learnt something
Miss Marple
Puritan Board Junior
Joanna, you have hit upon the problem I have with the "minced oaths" idea, in that anyone can decide what a minced oath is, and then condemn you for saying it. If not actually condemn you, then they can and sometimes do sort of shun you or decide you are a weaker brother or ignorant or not sanctified enough or whatever.
I have mentioned in another thread that I have been seriously told, by an ordained man(!), that I should not use any interjection that starts with any letter that would be a minced oath. Therefore, for example, I should not say "Aha!" because there are bad words that start with "A." I should not say, "Bother!" because there are bad words that begin with "B." I should not say "Crimeny!" because there are bad words that begin with "C." And so on.
In point of fact I say Aha, Bother and Criminy all the time, and I use interjections a lot, as I am a very expressive person and I love language. I particularly love English and descriptive words and unique adjectives and precise nouns. My emotions are generally strong and I express them (except when I discern that they are sinful emotions.) Anyone who knows me can attest to that. So I am not pretending to be that way so that I can enjoying pretending to swear or some such nonsense.
I have mentioned in another thread that I have been seriously told, by an ordained man(!), that I should not use any interjection that starts with any letter that would be a minced oath. Therefore, for example, I should not say "Aha!" because there are bad words that start with "A." I should not say, "Bother!" because there are bad words that begin with "B." I should not say "Crimeny!" because there are bad words that begin with "C." And so on.
In point of fact I say Aha, Bother and Criminy all the time, and I use interjections a lot, as I am a very expressive person and I love language. I particularly love English and descriptive words and unique adjectives and precise nouns. My emotions are generally strong and I express them (except when I discern that they are sinful emotions.) Anyone who knows me can attest to that. So I am not pretending to be that way so that I can enjoying pretending to swear or some such nonsense.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Thanks, I agree that they are directly on point. But when folks start talking about 'made up objections' it's probably time to go not to tracts, but to scripture, and I find the Confession and Catechisms to be one of the best indexes out there. So it wasn't intended as a discourtesy to Mr. Sparkman and his efforts on this thread to head a different direction.
Wayne
Tempus faciendi, Domine.
One of the most relevant sections of the Westminster Larger Catechism would be Question 113, on the third commandment :
(the Scripture proofs, indicated by the footnote numbers, can be found here: http://puritanseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Larger_Catechism.pdf)
Some necessary background : The approach taken here by the Catechism is based on the idea that if Scripture says "Thou shalt not..." then by necessary inference, it is also teaching the converse "Thou shalts". With that premise in hand, Puritan exegesis would routinely come up with conclusions such as you see above in the Catechism.
But beyond all that, the direct statement of our Lord in Matthew 5:33-37 should suffice in any situation:
We all tend to live by habits, and to allow a habit of using oaths, vows, and similar expressions as a regular part of your speech patterns inevitably runs the risk of abuse.
Matthew Henry is a great, freely available, almost always reliable, resource. Here's what he has to say on Mt. 5:33-37 :
(the Scripture proofs, indicated by the footnote numbers, can be found here: http://puritanseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Larger_Catechism.pdf)
Some necessary background : The approach taken here by the Catechism is based on the idea that if Scripture says "Thou shalt not..." then by necessary inference, it is also teaching the converse "Thou shalts". With that premise in hand, Puritan exegesis would routinely come up with conclusions such as you see above in the Catechism.
But beyond all that, the direct statement of our Lord in Matthew 5:33-37 should suffice in any situation:
We all tend to live by habits, and to allow a habit of using oaths, vows, and similar expressions as a regular part of your speech patterns inevitably runs the risk of abuse.
Matthew Henry is a great, freely available, almost always reliable, resource. Here's what he has to say on Mt. 5:33-37 :
Last edited:
Zach
Puritan Board Senior
Reading these links was very helpful, thanks for sharing them Wayne. I was seriously convicted about how I speak while reading them and I am certainly hoping to endeavor, by the grace of God, to bridle my tongue. I often used to violate the third commandment and take the Lord's name in vain and while I was trying to break that habit I was often corrected and told to say, "Oh my gosh," rather than take the Lord's name in vain. I still often say, "Oh my gosh," in conversation. Many Christians, in an attempt to keep the Third Commandment, are taught to use minced oaths instead.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
A-Ha was the name of a 1980s one hit band that tried to replicate ABBA. And bother appears to be used in its usual sense. So I don't see any problem with either of those.
Crimeny, on the other hand, while there seems to be some uncertainty as to its origin, appears to be a minced reference to Christ (all 3 dictionaries I consulted agree as to that), and I'd urge you to substitute an Anglo-Saxon vulgarity as a less objectionable option.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
I'm not sure that I can go with that.
I wonder if there may not be some misunderstandings reflected in the thread: if so, it might be good to lay out the basics.
When we speak of "swearing" there are two meanings we could have in mind: one is the positive meaning of taking an oath or making a vow; the other is the negative meaning of using foul or coarse or violent or inappropriately forceful language. It is easy to see how the one meaning arose from the other, because taking an oath when one is not called for is a clear instance of inappropriately forceful language.
Now the Bible is in favor of swearing in the first sense, provided it is done intelligently, reverently, sparingly, upon proper occasion, and with invocation of the proper object. Thus the Lord himself swears, "As I live" and his people say, "As the Lord liveth". But other forms of swearing, such as "by my head," or "by my beard" or "upon my mother's grave" and so forth are ruled out: it should go without saying that swearing "By Chemosh" or "By Artemis" are not permissible forms of expression for a believer, because we cannot summon them to witness or to avenge - or not without a gross betrayal of our profession that the Lord is our God. Now since in proper swearing we invoke God as witness to the truth of what we say and as executor of vengeance if we fail in the vow we take, it is obvious that this should not be done rashly or lightly. No invocation of God is a merely casual matter.
Now people use oaths to give vigor and emphasis, salt and (in the older sense) raciness to their language; but where there is recognition that invoking of God casually is irreverent, they may try to soften it: "Zounds" for "God's wounds", etc. But Christ taught us against being the sort of people who need that kind of emphasis in our speech. Our yea is yea, our nay is nay, and there's an end on it. It doesn't mean our language is dry and savorless; it means we have other resources than one or two exclamations and a tiny selection of profanities and vulgarities with which to add salt to our speech.
Then there comes the matter of euphemisms. They are certainly not always wrong: they reflect a certain delicacy and restraint, and if their use sometimes means that one doesn't have the courage of his convictions, it can also mean that one seeks to avoid filthiness and folly in speech. But invoking God euphemistically is still invoking God, just as in Victorian England saying "limb" still communicated "leg". This is the argument behind opposing exclamations like "Oh my goodness." As a Christian, God is my goodness - goodness is his title and attribute. I certainly have no goodness of my own to invoke. So in any situation where it would be inappropriate to say "Oh my God" (a good and Biblical phrase, in itself), it would also be inappropriate to say "oh my goodness."
It is also important to distinguish between our own intention, and the public acceptation of something. I clearly remember my sister remarking, on the slowest and least eventful day of the year, "Man, it's hectic today." Some clever joker at camp had informed her that "hectic" meant "boring." Now her intention was not unclear; but in public acceptation, "hectic" is not an appropriate word to signalize a space of time as wearisomely uneventful. So many who used terms and phrases whose provenance is an oath minced to taste have no intention of "swearing," of invoking God casually or inappropriately: they are not aware of the public acceptation of the phrase. Intention is private, and we are to believe the best that we can of the intentions of others; but the meaning of the words is not private ("There's glory for you!"). Outside of a private area (such as our own mind or writings where we have reasons to develop a customized vocabulary), it is incumbent upon us to use words in a public way. A child or a foreigner may make sounds which to us sound obscene or blasphemous, meaning nothing of the kind; someone may use inappropriate interjections while being at the same time deeply horrified at the prospect of dishonoring God with their speech; but it is not only the intent that matters. If it were, language would be an entirely individual matter, and we would find that the curse of Babel had penetrated far deeper than we've been led to believe.
There are interjections (such as "ow" for pain, "umm" for hesitation, "oh" for surprise, "wow" for amazement, etc.) that do not have unfortunate historical antecedents. I trust we can all agree that names and titles of our Lord are inappropriate as expressions of rage or frustration, as is invoking God because we are excited about something. Between those two points there is a broad range where the propriety of inarticulate or semi-articulate expressions, the question of what emotions ought to be given expression and which not, the public acceptation of words and phrases, and related points can be discussed and disagreed upon. There are complexities in the relationship of etymology, intention, current understanding, and the denaturing process that seems to be almost perpetually underway. By that I refer to the apparent fact that people become desensitized to the strength of language, and so what was originally on the outer boundary of acceptable comes to be entirely normal, and someone has to up the ante in order to add shock value to their statements. But I suspect that with the way language has become so coarse, vulgar, and casually blasphemous that we will soon run out of ways to make it worse - and I fervently hope not to be proven wrong!
There is a question of the public meaning of a phrase, and there are public meanings Christians should not express: there are difficult things that should be said, and there a euphemism is the best way forward. There are things that should not be said, even under the guise of a euphemism. That is the main point of the discussion on minced oaths, I believe.
There is also the question of what is the abundance of our heart that we speak in a given way. My mom used to deploy a colorful expression to express frustration: "Great balls of fire." I remember the day she told us she would no longer be saying that: she had realized that while the combination of words might itself be innocuous, it came from a state of heart that she did not wish to reinforce through verbal expression. I am thankful for that example, and think it would be worthwhile if we all put that question to ourselves.
But to return to the OP, I see no evidence that "By Jove" is used as a way of mocking Zeus, just as I see no evidence that is is used seriously, as a way to invoke the son of Chronos to witness or avenge. It is an example that highlights the complexity of the use of language, because the name of a pagan god is taken up as a substitute for the name of the true God, and so is a quite distinctive way to euphemize what one expresses. These complexities can certainly serve as a reminder to think and hope the best of those whom we hear using language that is objectionable; but they should not be used to disguise the reality that there are public meanings, and that there are states of heart, and meanings of phrase, which a Christian should not have upon his lips, bowdlerized or not.
When we speak of "swearing" there are two meanings we could have in mind: one is the positive meaning of taking an oath or making a vow; the other is the negative meaning of using foul or coarse or violent or inappropriately forceful language. It is easy to see how the one meaning arose from the other, because taking an oath when one is not called for is a clear instance of inappropriately forceful language.
Now the Bible is in favor of swearing in the first sense, provided it is done intelligently, reverently, sparingly, upon proper occasion, and with invocation of the proper object. Thus the Lord himself swears, "As I live" and his people say, "As the Lord liveth". But other forms of swearing, such as "by my head," or "by my beard" or "upon my mother's grave" and so forth are ruled out: it should go without saying that swearing "By Chemosh" or "By Artemis" are not permissible forms of expression for a believer, because we cannot summon them to witness or to avenge - or not without a gross betrayal of our profession that the Lord is our God. Now since in proper swearing we invoke God as witness to the truth of what we say and as executor of vengeance if we fail in the vow we take, it is obvious that this should not be done rashly or lightly. No invocation of God is a merely casual matter.
Now people use oaths to give vigor and emphasis, salt and (in the older sense) raciness to their language; but where there is recognition that invoking of God casually is irreverent, they may try to soften it: "Zounds" for "God's wounds", etc. But Christ taught us against being the sort of people who need that kind of emphasis in our speech. Our yea is yea, our nay is nay, and there's an end on it. It doesn't mean our language is dry and savorless; it means we have other resources than one or two exclamations and a tiny selection of profanities and vulgarities with which to add salt to our speech.
Then there comes the matter of euphemisms. They are certainly not always wrong: they reflect a certain delicacy and restraint, and if their use sometimes means that one doesn't have the courage of his convictions, it can also mean that one seeks to avoid filthiness and folly in speech. But invoking God euphemistically is still invoking God, just as in Victorian England saying "limb" still communicated "leg". This is the argument behind opposing exclamations like "Oh my goodness." As a Christian, God is my goodness - goodness is his title and attribute. I certainly have no goodness of my own to invoke. So in any situation where it would be inappropriate to say "Oh my God" (a good and Biblical phrase, in itself), it would also be inappropriate to say "oh my goodness."
It is also important to distinguish between our own intention, and the public acceptation of something. I clearly remember my sister remarking, on the slowest and least eventful day of the year, "Man, it's hectic today." Some clever joker at camp had informed her that "hectic" meant "boring." Now her intention was not unclear; but in public acceptation, "hectic" is not an appropriate word to signalize a space of time as wearisomely uneventful. So many who used terms and phrases whose provenance is an oath minced to taste have no intention of "swearing," of invoking God casually or inappropriately: they are not aware of the public acceptation of the phrase. Intention is private, and we are to believe the best that we can of the intentions of others; but the meaning of the words is not private ("There's glory for you!"). Outside of a private area (such as our own mind or writings where we have reasons to develop a customized vocabulary), it is incumbent upon us to use words in a public way. A child or a foreigner may make sounds which to us sound obscene or blasphemous, meaning nothing of the kind; someone may use inappropriate interjections while being at the same time deeply horrified at the prospect of dishonoring God with their speech; but it is not only the intent that matters. If it were, language would be an entirely individual matter, and we would find that the curse of Babel had penetrated far deeper than we've been led to believe.
There are interjections (such as "ow" for pain, "umm" for hesitation, "oh" for surprise, "wow" for amazement, etc.) that do not have unfortunate historical antecedents. I trust we can all agree that names and titles of our Lord are inappropriate as expressions of rage or frustration, as is invoking God because we are excited about something. Between those two points there is a broad range where the propriety of inarticulate or semi-articulate expressions, the question of what emotions ought to be given expression and which not, the public acceptation of words and phrases, and related points can be discussed and disagreed upon. There are complexities in the relationship of etymology, intention, current understanding, and the denaturing process that seems to be almost perpetually underway. By that I refer to the apparent fact that people become desensitized to the strength of language, and so what was originally on the outer boundary of acceptable comes to be entirely normal, and someone has to up the ante in order to add shock value to their statements. But I suspect that with the way language has become so coarse, vulgar, and casually blasphemous that we will soon run out of ways to make it worse - and I fervently hope not to be proven wrong!
There is a question of the public meaning of a phrase, and there are public meanings Christians should not express: there are difficult things that should be said, and there a euphemism is the best way forward. There are things that should not be said, even under the guise of a euphemism. That is the main point of the discussion on minced oaths, I believe.
There is also the question of what is the abundance of our heart that we speak in a given way. My mom used to deploy a colorful expression to express frustration: "Great balls of fire." I remember the day she told us she would no longer be saying that: she had realized that while the combination of words might itself be innocuous, it came from a state of heart that she did not wish to reinforce through verbal expression. I am thankful for that example, and think it would be worthwhile if we all put that question to ourselves.
But to return to the OP, I see no evidence that "By Jove" is used as a way of mocking Zeus, just as I see no evidence that is is used seriously, as a way to invoke the son of Chronos to witness or avenge. It is an example that highlights the complexity of the use of language, because the name of a pagan god is taken up as a substitute for the name of the true God, and so is a quite distinctive way to euphemize what one expresses. These complexities can certainly serve as a reminder to think and hope the best of those whom we hear using language that is objectionable; but they should not be used to disguise the reality that there are public meanings, and that there are states of heart, and meanings of phrase, which a Christian should not have upon his lips, bowdlerized or not.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
