00424935_v57n2_s3a

8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

1/27

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/156853307X183703

Two Laws in the Sotah Passage(Num. v 11-31)1

Jaeyoung Jeonel Aviv

Abstract

Te law of the Sotah (Num. v 11-31), which appears to be an ordeal law accompanied by a ritual,

was edited from two laws of a suspected adulteress: the water ordeal law (original stratum) and

the ritual-oath law (editorial stratum). Te water ordeal law stipulates that in the case in which a

woman is accused of adultery by the public she must undergo a water ordeal, whereas the ritual-

oath law stipulates a less severe case in which a husband only doubts his wife and the wife may

be released with only an oath as a part of a ritual. Te two laws strikingly parallel the Laws of

Hammurapi 131 and 132 respectively. A linguistic analysis carried out on the two strata reveals

that they exhibit different literary styles, and that this stylistic difference reflects the linguistic

contexts of earlier and later periods. Although the water ordeal stratum belongs to P, several

distinct features of the editorial ritual-oath stratum are best explained by I. Knohl’s theory in

relation to the Holiness School.

Keywords

Law of Sotah, Num. v 11-31, water ordeal law, Laws of Hammurapi

I. Introduction

hroughout the history of modern biblical scholarship, the Sotah passage, thelaw of a suspected wife (Num. v 11-31), has attracted scholars’ attention with

its strange contents and odd literary style. Various questions have been raisedconcerning the strangeness of the passage, and many answers to the questions

have been proposed. However, scholars have by no means reached a consen-sus. he Sotah passage, whether as regards of its origin and composition or its

meaning, still remains one of the most perplexing passages in the Bible. he

1) Tis article is based on my M.A. thesis, Te Passage of the Sotah, written under the supervisionof Prof. E. L. Greenstein in the Department of the Bible, el-Aviv University.

Vetus estamentum 57 (2007) 181-207

Vetus

Testamentum

www.brill.nl/vt

VT 57 2_809_181-207.indd 181VT 57,2_809_181-207.indd 181 3/30/07 8:49:20 AM3/30/07 8:49:20 AM

8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

2/27

182 J. Jeon / Vetus estamentum 57 (2007) 181-207

present study seeks to answer several fundamental questions concerning the

passage, some of which have already been raised by scholars and others of which have not, to my knowledge, been raised. he questions are as follows:

1. Was the passage composed by a single hand, or does it have multiplestrata?

2. Can a linguistic analysis shed any light on the composition of the pas-sage? Do the strata of our passage, if they do exist, show meaningful

linguistic differences between them? And can the differences betweenthe strata be used as criteria for dating them?

3. o which source, or which stratum, does the passage belong? If it hasmultiple strata, to which sources or strata does each stratum belong?

hese questions are mainly focused on source critical matters and dating. hus,if we can find reliable answers, we shall have a rough sketch of the inner

structure of the passage, which will serve as a basis for further reflections on it.

II. Problems and History of Scholarship

Te Sotah passage is characterized by a peculiar literary style and several tex-

tual inconsistencies. Te exposition of the case ( Num. v 12-14) and the reca-pitulation (vv. 29-30) seem to refer to two different cases, and there are

unnecessary repetitions of key verbs, which initiate new steps of the trialprocedure, such as dym[h (vv. 16, 18), [ybçh (vv. 19, 21), hqçh (vv. 24, 27).Moreover, a water ordeal procedure and a ritual procedure are intricatelyconstructed around those repeated verbs. Such textual discrepancies and the

complicated procedure being described led late nineteenth and early twentiethcentury critical scholarship to assume that the Sotah passage was conflated

from mainly two sources. D. B. Stade (1895) divided our passage into twotexts: A. ˆwrkzh tjnm (the offering of remembrance), B.tanqh tjnm (the offeringof jealousy).2 His position was adopted, with some variations, by many schol-

ars, such as H. Holzinger (1903), B. Baentsch (1903), J. Carpenter andG. Harford-Battersby (1900), and C. F. Kent (1907).3 All these scholars,

following Stade, tried to dismantle every single verse and reconstruct two

2) See D. B. Stade, “Beiträge zur Pentateuchkritik,” ZAW 15 (1895), pp. 166-178.3) See J. Morgenstern, “rial by Ordeal among Semites and in Ancient Israel,” in: Hebrew UnionCollege Jubilee Volume (1875-1925) (Cincinnati, 1925), pp. 113-143.


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

3/27

J. Jeon / Vetus estamentum 57 (2007) 181-207 183

complete texts, producing water ordeal processes accompanied by rituals in

both texts. However, as Holzinger notes, “the exact distribution of the chapterbetween the two versions is not quite certain, nor has this any bearing whatso-

ever upon the interpretation of the institution itself”.4 Te separation of the text into two complete parts, each of which has a

water ordeal and a ritual, was called into question by J. Morgenstern (1925)and R. Preß (1933). Preß distinguished between a water ordeal without a rit-

ual (Quelle A) and a water ordeal with a ritual procedure (Quelle B),5 whereasMorgenstern argued that the ordeal source is original and the ritual procedures

are insertions.6 Te basic idea of Preß and Morgenstern that the ritual proce-

dures in our text should be separated and arranged as one version or stratum,even though the ritual is still interwoven with the ordeal, seems to indicate the

right direction. We shall try to demonstrate that the ritual should be totallyseparated from the ordeal, and the ritual, without the ordeal, is a separate law

which belongs to a later editorial stratum. Te following table shows howscholars have reconstructed the text:

able 1

Stade7 A 11-13a α, 13b, 15-17, 18a β b, 19-20, 22a, 23-24, 25bβ, 26a

B 29,13a β, 30a, 14bβ, 30b, 18a α, 21, 22b, 25abα, 27-28

Holzinger A 12, 13a α b, 14, 15a α

B

15a βγb, 18a αβ, 21, 22b, 25, 26a, 27a, 28,29-30

16-17, 19, 20, 22a, 24, 27a γb, 28, 31

Baentsch A 14, 16-17, 19-20, 22, 25abα, 27a, 28

B 12b, 13, 15, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25bβ, 26, 27b

Carpenter

and Battersby

A 29, 13b, 30a, 14b, 30b, 16-17, 19-20, 22, 25abα, 26b, 27a, 28

B 11-12, 13ac, 15, 18, 21, 23-24, 27b, 25bβ, 26a, 31

4) Ibid., p. 128.5) See R. Preß, “Das Ordal im alten Israel,” ZAW 51 (1933), pp. 121-141, 227-255.6) See Morgenstern, “rial by Ordeal,” p. 130.7) Te table from Stade to Kent is based on Morgenstern, “rial by Ordeal,” p. 128.


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

4/27


able 1 (cont.)

Kent A 29, 13b, 30a, 14b, 30b, 16-17, 19-20, 22, 25, 26b, 27a, 28

B 12b, 13ac, 15, 18, 21, 23-24, 26a, 27b, 31

Preß8 A 12b, 13, 15a α, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27a β b, 28, 31

B 12b, 13b 14, 15a βb, 16, 18, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30

Morgenstern9 Original Trial by Ordeal 12, 13, 14, 15a α, 17, 18a α, 19, 20, 22,

23, 27-31

* Te underlined verses contain ritual procedure.

On the other hand, G. B. Gray (1903) rejected Stade’s theory, which separates thetext into two sources. Gray claimed—and he was followed by Morgenstern—that

the text was not conflated but possibly underwent later interpolation ormodification.10 M. Noth, on the same basis, claimed that “the older stratum”

of the text was “lightly reworked by the addition of the introductory sentencesin vv. 11-12a and by the use of the term tabernacle (v. 17)”.11 Even this

approach, however, began eroding in the course of the next scholarly trend,

which dwelt more on the unity of the text.M. Fishbane’s analysis of the Sotah passage is built on the premise that the

procedure of the trial is a literary unity, although he acknowledges a distinc-

tion between the introductions in vv. 12-13 and v. 14. 12 His approach to thetext seems to have inspired scholars such as Brichto,13 Milgrom,14 and Frymer-Kensky.15 Brichto maintains the unity of the passage based on ‘an immanent

logic of the trial procedure,’ whereas Milgrom argues for a chiastic arrange-ment of the text. Frymer-Kensky, “in accord with recent developments in bib-

8) See R. Preß, “Das Ordal im alten Israel,” ZAW 51 (1933), pp. 121-141, 227-255.9) See Morgenstern, “rial by Ordeal,” pp. 113-143.

10) See J. Gray, Numbers (ICC; New York, 1903), pp. 45-47.11) See M. Noth, Numbers (OL; London, 1968), p. 49.12) See M. Fishbane, “Accusations of Adultery: A Study of Law and Scribal Practice in Num-

bers 5:11-31,” HUCA 45 (1974), pp. 25-45.13) See H. C. Brichto, “Te Case of the Sotah and A Reconsideration of Biblical Law,” HUCA 46 (1975), pp. 55-70.14) See J. Milgrom, “Te Case of the Suspected Adulteress, Numbers 5:11-31: Redaction

and Meaning,” in: R. E. Friedman (ed.), Te Creation of Sacred Literature (Berkeley, 1981),pp. 69-79; J. Milgrom, Numbers , ( JPS orah Commentary; Philadelphia / New York, 1990).15) See . Frymer-Kensky, “Te Strange Case of the Suspected Sotah,” V 34 (1984),pp. 11-26.


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

5/27


lical textual study which emphasize the appreciation of the composition and

literary structure of individual passages and whole books”,16 sets our text in aninclusio-envelope structure. However, the claims of the unity for the text donot answer all the questions that arise out of the literary discrepancies in ourpassage. We shall first examine the level of probability of the claims of textual

unity and show that they encounter problems and, sometimes, even containinner-contradictions.

III. Examination of the Text’s Unity

Brichto claims that the text is a single source, a coherent unit untouched by an

editor’s hand. He reasons, “If our translation of the text is wholly or in the

main unexceptionable, any suggestion of conflation or redaction becomes gra-tuitous.”17 Brichto translates each of the repeated terms of our text differently;

for example, for [ybçhw, he provides two different interpretations of the word:“to charge” or “to administer an oath” (v. 19) and “say” (v. 21).18 Tis dual

rendering, however, is already based on the assumption that the text is com-pletely coherent. Otherwise, there is no ground for rendering the one word

with two different meanings. In addition, Brichto regards vv. 12-13 as a gen-eral statement rather than as the actual protasis of the law; but the juxtaposi-

tion of two distinct recapitulations (vv. 29-30) militates against his claim.

Milgrom, too, claims the unity of the text, but he concedes that v. 21 andv. 31 are later interpolations. He arranges the text according to an introvertedchiastic order: A. Te Case (vv. 12-14); B. Preparation of the Ritual-Ordeal

(vv. 15-18); C. Te Oath-Imprecation (vv. 19-24); B’. Execution of the

Ritual-Ordeal (vv. 25-28); A’. Te Case (vv. 29-30); [postscript, v. 31].19 How-ever, Milgrom’s chiastic arrangement seems to be rather artificial and suffers

from several difficulties. First, in section B, the problem of unnecessary repeti-tion between v. 16b and v. 18a is ignored: the verses are simply joined together.

Second, if one follows the order of the ordeal procedure as it is written in thetext, the actual drinking of the bitter water comes after the sacrifice according to

v. 26b. In Milgrom’s pattern, however, the water is “to be imbibed” at C

(v. 24). If, as Milgrom suggests, the woman imbibes the water in v. 24, verse 26b

16) Ibid., p. 12.17) Brichto, “Te Case of Te Sotah,” p. 57.18) See ibid., pp. 59-61.19) See Milgrom, “Suspected Adulteress,” pp. 68-69,


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

6/27


should then have been placed in the execution section (B’). Tird, Milgrom

puts v. 18 and vv. 27-28 as corresponding verses under the heading of “woman.”However, v. 18 mentions two parties, the woman and the priest, and v. 18b in

particular describes the priest’s role only.Frymyer-Kensky deals with the problem of repetitions, providing a solution

by setting up an ‘envelope’ structure. Her basic premise is that “the repetitionsof our text can be considered a paradigmatic case of the use of inclusio-repetitionto unify a passage with a complex structure”.20 On this basis, she contends thatthe structure of vv. 15-28, in which the repetitions occur, is the envelope struc-

ture: each case of the problematic repetition of the verbs, dym[h (vv. 16, 18),

[ybçh (vv. 19, 21), and hqçh (vv. 24, 28), introduces a section and marks itsprime act, then describes the coordinate act to be performed at that stage, and

then returns to the prime act of that stage. Tis arrangement, however, is notstrictly an inclusio or envelope structure. In such a structure, a repeated wordcloses the enveloped section, that is, the words or phrase at the beginning ofthe section must be repeated at the end.21 In our passage, however, the repeated

words do not close the sections, but rather open new sections in which differentprocedures of the trial begin. It becomes clear, when one examines each case.

Te second dym[h (v. 18) does not seem to belong to “Preparation of the Water” (vv. 16, 17)22 as a closing, but to head a new section which treats the

preparation of the sacrifice. Similarly, the second [ybçh (v. 21) by no means

“envelopes” the former verses: the adjuration that begins at v. 19 actually endsat v. 22, and v. 21 breaks the natural flow of the passage from v. 19 to v. 22.Discussion of hqçh demands more caution, for both v. 24 and v. 27 indicatethat the water of execration will turn bitter. Te second hqçh, however,belongs to the passage below (vv. 27, 28), which speaks of the result of theordeal, and, in a wider sense, concludes the whole text of the Sotah. Tus, if

we were to adopt Frymer-Kensky’s scheme, we would need to exclude impor-tant elements of verses 18, 21-23, and 27b-28 from the structure.

20) Frymer-Kensky, “Te Strange Case,” p. 13.21) Richard G. Moulton, he Literary Study of the Bible (Rev. ed.; Boston, 1899), p. 56, definesthe “envelope” as “a series of parallel lines running to any length . . . enclosed between an identical

(or equivalent) opening and close.” Also L. Alonso Schökel, A Manual of Hebrew Poetics (Rome,1988), p. 78, notes, “When the word is repeated at the beginning and at the end, in the first and

last verses, this is an inclusion.”22) Frymer-Kensky, “Te Strange Case,” p. 15.


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

7/27


IV. The Composition of Num. v 11-31

We have examined the theories of several scholars who claim the unity of theSotah passage. We have seen that some of the theories do not even deal with

the complicated literary problems of our passage, whereas others, in spite oftheir attempts to solve the problems, do not suggest satisfying answers. More-

over, as we saw above, some of the theories even exhibit internal contradic-

tions. Tus, it must be admitted that proving the unity of our text is afrustrating task. We might do better to turn to the possibility that the passage

underwent redaction. In this section, we shall suggest that our passage consists

of two strata which contain a different law in each: the original water ordeallaw stratum and the editorial ritual-oath law stratum. Even though we suggesta division of the Sotah passage into two strata, our suggestion is different from

former critical views in that we distinguish a water ordeal law without a ritualfrom a discrete ritual-oath law without a water ordeal.23

1. wo Introductions and wo Recapitulations (v 12-14, 29-30)

As we saw in the arrangements of our passage by Stade, Fishbane, and

Milgrom, the introduction of the case, Num. v 12-14, seems to involve twoclearly distinct cases.24 Verses 12-13 speak of the case in which the wife of a

man misbehaved without there being any evidence, and was not caught on the

spot. Te accuser is not specified in this case, but it may be imagined that theaccusation is made by the public,25 or on the grounds of probable cause, com-mon knowledge, or prima facie evidence.26 On the other hand, v. 14 stipulatesa case that is initiated by a husband who suspects his wife of adultery. Te

accuser is the husband and the wife’s suspected misbehavior is not explicitlymanifested: the legislator explicitly states the possibility of the wife’s innocence.

Te recapitulations of the law (vv. 29-30) exactly parallel the introduction with

23) Morgenstern, too, separated the ritual procedure from the water ordeal (see above), but our

suggestion is that the ritual is not a mere editorial insertion but was a separate law.24) See Stade, „Beiträge zur Pentateuchkritik,“ pp. 166-175; Fishbane, “Accusations of Adultery,”pp. 25-45; J. Milgrom, “Suspected Adulteress,” pp. 69-79. Licht also claims that the introduc-

tion is illogical and that it is composed from many sources (J. Licht, A Commentary on the Bookof Numbers [ Jerusalem, 1985], p. 75 [Heb]).25) See Fishbane, “Accusations of Adultery,” p. 37; Milgrom, “Suspected Adultress,” p. 69: “out-

side suspicion.”26) See Fishbane, “Accusations of Adultery,” p. 35.


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

8/27


two cases:27 v. 29, which recapitulates only the case in which a wife has misbe-

haved, parallels vv. 12-13, whereas v. 30, which summarizes the case in whicha husband suspects his wife, corresponds to v. 14. Scholars who follow Stade,28

such as Holzinger, Carpenter, Battersby, and Kent,29 and even Preß,30 considervv. 29-30 to belong to one source. However, as later scholars have recognized,31

the difference between the two cases is evident. Te distinction becomes clear when we examine the phrases, trwt taz (v. 29) and tazh hrwth-lk (v. 30), which are typical introductory or concluding phrases of laws in the Penta-teuch. We shall discuss the phrases below and suggest that in spite of their

superficial similarity, each has a different origin. If that is true, it will strengthen

our claim that the juxta-posed introductions (vv. 12-3, v. 14) are also origi-nally from separate sources or strata.

2. Juridical Body (v 15-28)

(i) As Fishbane observes, repetition is not necessarily a sign of either multipleorigins or bad style.32 However, if the repetition breaks the natural flow of the

writing, if the phrase or block with the repetition contains new content whichis alien to the whole text, and if it shows a different literary style, we may

deduce the existence of other hands that have reworked the text. Evidently, the

repetitions of three key verbs (dym[h, [ybçh, hqçh) in our passage are themain cause of literary discrepancies, and the repetitions, whenever they occur,

are always related to ritual procedure. Moreover, the blocks with the repeti-tions, as we shall discuss below, exhibit a different literary style. Te verb dym[h in v. 16 opens the block consisting of vv. 16-17, which describes the prepara-tion of the bitter water and thus belongs to the water ordeal law stratum,

whereas the second occurrence of dym[h opens v. 18, which belongs to theritual procedure. Te second dym[h is unnecessary from a content perspective,for the priest cannot have the woman stand before God twice. Te verse 18, as

27) Brichto (“Te Case of the Sotah,” p. 57) regards vv. 12-13 as a general statement rather than

as the actual protasis of the law, but the juxtaposition of two recapitulations militates against his

claim.28) Stade, “Beiträge zur Pentateuchkritik,” pp. 176-177.29) Morgenstern, p. 128.30) Preß, „Das Ordal,“ p. 133.31) Fishbane, “Accusations of Adultery,” p. 37; Frymer-Kensky, “Te Strange Case,” pp. 16-17;

Milgrom, “Suspected Adultress,” pp. 69-70.32) Fishbane, “Accusations of Adultery,” pp. 28-30; cf. Frymer-Kensky, “Te Strange Case,”

p. 13.


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

9/27


a whole, seems to belong to the editorial ritual-oath stratum. However, verse

18b (µyrramh µyrmh ym wyhy ˆhkh dybw) seems not to be a constitutive part ofthe ritual-oath law but rather a connecting device added by the redactor. Prob-

ably, the redactor copied the phrase µyrramh µyrmh ym from v. 19, whichbelongs to the water ordeal stratum, and arranged it as a linking device, to

interweave the ritual-oath law with the water ordeal law.Te first use of the verb [ybçh introduces vv. 19-20, 22, in which the priest

declares a curse attached to the water ordeal. In the middle of the curse, v. 21, which is headed by the second [ybçh, intrudes into the passage, disturbing thenatural literary flow. If we eliminate v. 21 from the text, vv. 19-22 display a

very smooth literary flow without any discrepancy,33 and become one of thetypical forms of casuistic law (yk . . . al-µa: vv. 19, 20) with chiastic order.34 On the other hand, v. 21, which seems to belong to the editorial stratum, notonly repeats the curse of v. 22 but introduces a different oath: ˚m[ ̊ wtb h[bçlw hlal ˚twa hwhy ˆty (v. 21a).35 Perhaps this different oath once played a centralrole in the original form of the ritual-oath law, probably as a part of a curse. Te

remainder of the original ritual-oath curse seems to have been omitted duringthe editorial process. Verse-21b, which is similar to v. 22a β, seems to be a con-

necting device added by the redactor to interlock the oaths of the ordeal(vv. 19, 20, 22) and the ritual-oath (v. 21).

reatment of hqçh requires caution, because the first occurrence of hqçh

(v. 24), unlike the other recurring verbs, seems to be a repetition of the secondone in v. 27. Moreover, the entire v. 24 seems to be a copy of the water ordealstratum introduced by the redactor as a linking device: µyrramh µyrmh ym (v. 24a β) from v. 19b, and µyrml µyrramh µymh hb wabw from v. 27a. A similaruse of connecting devices appears again in v. 26b, which is a superfluous expla-nation of the procedures, linking v. 24 to v. 27. Te second use of hqçh (v. 27), which belongs to the water ordeal stratum, heads vv. 27-28, whichtreat of the result of the water ordeal. Again, in addition to this original result

of the trial, the redactor appears to have inserted v. 27b as a linking device: itlinks v. 21 to v. 27, and thus the oath of the ritual-oath procedure (v. 21a)

becomes a part of the result of the water ordeal.

33) Milgrom, who claims the unity of our text, also agrees: “Tere can be little doubt that origi-

nally 22 followed 20, for then the adjuration read smoothly and lucidly.” Milgrom, “Suspected

Adulteress,” p. 71.34) See, Y. Avishur, Studies in Biblical Narrative (el-Aviv, 1999), p. 17.35) A similar curse is found in Jer. xxix 18.


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

10/27


Te two strata differ not only in its contents but also in terms of literary

style. Te sentences of the water ordeal stratum use a more compact syntax, whereas the repetition in the ritual-oath stratum uses a more expansive syntax,

as follows:

able 2

Te Water Ordeal Stratum Te Ritual-Oath Stratum

‘h ynpl Hdym[hw (5:16) ‘h ynpl hçah-ta ˆhkh dym[hw (5:18)

ˆhwkh hta [ybçhw (5:19) hçah-ta ˆhkh [ybçhw (5:21)

µymh-ta Hqçhw (5:27) 36 µyrmh ym-ta hçah-ta hqçhw (5:24)

Te water ordeal stratum displays a more compact syntax using a pronominalsuffix, whereas the verbs in the ritual-oath, which are repetitions, are always

used with hçah ta. As for the stylistic differences between the two strata, weshall discuss them in depth below.

(ii) Above, we made a division between two introductions and two reca-pitulations. Te division appears to correspond to the two strata of the legal

procedure. Te case initiated by a husband’s suspicion matches the oath-with-ritual; the case initiated by the public or raised on more general grounds

(vv. 12-13, 29) matches the more severe judgment, the water ordeal. Tus we

obtain the following division of our entire Sotah passage:

Te Original StratumTe water ordeal law: 11-13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27a, 28, 29

Te Editorial StratumTe ritual-oath law core: 14, 15, 18, 21a, 25, 26a, 30Te editorial connecting devices: 21b, 24, 26b, 27b, 31

Te water ordeal law stratum is natural, smooth and complete not only interms of literary style but also with respect to its contents. We conjecture that

the redactor, who had probably the written water ordeal text in his hands,

inserted the sections of the ritual-oath law, whether it is written or customary,and interwove the two laws using connecting phrases. During this redactionprocess, some essential parts of the ritual-oath law seem to have been replaced

36) As we have observed, the phrase belongs to the editorial stratum as a connecting device.


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

11/27


by similar elements from the water ordeal text. Tus, the ritual-oath law stra-

tum in our passage does not remain in its complete original form.(iii) If the oath is the punishment of the ritual-oath law in the editorial

stratum, one may ask further whether an oath, by itself, is sufficient as a solu-tion for such a serious legal case as that of an adulteress. However, elsewhere

in the ancient Near East the juridical validity of the oath had largely beenaccepted.37 In Mesopotamia the oath was a very important juridical device,

and was used very frequently. It was an alternative to the river ordeal from theEarly Dynastic and Sargonic periods on,38 and through the Middle and Neo-

Babylonian periods was regarded as a means of obtaining evidence in courts.39

In Assyria 40 and Egypt41 oaths were also the final means of resolving a disputethat could not be settled reasonably. Interestingly, just as the oath in our bibli-

cal ritual-oath law invokes the name ù h and is recited in the ˆkçm, so does theoath in Assyria and Egypt invoke the name of a god (or a king who was

believed to be a god), and it is similarly recited in the temple or before a sym-bol of the god.

Te validity of oaths in juridical procedures had been widley recognized inIsrael as well. In the case of homicide (Deut. xxi 1-9) and in the case of the

safeguarding of livestock (Exod. xxii 10-11), exculpatory oaths were regardedas an ultimate legal form of resolution. In addition, some extra-biblical sources

reveal that an oath,42 or even a mere declaration,43 was employed in civil jurid-

ical processes. Such widespread uses of the oath in ancient Near Eastern andIsraelite jurisprudence support the possibility that an oath, together with aritual, might have served in the resolution of a case such as that of a suspected

adulteress.

37) See M. B. Dick, “Job 31, Te Oath of Innocence, and the Sages,” ZAW 95 (1983),pp. 31-35.38) See C. Wilcke, “Mesopotamia,” in: R. Westbrook (ed.), A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (Leiden, 2003), pp. 150-151.39) See J. Oelsner, B. Welles and C. Wunsch, “Neo-Babylonian Period,” in: Westbrook,

p. 925.40) According to K. Veenhof, “Old Assyrian Period” (in: Westbrook, p. 432), men had to swear

by/on the dagger of the god Assur, and occasionally by/on other symbols or emblems of that

deity. Some documents show that the wording of the oath had been carefully formulated and written down by the judges.41) A distinct feature of the Egyptian oath is the “royal oath,” which was pronounced by the

name of the contemporary king who was believed to be a god. R. Jasnow, “Egypt,” in: West-

brook, p. 268.42) For example, the Yabneh-Yam inscription. Dick, p. 38.43) For example, kav 201:6-7. Ibid., p. 38.


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

12/27


(iv) Our distinction between the two laws in the Sotah passage finds

support in the wider ancient Near Eastern context as well. M. Fishbane haspersuasively demonstrated a similarity between the two case introductions

(vv. 12-14) of the Sotah and the Laws of Hammurapi (LH) 131-132.44 How-ever, the similarity between the two laws is not limited to the introductions as

Fishbane maintains, but consistently appears in the two strata of the Sotahpassage. LH formulates the suspected adulteress case on two levels:

(LH 131) šumma aššat awīlim mussa ubbiršīma itti zikarim šanīm ina utūlimla işş abit nīš ilim izakkarma ana bītīša itâr

If a man’s wife was accused by her husband, but she was not caught whilelying with another man, she shall make an oath by a god and returnhome.

(LH 132) šumma aššat awīlim aššum zikarim šanîm ubānum elīša ittarişma ittizikarim šanīm ina utūlim la ittaşbat ana mutīša Id išalli 45

If a finger indicated46 a man’s wife because of another man, but she has notbeen caught while lying with that other man, she shall leap into the Riverfor the sake of her husband.47

Te bifurcated laws of suspected adultery in LH clearly parallel the two strata

of the Sotah passage: LH 132 corresponds to the water ordeal and LH 131 tothe ritual-oath. As in the case of the ritual-oath stratum, in which a husband

simply doubts his wife and the woman is obliged to make an oath by the nameof YHWH, so does LH 131 stipulate that, in the case of a husband’s bringing

charges, the suspected wife is obligated only to take an oath by a god. Also, asin the water ordeal stratum in which the case is initiated on a public basis—

and is accordingly more severe—and the woman must undergo the water

44) Fishbane, “Accusation of Adultery,” pp. 36-38. Preß, too, mentions LH, but he deals with

only LH 132 (“Das Ordal im alten Israel,” p. 133). Cf. B. Levine, Numbers 1-20 (AB; New York,1993), pp. 204-205.45) ransliteration by Martha . Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Atlanta,1997), p. 106. (A few alterations were made by Prof. E. L. Greenstein.)46) “Accused by members of the public” (G. R. Driver and J. C. Miles, Te Babylonian Laws 1,(Oxford, 1952, p. 284); Fishbane follows: “accused by public” (“Accusations of Adultery,” p. 37).

In this case the accusation must be raised on a more objective basis, thus the suspected wife has

to undergo a more severe ordeal: “leaping into the River.”47) I have used the translation by M. Fishbane (“Accusations of Adultery,” p. 37).


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

13/27


ordeal, so does LH 132 stipulate a case based on a public accusation and a

(different type of) water ordeal. Tis striking similarity between LH and theSotah implies that the two biblical laws—the water ordeal law and the ritual-

oath law—existed separately before the redaction and were deeply influencedby ancient Near Eastern precedents.

(v) Te postscript (v. 31), which declares that the husband will be freefrom guilt, and that the woman will bear her guilt,48 might be better under-

stood in an ancient Near Eastern context. In our passage, as a result of thecombining of the two laws, a suspected wife came to be obliged to undergo the

ordeal, not only in the case of public accusation but also in the case initiated

only by the husband’s suspicion. According to the Laws of Hammurapi, if asuspect is proved innocent by the water ordeal, the accuser should be put to

death (LH 2). Te logic of justice by which anyone who endangers another’slife through false accusation must be punished, even though this principle is

not spoken aloud, probably had been a basic premise of the ordeal in theancient Near East, including Israel. Tus in our case, according to this logic,

the husband whose suspicion of his wife has been proved false by the ordealshould be punished. Te postscript cited above (v. 31) seems to be a regulation

intended to prevent such a result. Te guilt (ˆw[) of the husband should there-fore be understood as the guilt of a false accusation. Probably, by granting the

husband immunity from the punishment, the editor intended to encourage

husbands to submit their suspected wives to a legal procedure rather than dothem harm on the basis of suspicion alone.49 On the other hand, in our case,the ordeal is not a life-threatening procedure50 like that of Babylonia. Tere is

therefore a lesser need to punish the false accuser.

48) ˆw[ has the dual sense of both sin/crime and punishment. A guilty party metaphorically carries

the guilt like a burden until it is relieved—lifted—by a forgiving God; see B. Schwartz, “ ‘erm’

or Metaphor—Biblical afj / [çp / ˆw[ açn,” arbiz 63 (1994), pp. 149-171 (Hebrew).49) See Milgrom, “Suspected Adulteress,” pp. 73-75. It seems that another important purpose of

the Sotah ordeal is to prevent the birth of a mamzer (rzmm—illegitimate child). If the woman issuspected by her husband, it is because she is showing signs of pregnancy and the husband does

not believe that he can be the father. Te potion was believed to have the effect of aborting a fetus

(an illegitimate fetus, if there is one). (Cf. Frymer-Kensky, “Te Strange Case,” pp. 18-21.) Tus

the purpose of the Sotah ordeal is not only to prevent killing a woman without proper evidence

but also to prevent the birth of an illegitimate fetus.50) Tus, Brichto doubts the premise that the nature of our case is a trial by ordeal. See Brichto,

“Te Case of the Sotah,” pp. 64-65.


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

14/27


V. A Linguistic Analysis

We have suggested that the Sotah passage (Num. v 11-31) is composed of twoliterary strata—the water ordeal stratum and the supplementary ritual-oath

stratum, which was inserted into the primary source by means of editoriallinks and framing formulas. We shall now investigate whether a linguistic

analysis could support such an understanding of the composition of the pas-

sage. Do the strata of the Sotah passage show meaningful linguistic differencesbetween themselves? And can the differences between the strata be used as

criteria for dating them? Tese form the second set of questions that we have

posed in the introduction. In order to answer the questions, we will adopt F.Polak’s method51 of syntactical analysis combined with statistical tools: noun/verb and nominal/finite verb ratio analysis.52 Statistical research, which was

first introduced in New estament studies,53 has been applied to the HebrewBible by several scholars such as Y. Radday (on Isaiah),54 F. Chenique (on the

51) See F. Polak, “Te Oral and the Written: Syntax, Stylistics and the Development of Biblical

Prose Narrative,” JANES 26 (1998), pp. 59-105; id., “Style is more than the Person: Socio-linguistics, Literary Culture and the Distinction between Written and Oral Narrative,” in:

I. Young (ed.), Biblical Hebrew: Studies in Chronology and ypology (London/New York, 2003),

pp. 38-103.52) One must bear in mind that linguistic analysis is not always an effective tool to analyze legal

material. R. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew toward an Historical ypology of Biblical Hebrew Prose (Montana, 1976), p. 86, notes that laws “do not seem to be appropriate as objects of an analysis

based on grammatical/syntactic features derived from the narrative genre of the Chronicler’s

work.” As a matter of fact, Polak’s thesis and even A. Verheij’s work, on which Polak’s thesis is

built, are also based on narratives. However, we must recall that not all laws are written in simple

imperative sentences. Some legal passages, including the Sotah passage, describe lengthy and

complex procedures in which the writer’s own style may be displayed. In such cases, if the sen-

tences exhibit long descriptive features, a linguistic approach is not without interest. Moreover,

especially the Sotah passage has many components of narrative. Te main contents of the passage

are discriptions of continuous actions of the agents such as a husband, a suspected woman and a

priest. Also a dialogue between the priest and the woman, although it is a small part, is centered

in the passage. Such features of narrative in the Sotah passage may allow Polak’s analysis on bib-

lical narratives to be its control group. As for the subject of law and narrative, see, G. Binder andR. Weisberg, Literary Criticisms of Law ( New Jersey, 2000); P. Brooks, “Narrativity of the Law,”Law and Literature 14 (2002), pp. 1-10; R Cover, “Nomos and Narrative,” Harvard Law Review97.4 (1983), pp. 4-68 et al.53) See A. Forbes, “Statistical Research on the Bible” ( ABD 6), pp. 185-206.54) See Y. Radday, “wo Computerized Statistical-Linguistic ests Concerning the Unity of Isaiah,”

JBL 89 (1970), pp. 319-324.


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

15/27


Pentateuchal sources),55 and R. Bee (on Deuteronomy)56 et al. Statistical anal-

ysis encountered criticism, such as its alleged lack of a linguistic basis, improperuse of statistical methods, unreliable conclusions from faulty data, brevity of

the samples from the control text, and use of only a single criterion.57 Despitethe criticism of the statistical method, however, we regard that F. Polak’s

method that we will adopt in this work to be reliable in several aspects: hisstatistical analysis entails an intense linguistic discussion, the sample passages

from biblical texts are selected carefully and precisely, and the statistical resultsare based on a range of criteria.

Polak’s work is based on A. Verheij’s prior quantitative-linguistic study of

the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles.58 Trough his statistical researchVerheij reveals that the language of Chronicles is characterized by relatively

sparse use of verbs and a more frequent occurences of the forms of qatal, qetol ,and qotel . Polak reviews and summarizes Verheij’s study that the frequency ofnouns vis-à-vis verbs (Noun-Verb ratio) in Chronicles is higher than it is inKings and far higher than it is in Samuel, and, also, the frequency of the

nominal forms of the verb (participle and infinitive construct) vis-à-vis thefinite verb (perfect, imperfect, imperative, as well as the infinitive absolute; 59

Nomial-Finite ratio)60 is higher in Chronicles than it is in Samuel and Kings.Polak applies these criteria to selected narrative passages. He extracts control

passages from the texts of the Persian era, the late Pre-exilic/Exilic period, the

Classical Stratum, and a ransitional Subclass (intricate classical narrative),and compares NV ratios (Noun-Verb ratios) and NF ratios (Nominal-Finiteverb ratios) of texts from each period. Te statistical results he obtains are as

follows:61

55) As for Chenique and other statistical studies, see A. Forbes, “Statistical Research.”56) See R. Bee, “A Study of Deuteronomy Based on Statistical Properties of the ext,” V 31(1981), pp. 451-471.57) See Forbes, “Statistical Research,” pp. 196-200; F. Polak, “Te Oral and the Written,” p. 61.58) See A. Verheij, Verbs and Numbers: a Study of the Frequencies of the Hebrew Verbal ense Formsin the Books of Samuel, Kings and Numbers (Van Gorcum, 1990), pp. 31-42, 55-83, 118-120.59) In Verheij’s quantative observation, the qatol form (infinitive absolute) decreases in the book

of Chronicles vis-à-vis earlier Hebrew. See ibid., pp. 43-54.60) Strictly saying, Polak’s noun / verb ratio and Nominal / Finite verb ratio are frequency

of noun vis-à-vis the sum of nouns and verbs and frequecy of nominal verb vis-à-vis the sum

of the nominal and finite verbs, respectively. In our study we will use polak’s terms for

convenience.61) See Polak, “Te Oral and Written,” p. 70. Te control passages are: (1) Persian era: Ezra i 1-iv

5; viii 1-x 19; Neh. vii 72-x 1; x 29-xi 3; Dan. i 1-ii 3; Esth. i-x; 2 Chron. xxix-xxxvi;


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

16/27


able 3

NV ratio NF ratio

Te Persian Era .739 .326

Te Late Pre-exilic /

Exilic Period

.724 .207

ransitional Subclass: Intricate Classical Narrative

.656 .157

Te Classical Stratum .612 .154

Te result above shows that the NV ratio and NF ratio have gradually increased

in the course of time, and this fact seems to indicate a gradual development instyle. Indeed, Polak’s NV/NF ratio analysis is mainly intended to reveal

differences of a stylistic tendency, characteristics of formal/informal writingsor, as Polak puts it, written/oral styles.62 However, the linguistic differences

between the periods, as we have seen above, obviously exhibit chronological as well as stylistic trends. Tus Polak’s analysis may be used cautiously as a chron-

ological indicator. We apply this tool to our Sotah passage to examine whether the editorial

ritual-oath stratum shows higher N:V and N:F ratios than the presumed orig-inal water ordeal stratum. An analysis of each stratum provides interesting

results as follows:

(2) Late Pre-exilic/Exilic period: Josh. xxii-xxiv; 1 Kgs. ix; xi; xv; 20-25; 2 Kgs. xi-xvi; xx-xxv;

Jer. xxvi-xxviii; xxxii; xxxvi 1-xliii 7; (3) Classical narrative: Abraham tales (Gen. xii-xiii; xv-xvi;

xviii-xxii; xxiv); Jacob tales (Gen. xxvii-xxxiii); Exodus cycle (Exod. xx 1-vi 1; vii 14-xi 10; xiv;xv 22-27; xvii-xix; xxiv; xxxii-xxxiii); Samson cycle (Judg. xiii-xvi); David-Saul narrative (1 Sam.

xvi-xxx); David’s court narrative (2 Sam. vii; xi-xv; xvii-xix); Elijah tales (1 Kgs. xvii-xxii); Elisha

tales (2 Kgs. ii-x); (4) ransitional subclass: Gen. ii-iv; the Joseph narrative (Gen. xl-xlv); the

heroic tales of the Saviors (Judg. iv; ix; iii; vi-viii; xi-xii); the account of the Danite expedition

(Judg. xvii-xviii); parts of Josh. ii-xi.62) See Polak, “Te Oral and Written,” pp. 59-60.


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

17/27


able 4

Noun Verb NV ratio

Nominal Finite NFratio

Te WaterOrdeal

Stratum

61 43 .587 6 41 .128

Te Editorial Stratum

80 37 .684 6 31 .162

Te NV ratio of the editorial stratum is 0.097 (approximately 10%) higherthan that of the water ordeal stratum. Also the NF ratio of the editorial stra-

tum is 0.034 (3.4%) higher than the water ordeal stratum. Te result clearlyshows that the editorial stratum uses nouns and nominal verbal forms more

frequently than the water ordeal stratum.63 If this is the case, are the figuresfrom the result above so meaningful as to reveal stylistic differences between

the strata? In order to examine the significance of our result, we need to com-

pare the figures with the results of Polak’s analysis. For our own purpose, weobtain the following figures from a review of Polak’s analysis:

able 5

Interval between SuccessivePeriods

Interval from the ClassicalPeriod

NV Ratio NF Ratio NV Ratio NF Ratio

Te Classical Stratum – – – –

ransitional Subclass .044 (4.4%) .021 (2.1%) .044 (4.4%) .021 (2.1%)

Te Late Pre-exilic/Exilic

Period

.068 (6.8%) .032 (3.2%) .112 (11.2%) .053 (5.3%)

Te Persian Era .015 (1.5%) .119 (11.9%) .127 (12.7%) .172 (17.2%)

According to the above analysis, the NV ratio interval between each periodranges between .015 to .068 (1.5 to 6.8%), while the NF ratio interval ranges

63) One might doubt whether the Sotah passage is lengthy enough to allow for statistical cer-

tainty. However, the linguistic difference that the strata exhibit is clear and obvious. We shall see

below that the difference is even significant.


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

18/27


between .021 to .119 (2.1 to 11.9%). Te widest NV ratio interval is .068

(6.8%) between the ransitional Subclass and the Late Pre-exilic/Exilic Period,and the widest NF ratio interval is .119 (11.9%) between the Late Pre-exilic/

Exilic Period and the Persian Era. Te narrowest NV ratio interval is 0.015(1.5%, between the Late Pre-exilic/Exilic Period and the Persian Era), and the

narrowest NF ratio is 0.021 (2.1%, between the Classical Stratum and theransitional Subclass). Te NV / NF ratio intervals between the Classical Stra-

tum and the Persian era, which are accumulative, are 0.127 (12.7%, NV ratio)and 0.172 (17.2%, NF ratio). If we compare the figures above with the results

of our analysis of the Sotah passage, the NV/NF ratio intervals of our passage

turn out to be significant. Te NV ratio interval between our two stratum,0.097 (10%), is wider than in any interval between successive periods in

Polak’s analysis. Also the NV ratio interval, 0.034 (3.4%), is wider than in anyintervals between successive periods except the widest interval, .119 (11.9%),

between the Late Pre-exilic/Exilic Period and the Persian Era. Tis comparisonbetween the Sotah passage and Polak’s analysis clearly indicates that the figures

from the Sotah passage are significant enough to suggest the relative latenessof the editorial stratum.

On the basis of this linguistic analysis we may not be able to determine thedate of the composition of the two strata in the Sotah passage with any exac-

titude. However, a review of Polak’s analysis shows that increases of NV ratio

and NF ratio tend to indicate changes of the linguistic phase according to theperiods. Tis feature may provide us a clue for dating of the two strata of theSotah passage. Te use of nouns (NV ratio) in biblical prose substantially

increases in the Pre-exilic/Exilic Period (6.8%), whereas in the other periods

the NV ratios increas by only 4.4% (the ransitional Subclass) and 1.5% (thePersian Era). On the other hand, the use of nominal forms of verbs (NF ratio)

dynamically increases in the Persian era: the NF ratio of the Persian Eraincreases 12%, whereas increases of the NF ratios of the ransitional Subclass

and Pre-exilic/Exilic period stay at 2% and 3%, respectively. Te followingcharts display these trends (see Charts 1 and 2).

Te two charts vividly display the phases of stylistic development whichare characterized by the widest NV ratio difference of the Late Pre-exilic/

Exilic Period (approx. 7%), and by the widest NF ratio difference of thePersian Era (approx. 12%). In other words, characteristic of the Pre-exilic/

Exilic Period is, as is more easily discernible in , a relatively rapidincrease of the NV ratio, whereas characteristic of the Persian Era is a sharp

increase of the NF ratio.

Tese features of stylistic development in biblical narratives may be helpful indelimiting the possible date of the editorial stratum of the Sotah passage.


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

19/27


Comparing the water ordeal stratum, the analysis of the editorial stratumshows 3.4% increase in the NF ratio and 9.7% increase in the NV ratio. Te3.4% increase of the NF ratio may indicate that the stratum did not undergo

the dynamic NF ratio increase of the Persian Era, which is 11.9%. On theother hand, the 9.7% rise of the NV ratio, which is very sharp, may suggest

that the stratum reflects the linguistic milieu of the Late Pre-exilic/ExilicPeriod. Tus, the NV/NF ratios of the editorial stratum suggest the editorial

stratum was possibly composed in the Late Pre-exilic/Exilic Period, whichimmediately precedes the Persian Era.

If we turn to the water ordeal stratum, its NV ratio of 0.587 is even lowerthan that of the Classical Stratum, but it more or less equals the NV ratios

of the classical narratives, which precede, according to Polak, the Classical

Stratum: 2 Sam. v 17-25; Judg. xiv 9-20; 2 Sam. xiv 23-24, 28-33; Gen. xxx1-3, 6, 14-18; 2 Sam. xiii 1-7, 10-14.64 Te NV ratio of these passages ranges

0.545 ~ 0.594. Tis is lower than the NV ratio of the Classical Stratum, which is .612. Polak defines these narrative passages as “a corpus that is

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

he ClassicalStratum A

ransitionalSubclass

he Late Pre-exilic / Exilic

Period

he Persian Era

R a t i o NV Ratio

NF Ratio

NV / NF Ratio

Chart 1

64) See Polak, “Te Oral and Written,” p. 68.


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

20/27


characterized by a brisk, rhythmic verbal style . . . and is thus best viewed as theclassical component of biblical narrative.”65 If we accept Polak’s claim, in terms

of its syntax and style, we may cautiously suggest that the water ordeal stratum

belongs to a very old stratum of the Bible. Nevertheless, proposals for theabsolute dating of the strata of the Sotah passage must remain in the realm of

speculation. What we can suggest with a high degree of certainty is that the water ordeal stratum and the editorial stratum exhibit different literary styles,

and that this stylistic difference reflects the linguistic contexts of earlier andlater periods.

65) Ibid., p. 69.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Transitional Subclass The Late Pre-exilic / Exilic Period

R a t i o D i f f e r e n c e ( %

)

NV Ratio

NF Ratio

The Persian Era

NV / NF Ratio Difference

Chart 2


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

21/27


VI. The Problem of the Sources

We now turn to the third question that we raised in the introduction: to which

Pentateuchal source does our passage belong? In the light of the literary and linguis-tic analysis we have carried out, we should reformulate the question as follows: to

which Pentateuchal source, or stratum, does each stratum of our passage belong?

1. Te Water Ordeal Stratum and P

(i) It does not seem particularly difficult to identify the source to which the water ordeal stratum belongs. Tere already exists a scholarly consensus that

the passage as a whole, together with most chapters in the Book of Numbers,is priestly material (P). We find no reason to take issue with this consensus.

Te water ordeal stratum exhibits characteristic features of P in its linguisticelements and literary style. For example, the verb for “betray” in the stratum

is l[m (v. 12), which is construed together with l[m (noun) and b (preposi-tion). Within the Pentateuch this usage occurs only in P:66 Lev. v 21; xxvi 40,

Num. v 6, 12, 27; Deut. xxxii 51.

(ii) M. Fishbane recognizes the phrase . . . trwt taz in v. 29 (the waterordeal stratum) as a colophon-like sign of P legislation.67 Concerning its nature

and function he writes: “ . . . the preceding series of sacrificial prescriptions inLev. 6-7 concludes (v. 37) with a presumptive subscript of all the torot detailed.

Tis summation opens with the formula ‘Tis is the orah as regards the . . .(sacrifices),’ and recapitulates the topics of the preceding rituals.”68 He finds

analogous terminology throughout cuneiform and other ancient Near Easternliterature.69 Fishbane’s identification of the phrase as a colophon of P seems

to be correct with regard to the fact that the phrase is used only in the priestlylaws (Lev. vi 2, 7, 18; vii 1, 11; xi 46; xii 7; xiii 59; xiv 32, 57; xv 32;

Num. v 29; vi 13).70. However, his inclusion of v. 30 in the P colophon seemsto be incorrect, as will be discussed below.

66) According to Milgrom, ma‘al appears once in H (Lev. 26:40), but in a metaphorical sense. Heclaims that H uses P’s cultic term metaphorically. See Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22 (AB; New York,

2000), p. 1326.67) See Fishbane, “Accusations of Adultery,” pp. 30-35.68) See ibid., p. 32.69) See id., “Biblical Colophons, extual Criticism and Legal Analogies,” CBQ 42 (1980)pp. 438-449.70) Knohl accepts Fishbane’s claim as well: “ . . . its colophon (5:29-30) clearly testifies to its P

origin” (Knohl, Sanctuary , p. 87).


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

22/27

8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

23/27


and M. Noth75 suggested or accepted a distinction between P and its second-

ary amplifications (Ps). Moreover, it has been disputed whether legal passagessuch as the Sotah form part of the basic content of P: the laws have been

regarded as later insertions of earlier traditions, which had existed indepen-dently prior to P’s literary work.76 In any case, the later strata in P were all

regarded as works of the priestly circle that produced P.Recently, however, H, or the Holiness School (HS), which has been regarded

by major scholars as a stratum earlier than P, has been proposed as an editor ofP by I. Knohl,77 and this theory is supported by J. Milgrom.78 According to

Knohl and Milgrom, HS edited the entire P narrative corpus and its legal

materials including the Sotah passage. HS is the final redactor of the Penta-teuch. We shall examine whether Knohl’s theory offers a possible explanation

of our case of the Sotah, for our editorial stratum displays, as we saw above, itsown particular linguistic features, new content, and a literary style that is

clearly different from that of the P stratum. Tese features sow doubt that theeditor belongs to the circle that produced the priestly material. Knohl’s study

of the Holiness School, which is akin to, yet distinct from, the Priestly School,therefore seems to be worthy of serious consideration. In the following sec-

tions, we shall point out features of the ritual-oath stratum and compare them with Knohl’s findings.

(i) Verse 21 is regarded as a later insertion by Milgrom and Knohl.

Milgrom argues, “Without it (v. 21), the adjuration contains no mention ofthe name of God, and the formula gives the impression that the powers of

the curse inhere in the water. It was therefore essential to add v. 21 to theadjuration in order to emphasize that the imprecation derives its force not

from the water but from the Lord.”79 Knohl, admitting that v. 21 must beconsidered an interpolation, attributes the insertion to HS. He claims that in

P punishments are strictly impersonal and never directly attributed to God, whereas HS contains many passages attributing direct punishment to God.

Tus, the innovation of v. 21 “lies in its casting of God as the direct punisherof the woman, whereas in the original version of the curse, the punishment is

75) See M. Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart, 1948), pp. 190-211.76) See Eissfeldt, An Introduction, p. 204; M. Noth, Te Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Essays (trans. D. R. ApTomas, Edinburgh, 1966), p. 83.77) See Knohl, Sanctuary .78) See J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16 (AB; New York, 1991), pp. 13-35.79) Milgrom, “Suspected Adulteress,” p. 72.


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

24/27


described in impersonal terms (5:19, 20, 22).”80 Te claims of Milgrom andKnohl seem to be valid, except that their assertions are based on the premise

that v. 21 is the only insertion of the HS editor. We saw that v. 21 belongs to

the editorial ritual-oath stratum.(ii) We noted above that the primitive and superstitious water ordeal trial

custom was incorporated into the legitimate cultic framework of P, but onlyafter having undergone editorial work that toned down its superstitious char-

acter. Similarly, in the ritual-oath stratum, by interleaving the stages of the water ordeal trial with those of the ritual procedure, the magical and supersti-

tious elements that remained prominent in the water ordeal stratum was

dynamically neutralized: the ordeal became a legitimate ‘ritual.’ Tus we maysay that the purpose of the editorial work was not only to present God as pun-isher but also to strengthen the legitimacy of the water ordeal in harmony with

the Israelite ritual system.(iii) We have seen that in the ritual-oath stratum the case initiated by

the husband is to be settled in a ritual procedure, in which the oath plays a

central role. However, as a result of the editorial work, the case initiated by thepublic in the water ordeal stratum, which was originally to be settled in an

ordeal, also came to be included in the ritual and oath. Tus, cases of asuspected adulteress, which belong to the moral realm, now came to be

mingled with a ritual, which belongs to the cultic realm. According to Knohl,

one of P’s characteristics is “total separation of the cult from morality,” whileHS’s innovation is “the fusing of the realms of cult and morality.”81 As a resultof the editorial work of the Sotah passage, the water ordeal stratum, a moral

law, came to be mingled with the cultic procedure. Tat is, adultery, adistinctly moral matter, came to be treated in a ritual process, and God inter-

venes as the direct punisher of the adulterer. Here, as Knohl noted, thereoccurs a fusion of the realms of cult and morality. Tus, on this point, too, the

features of our ritual-oath stratum are well explained by Knohl’s characteriza-tion of the Holiness School.

(iv) We saw above that M. Fishbane recognized the phrase . . . trwt taz as acolophon of P. Te problem, however, is that another colophon-like phrase,

tazh hrwth lk, appears in v. 30. Tis phrase was ignored by Fishbane. Knohl,

80) Knohl, Sanctuary , p. 88.81) See ibid., pp. 156, 176.


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

25/27


too, regards vv. 29-30 as a colophon of P without specifying this particularphrase. However, whereas the phrase . . . trwt taz is the colophon of P,the tazh hrwth lk phrase seems to be a typical idiomatic phrase of D.Te phrase tazh hrwth (Deut. xvii 18; xxviii 61; xxxi 9, 11) and its variations,such as tazh hrwth lk (Deut. iv 8), tazh hrwth yrbd (Deut. xvii 26; xxxi 24),tazh hrwth yrbd lk (Deut. xvii 19; xxvii 3, 8; xxviii 58; xxix 28; xxxii 46),appear a total of 13 times in the Book of Deuteronomy, and appear nowhere

else in the Bible except in our Sotah passage. If the phrase tazh hrwth lk is acolophon-like phrase of Deuteronomy, then, how can we explain its startling

appearance in our editorial stratum?

We can suggest several possibilities: (a) it is mere coincidence; (b) it is aneditorial touch of the Deuteronomist or the Deuteronomic (or Deutero-nomistic) school;82 (c) it is the work of an editor who knew and used Deu-

teronomic phrases. Te first possibility of mere coincidence seems to beimprobable. Nor does the second possibility seem viable. Even though the

phrase itself is of a piece with those in Deuteronomy, the connotation of the

phrase is not identical to that of similar phrases in Deuteronomy. Te term

hrwt in the Book of Deuteronomy indicates an entire teaching or law thatIsrael has been given; it never indicates one particular law, as in our Sotah pas-sage. Tus it seems more probable that the editor of the Sotah passage, who

was acquainted with D, made use of the phrase in his own manner. According

to Knohl, affinity to the language of non-priestly sources is one of the hall-marks of HS, and this feature is prominent particularly in the editorial stra-tum.83 Concerning H(S)’s use of D, Knohl suggests, with some examples such

as µkl br (Num. xvi 3; Deut. i 6; ii 3; iii 26) and ‘h lhq (Num. xx 4; Deut.xxiii 2, 3, 4, 9), that “Deuteronomy too might have had some influence on the

later stages of HS’s writings.”84 In the light of this, the colophon tazh hrwth

82) R. Rendtorff suggests that there was a Deuteronomistic redaction of the etrateuch at the last

stage of its shaping. His argument is, however, based mainly on analysis of the patriarchal his-

tory; neither the Book of Numbers—except Moses’ death—nor legal passages of P, including the

Sotah, are considered in his argument. See Te Problem of the Process of ransmission in the Penta-

teuch (Sheffield, 1977, especially pp. 189-206). See, for a critical review of Rendtorff’s argument, J. Van Seters, “Recent Studies on the Pentateuch: A Crisis in Method,” JAOS 99 (1979),pp. 663-673.83) See Knohl, Sanctuary , pp. 82, 107.84) Ibid., p. 203. Milgrom disagrees with Knohl on this point. Milgrom says, “Tere are no traces

of D’s language or concepts in H” (Leviticus , p. 1357). However, Knohl’s examples seem to bemore convincing.


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

26/27


lk in our passage can be best explained as another example of Deuteronomicinfluence on the H(S) stratum.

VII. Conclusion

At the beginning of this study, we indicated that the purpose of our research was to answer several questions concerning the composition. Our analysis sug-

gests that the text of the Sotah passage (Num. v 11-31) consists of two distinctstrata in which two different laws are featured: the original water ordeal law

stratum and the editorial ritual-oath law stratum. Te water ordeal law stra-tum seems to be relatively well preserved, whereas the ritual-oath stratum

seems to be incomplete. We cautiously assume that the water ordeal text hadalready existed, and that the redactor combined it with a ritual-oath custom.

However, we cannot be certain whether the ritual-oath tradition had been a written text or only a customary law. Interestingly, the two strata of our text

correspond to the Laws of Hammurapi 131 and 132. LH 131, as the ritual-oath stratum, imposes on the suspected wife the obligation of an oath before

a god, whereas LH 132, like the water ordeal stratum, stipulates that the

woman must undergo an ordeal.Returning to the questions we had set for ourselves in this study, the answer

to the second question seems to be positive. Linguistic analysis based on F.

Polak’s model reveals that the editorial stratum was composed with significantlyincreased use of nouns and nominal verb forms. Tis stylistic difference,according to Verheij and Polak, indicates that our editorial stratum may reflect

a later linguistic context than the water ordeal stratum. In addition, as regardsthe date of the editorial stratum, the 3.4% increase of the NF ratio may indi-

cate that the stratum did not undergo the dynamic NF ratio increase of thePersian Era, whereas the 9.7% increase of the NV ratio, which is very sharp,

may suggest that the stratum reflects the linguistic atmosphere of the Late Pre-exilic/Exilic Period. However, the suggestion for dating the strata of our passage

is only speculations: it is difficult to determine the exact date of composition

using linguistic criteria. In any case, the linguistic difference of the two strata

verifies that the editorial stratum was composed later than the original stratum.Te third question addresses the sources to which our strata belong. Te

water ordeal stratum belongs by scholarly consensus to P. On the other hand,

the editorial ritual-oath stratum has many features which are not properlyexplained by theories relating to P and its elaboration. Te features peculiar to


8/18/2019 00424935_v57n2_s3a

27/27


the editorial stratum—such as God as a direct punisher, the fusion of cult and

morality, and a colophon characteristic of D, tazh hrwth lk (v. 30)—are wellexplained by Knohl’s theory about the Holiness School.

On the basis of the answers above, we can cautiously conclude that the water ordeal law stratum, which was composed by the Priestly School during

the First emple period, was probably reworked and combined with a ritual-oath law by the Holiness School in the Late Pre-exilic/Exilic Period.

VT 57 2 809 181 207 indd 207 3/30/07 8:49:26 AM

Date post:	07-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	aslancm
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

00424935_v57n2_s3a

Documents