ABSTRACT
Modern critics uniformly regard the text of the law of the suspected adulteress (Num 5:11–31) as a conflation of at least two sources. Two procedures are employed to test the suspect, an oath and an ordeal (16–24, 27–28), with a sacrifice perhaps constituting a third test (15, 25–26). Moreover, repetitions abound (16b = 8a; 19a = 21a; 21b = 22a; 24a = 26b = 27a; 12b–14 = 29 f.) 1 Notwithstanding this evidence for multiple sources, it is to the merit of two scholars, M. Fishbane and H.C. Brichto, that they see this text as a logical and unified composition. 2 It is submitted that their conception of the text is correct, with the exception of two additions, verses 21 and 31, which, however, provide the key to unlock the redaction and meaning of the text. The Suspected Adultress, Num 5:12–31
The Case, 12–14
outside suspicion, 12–13
husband’s suspicion, 14
Preparation of the Ritual-Ordeal, 15–18
minhāh, 15
water, 17
woman, 18 (16)
The Oath-Imprecation, 19–24
oral adjuration, 19–22
[interpolation, 21]
written adjuration dissolved and to be imbibed, 23–24
Execution of the Ritual-Ordeal, 25–28
minhāh, 25–26a
water, 26b
woman, effect on, 27–28
The Case, 29–30 (resumptive subscript framed by inverse inclusion)
outside suspicion, 29
husband’s suspicion, 30
[postscript, 311]
