The ordeal of the bitter water
- Daniel Oltean
- Jul 28
- 5 min read
Updated: Sep 14
According to Jewish tradition, the husband who suspected his wife of adultery brought her to the Temple in Jerusalem, where she had to endure the ordeal of the bitter water. The test consisted of drinking a mixture of water and dust that was supposed to cause obvious signs of pain in the guilty woman and have no effect on the innocent. In contrast, the Christian tradition held a different belief; the same mixture of water and dust collected from holy places could heal those who consumed it.
The Jewish custom
According to the Book of Numbers, the woman presumed to be guilty but not yet proven had to drink water mixed with dust collected from the tabernacle, after listening to the maledictions uttered by the priest. The effects of this water were immediate, and the woman received the verdict accordingly:
If she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain […], and the woman shall become an execration among her people. But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, then she will be cleared of guilt. [1]
More precise explanations of the drinking potion are found in the rabbinic commentaries included in the Mishnah (ca. 3rd c.): the mixture contained either half a log (0.15 l) or a quarter of a log (0.075 l) of water and enough dust to be seen floating on the water. [2] Even with these explanations, the proportions of water and dust seemed to remain at the discretion of the rabbi, because the authors of the Jerusalem Talmud (4th/5th c.), who develop the commentaries of the Mishnah, wonder again about this subject. According to them, the water had to maintain its transparent appearance and acquire, at the same time, the appearance of ink, [3] which does not help much in clarifying the matter. In any case, the mixture had a concentration high enough to cause visible effects. In the case of guilt, the woman’s face became livid, her eyes seemed to bulge out of her head, and her veins swelled. The assistants shouted to take her away, “so that she would not defile the court” of the Temple, [4] a sign that a miscarriage or even death could take place.
According to the apocryphal Gospel of James (CANT 50), when the Virgin Mary’s pregnancy became public, she was taken to the Temple with Joseph. Accused of having violated the Law and consummated the marriage, Mary submitted to the ordeal of the bitter water, but the test proved her innocence. Unusually, Joseph had to undergo the same trial; therefore, in this context, he does not play the role of the accusing husband, but that of the potential culprit. [5] The image of the Virgin Mary’s ordeal is depicted, among others, on the ivory chair of Maximian, Bishop of Ravenna (543-553) under Byzantine rule [6] and on several ivory plaques and gospel covers dating from the same period. [7]
A miraculous treatment
While Jewish tradition indirectly suggested that mixtures of water and dust were generally dangerous to health, Christians developed a different custom. Dust collected from holy places was not only kept as a talisman, but also recommended as a drug. Without doubt, the idea that consuming dust diluted in water or wine could have therapeutic effects originally belonged to the pilgrimage centers themselves.
Several hagiographic texts attest to this bizarre custom in both the East and the West. According to the Life of Simeon Stylites the Elder, the saint ordered the father of a sick child to give him water to drink with dust collected from around the stylite’s column. [8] In the Life of Simeon Stylites the Younger, a man was cured after dipping both the saint’s hair and dust from his monastery into water and then drinking it. [9] According to Gregory of Tours, dust from the tomb of Saint Martin of Tours, diluted in water or wine, also produced cures. [10]
The most impressive miracle, it was said, took place at Ephesus, at the tomb of the Apostle John, where a fine, white dust, described as resembling either sand or flour, was offered as a remedy to pilgrims. According to a local tradition, during the annual feast of John (May 8), this “manna” gushed forth like a spring. [11] According to a 14th-century Catalan chronicler, the dust from Ephesus had precise prescriptions; anyone with a fever should drink the manna with water and he “will never have fever again,” while a woman who cannot give birth should drink it with wine and she “will be delivered at once.” [12] In fact, the miracle of the manna was to compensate for the absence of the relics of John, of whom it was not known exactly whether he was asleep, taken up to heaven, or resurrected.
The miraculous appearance of the manna was celebrated on May 8, not on September 26, the calendar day dedicated to the death of the Apostle John. According to the Byzantine Synaxarion, the former date celebrated “the ceremony of the rosalia and the harvest of the manna” (ὁ ροδισμὸς καὶ ἡ τρύγησις τοῦ μάννα). [13] The rosalia were ancient religious festivals, usually celebrated in May, which consisted of offerings of roses on the tombs of ancestors. It appears that in Ephesus, the Christians replaced the pagan festival of roses with the festival of the miraculous manna. Tastes and colors are not to be discussed, but this change made them forget the scent of roses, which could have somewhat softened the bitter taste of the dust.
[1] Num. 5,27-28.
[2] Mishna, Sotah, §2.2, in Le Talmud de Jérusalem, vol. 6, trans. M. Schwab, Paris, 1883, p. 245, https://archive.org/details/letalmuddejrus6v7schw/page/245/mode/1up?view=theater.
[3] Talmud de Jérusalem, Sotah, §2.2, p. 247. According to the late commentaries of Moses Maimonides (1138-1204), mugwort was also added, so that the water became bitter (Moshe ben Maimon, Mishneh Torah, Sotah, §3.10, trans. E. Touger, https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960640/jewish/Sotah-Chapter-Three.htm).
[4] Mishna, Sotah, §2.2, in Talmud de Jérusalem, p. 259.
[5] Gospel of James, §15-16, trans. A. Frey, in F. Bovon – P. Geoltrain (ed.), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens, vol. 1, Paris, 1997, p. 95-97. The episode is also included in the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (CANT 51), §12, trans. J. Gijsel, in Bovon – Geoltrain (ed.), Écrits apocryphes chrétiens, vol. 1, p. 130-132. CANT refers to Clavis Apocryphorum Novi Testamenti.
[6] See D. R. Cartlidge – J. K. Elliott, Art and the Christian Apocrypha, London, 2001, p. 85-87; M. Belch, Chair of Maximinianus, e-Clavis: Christian Apocrypha, https://www.nasscal.com/materiae-apocryphorum/chair-of-maximianus.
[7] Ivory plaque preserved in Paris, Musée du Louvre (6th c., Stroganoff collection), https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl010112504; ivory gospel covers preserved in Erevan, Matenadaran (6th c., Gospel of Etchmiadzin), https://www.nasscal.com/materiae-apocryphorum/echmiadzin-gospels-covers.
[8] Syriac Life of Simeon Stylite the Elder, §91, in R. Doran (trans.), The Lives of Simeon Stylites (Cistercian Studies Series, 112), Kalamazoo (MI), 1992, p. 169. See also H. Lietzmann (ed.), Das Leben des Heiligen Symeon Stylites (Texte und Untersuchungen, 32.4), Leipzig, 1908, p. 99 (§37, trans. H. Hilgenfeld).
[9] P. Van Den Ven (ed. and trans.), Vie de Syméon Stylite le Jeune (BHG 1689), §232 (Subsidia Hagiographica, 32), Brussells, 1962-1970, vol. 2, p. 234.
[10] Grégoire de Tours, Les miracles de saint Martin, §2.1, trans. L. Pietri (Sources chrétiennes, 635), Paris, 2023, p. 188-189; §2.51-52, p. 266-269.
[11] Pseudo-John Chrysostomos, Encomium of John the Theologian (CANT 224), §4, in É. Junod – J.-D. Kaestli (ed.), Acta Iohannis (Corpus Christianorum Series Apocryphorum, 1-2), Turnhout, 1983, p. 415.9-12, trans. p. 408, n. 2.
[12] The Chronicle of Muntaner, §206, trans. A. K. Goodenough, London, 1920-1921, vol. 2, p. 500. See A. Papaconstantinou, La manne de saint Jean. À propos d’un ensemble de cuillers inscrites, in Revue des études byzantines, 59 (2001), p. 239-246, here 245, https://www.persee.fr/doc/rebyz_0766-5598_2001_num_59_1_2246; A. Halushak, Ampullae from Shrine of John, e-Clavis: Christian Apocrypha, https://www.nasscal.com/materiae-apocryphorum/ampullae-from-shrine-of-john.
[13] H. Delehaye (ed.), Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, Acta Sanctorum Propylaeum Novembris, Brussells, 1902, col. 663.10-11.
