“... In verse 10 (and the declaration in v. 7), only the custodian is possibly culpable. Nevertheless, as chapter 9 has explained, all of the declarations in verses 7, 8, and 10 involve a test of veracity. In verse 8, the question as to whose declaration is valid is left open when it says that “the God will convict” one of the parties. Verse 10 is written from the default perspective that the oath is proved true. Therefore, the law says that the custodian need not recompense the loss. This optimistic default perspective can be attributed to the use of LH, which portrays the oath as exculpatory. The foregoing considerations indicate that the oath in verse 10, including the mention of the divine name, is not a later addition.13 The irregularities in CC’s text at this point, which might be taken as a sign of secondariness, are due to CC’s revision of the bare description of judicial declaration in LH 266 to approximate the wording of verse 7 and to provide explicit correlation with the theme of the pronouncement of the divine name. This description of a judicial oath is the last of the various casuistic laws that implicitly or explicitly entail judicial declarations in connection with the deity (cf. 21:13–14; 22:7, 8). Perhaps, therefore, for climactic emphasis, the divine name is explicitly mentioned. ...”