The theology of the balaam oracles: a pagan diviner and the word of god

imprecation poets. Just as in Arabic where curses could come from men

possessed by a demon/divine being, so Balaam functions as an agent of

cursing through possession by a demon/divine being. Von Pakozdy refers to

the work of his teacher, Goldziher, who compared Balaam to the Old Arabic
¹ Von Pakozdy, "Theologische Redaktionsarbeit, " p. 166.

² Ibid.

117

was termed XXXXX, which would correspond to the Hebrew Myhlx wyx.^l

Von Pakozdy then develops the concept Myhlx wyx. For him

it means more than Gottesmann. He compares the term grammatically to the

term tvmlHh lfb of Genesis 37:19. Joseph is someone who is more than

just one who knew the technique of interpreting dreams. He is rather the

“owner of dreams,” the "possessor of dreams." So the Hebrew term wyx

Myhlx originally meant not simply the "man of God," that is, one who by

devout and submissive life was able to demonstrate that he belonged to the

true God; but rather one who was spirit endowed [Geitesbegabten]. That is,

he was one who trafficked with spirit beings. A parallel is adduced by our

author in I Samuel 9 where he judges that Samuel, in giving information for

money, was serving an "Elohim" other than the true God of Israel.²

The proper author of an incantation or a blessing or curse saying

was not the kahin in Arabic society or the Myhlx wyx in Hebrew society, but

the ‘ilahun or the Myhvlx itself. The "man of God" is a host, a bearer; the

‘ilahun or the Myhvlx is a companion or an attendant of the man of God.³

In both the Arabic higa' poem and the Hebrew masal there were

similar features. Both have power-laden sayings. Mockery and insult say-

ings were particularly for war times, prior to the employment of battles (cf.

118

Before proceeding further, von Pakozdy says that there is one

textual critical issue that he must discuss. He wishes to change the word

“Elohim” to "Yahweh" in Numbers 22:22 on the basis of LXX (Cod. Ambr. ) and

SP. He says that there are other shifts in the employment of the divine names

that he might like to make to advance his argument, but that these will not

be necessary for this thesis.²

The second division of his article presents his thesis as to the

meaning of the divine names in the Balaam story. His hypothesis is that the

use of the word "Elohim" is not of the Elohim of Israel, i. e., Yahweh--but

rather the enchantment demon of Balaam. The redactor may have had diverse

sources before him when he began his work, but of those sources he has

fashioned a unity with a powerful religious and prophetic spirit He turns

at this point to the demonstration.³

(1) Numbers 22:5-7. Balak calls Balaam in order to curse the

people of Israel through him. He was to use an irrevocable incantation,

a masal. No point is to be made against the supposed great distance of the

home of Balaam.⁴

119

may well be a technical term for incubation. The use of "Yahweh" in the mouth

of the soothsayer is deemed significant. The redactor may have used it in

order to make Balaam a true prophet. But another explanation, favored by our

author, is that Balaam used "Yahweh" on purpose, just as he might have used

the name of any other national deity. For it was on the basis of the call to the

deity of the people that his curse would be more potent. Balaam would not

have known that the god Yahweh was to be regarded any differently than any

other "god."¹ It may have been a spirit, it may have been Yahweh, who

warned Balaam not to go. We are not told. Perhaps Balaam thought it was Yahweh, or perhaps he lied. At any rate, Balaam uses the term "Yahweh.

Balak for Balaam to intercede. It seems that the text should be changed in

verse 18, according to our author, where the narrator lets Balaam call Yahweh

"my God." If this text is correct, then it must be taken as an example of

Balaam telling a lie, saying that he could traffic with Yahweh as with any

other spirit being. Finally the ‘^elohim of Balaam lets him take off against

Israel, and by that he steps out against the word of Yahweh. The conflict is

resolved with this explanation: There are two deities in view. Yahweh is

never changing. The other spirit being is in opposition to Yahweh.^2
l Ibid., pp. 169-70. ² Ibid., pp. 170-71.

120

will gain the victory? Will it be the spirit being, or will it be Yahweh?

Balaam begins to leave for Moab and follows after the ambassadors of Balak

along with his two attendants. Now it is in verse 22 that the change should

be made from Elohim to Yahweh, according to von Pakozdy. The one who is

angry in this passage is none other than the God of Israel. The episode of

the speaking ass is full of humor and irony. Von Pakozdy makes a comparison

with an example in the biography of Muhammad concerning a vision of a man

on a horse and a camel that spoke to the prophet. The intention of the

narrator of our story seems to imply that the animal of Balaam is a better

"seer" than his master.¹

The seer, the heathen professional revelation-agent, the sooth-

slayer, the "man of God," Balaam is unable to see the revelation of the true

God as long as his eyes are not opened. This Elohim is beyond his power.

Then the Angel of Yahweh orders that Balaam be subject to Him, in the same

words that the other spirit had ordered above. The one difference is that

the ‘^elohim of Balaam wanted obedience in behavior (22:20 emphasizes "you

are to do"). The true Elohim, on the contrary, wanted obedience in speaking

(22:35 emphasizes "you are to say"). Here is an essential distinction between

the heathen mantic and sorcery on the one hand, and Yahweh-prophecy on the

other hand. Balaam is terrified and wants to turn around. But he must go on
^l Ibid., pp. 171-72.

121

of the narrative grows.¹

cautious and insecure. He proceeds according to normal sorcery measures

in an attempt to see what will be done. The tension continues to mount.²

(6) Numbers 23:1-10. The sacrificial practice of Balaam is that

of magic and mantic. His acts are contrary to normative Hebrew prophecy.

The element of repetition is characteristic of magic. The narrator shows that

Balaam is trying to force God. But one cannot force God. The magical

repetition of the practice of sacrifice conforms to the practice of repetition

of prophetic oracles. These oracles are not a meaningless compilation from

diverse sources, they are fitted together into a climactic finish under the

hand of the redactor.³

Then von Pakozdy notes that Balaam hoped for an encounter with

his ‘^elohim but Yahweh stepped in between them. Balaam calls upon his

spirit and says that he has done all according to cultus. At that moment,

Yahweh steps between them and "fixes" his word in Balaam's mind. Yahweh's

word is an irresistible word [ein "verbum irresistibile"]. This is a word

that even Balaam cannot oppose. Balaam must mediate this word to Balak,

What he delivers is a "mockery-sorcery-oracle" ["Spottzauberspruch"].^4
l Ibid., pp. 172-73. ² Ibid., p. 173.

³ Ibid. ⁴ Ibid., pp. 173-74.

122

could speak no other word than that which he has been forced. Balak does

not want to abandon the attempt to curse Israel. So in a heathen manner he

tries for better results by changing the cultic place. One clearly sees in

this the essence of the heathen religion. Balaam wants to go out after the

same ceremonies for an encounter with his spirit. But now the narrator lets

Yahweh fall between immediately. Balaam must return again to Balak with

Yahweh's word.¹

The name Yahweh in the mouth of Balak in this instance is

significant The redactor wants to show by this expression that Balak has

begun to suspect that Balaam is under a new and unfamiliar power. The

oracle that comes confirms this interpretation, for it emphasizes that Yahweh

does not alter any of his purposes. God tolerates no sorcery in or against

Israel. One can submit to him; one cannot hinder him. Balak then wishes

that Balaam would not bless at all, when he is unable to curse Israel. But

nothing helps. Balaam is subject to the word of Yahweh. Balak entices

Balaam to repeat his action. Balaam moves on.²

(8) Numbers 23:27-24:11. Balak now asks Balaam to call up

his own ‘^elohim. Perhaps there is some way to resist Yahweh. In this the

narrator shows in a masterful manner the precariousness and the oscillating

rambling of heathen men. After the repetition of the sacrifice and of the
^l Ibid., p. 174. ² Ibid.

123

pleasure of Yahweh to bless Israel. Hence, this time he says he will not go

after the curse oracles as before, but lifts his eyes for the reception of a

vision. At this point the spirit of prophecy comes over the mantic. This

Spirit is the Spirit of Yahweh. Balak, finally furious, expels Balaam. He

wishes to avoid further calamity.¹

away. He delivers another masal. We do not discover how he has received

this masal. This oracle seems to be an interpretation or a continuation of

that given in 24:3-9. It is not to be thought of as a doublet. The names of

God from the patriarchal period are supplemented further. It lacks the use

of Elohim entirely. The oracles are interpreted progressively from the situa-

tion of the narration.² Our author then suggests that Balaam is avoiding the

use of Elohim in the oracles, as this would only lead to confusion as to the

manner.

of the narrator. He says that he has made a unity out of diverse materials,

and that this unity is in the spirit of the prophetic religion. Moreover, the

employment of the designations for deity has been consistent, and may not

be used for source division.

¹ Ibid., p. 175. ² Ibid. ³ Ibid., p. 176.

124

Our reaction in brief is a mixture of astonishment and amazement

This would appear to be the most original treatment of the Balaam oracles. The

ingenuity of the author is manifest as are his powers of observation and dis-

cernment. His explanation of the word Elohim is forced, it would appear,

but he has presented a consistent and cohesive picture.

One of the constant refrains throughout the article is the insis-

tence of von Pakozdy upon the observable unity of the entire narrative. He

terms it a theological unity, a preaching unity, an undivided unity, and the

like. As a scholar within the critical camp, he has to say that the observed

unity is "manufactured" by a redactor out of the putative sources. But he

still insists that the passage is a unity and that the normal literary-analytical procedures will not reveal the sources. It is this insistence that is important

for our purposes. He shows that the "assured results" of Wellhausen,

Mowinckel, et al., are less than assured.

As for his central thesis concerning a demon being referred to

by the term ‘^elohim, we would demur without stronger evidence from com-

parative passages. Nevertheless, von Pakozdy does seem to have pointed

in the right direction. Balaam seems to be a pagan who tries to use Yahweh

as he was accustomed to use other deities. His surprise that he is unable

to manipulate God is striking. His remarks concerning the fact that Israel

is unlike other nations are also important in this regard.

125

experience or understanding. He may have believed that Yahweh, as the

other (supposed) deities of the ancient Near East, was but a tribal or local

god. But in this instance Balaam finds that nothing goes according to plan.

The events outrace him, the significance of what is happening escapes him.

Finally, he is as helpless as the stunned and furious Balak. Yahweh is like

no other; He is incomparable! Von Pakozdy seems to have pointed the

direction out for a theological understanding of our passage.

The thesis concerning '^elohim by von Pakozdy will not be

adopted in the present paper, but the general approach of the study does

seem to have apologetic value. Herein a member of the critical school has

shown the story ("as it is") to be a unity with dramatic progression and

a building tension, culminating in a stunning climax. Hence, this article

may be used for its positive contribution, just as one may use the more well-

known study by Albright for its positive contribution. The present writer

will develop the employment of the designations for deity within the Balaam

corpus under the proper heading in the chapter on theology, below.²
The Reconstruction by Eissfeldt

Otto Eissfeldt has contributed two major articles on the subject

of the Balaam oracles. The first was writtin in 1939 and was titled, "Die

Komposition der Bileam-Erzahlung."¹ The second was written in 1961 and

126

years separate the two articles, the second has been chosen as the proper

one to summnarize, as it reflects Eissfeldt's later thinking on the subject.

In this article Eissfeldt relates two sections along literary-

analytical lines, giving special attention to the attitudes displayed in the

sections relative to the themes of political power and efficient prosperity.

These sections are Exodus 19-34 and Numbers 22-24. He maintains that in

both of these pericopes there may be seen two distinct attitudes to the above

named elements or themes.

On the one hand, he argues, there are those sections in which

power and prosperity are given unlimited affirmation. On the other hand,

there are sections in which these elements are approached with a certain

amount of caution. He notes that he is building upon the normal critically

established lines of analysis of these sections of the Pentateuch, but that

his manner of approach is new. Further, he suggests that this approach will

add to the certainty of the results of critical study. In the Numbers section

he limits his attention to the two pairs of poems, as he feels that the anti-

thesis in attitude is to be seen more clearly in them than in the narrative

encasing the poems.
¹ Otto Eissfeldt, "Sinai-Erzahlung and Bileam-Spruche, " HUCA,

XXXII (1961), 179-90.

127

Eissfeldt turns first to what he reasons to be the J sections of

34:1-11, 14-27; 33:1-3, 23:22-31. He reorders the elements in a way more

conducive to good sense, points to a J decalogue, and shows that the J sec-

firms have a distinct view of power and prosperity.¹

The author then turns to the E sections of Exodus 19-34. He

adduces that this block contains Exodus 19:2-3 (in part), 3-19; 20:2-17; 24:

3-8. In this section there is the E decalogue, a list with additions, but

these do not obscure the number ten so much as do the additions to the deca-

logue of J in chapter 34. The additions in each list, however, may have

changed or even distorted the original wording of the Ten Words. He then

gives his reconstruction of the E decalogue in 20:1-17.

Eissfeldt speaks of Moses receiving the command from Yahweh

to ascend to the mountain in order to receive the stone tablets on which

were written the ten commandments. He spends forty days and nights on

the mountain and then receives the tables inscribed by the very hand of

God. This is recorded in the E section, 24:12-18 and 31:18. During the

time Moses was on the mountain. Aaron had manufactured an image of a

young steer, due to the pressure of the people. Moses came down and

shattered the tablets, destroyed the image, presented to God an atonement

for the people, but received the answer that the punishment must strike

128

Exodus 32:1-34 (in part); 33:5-11; and 23:20-33 (in part).¹

Then our author moves to a survey of Numbers 22-24, stating

that the poems without the narrative will be surveyed. He translates the

J poems in chapter 24 and then the E poems in chapter 23, giving some trans-

lations which reveal some reworking of the structure of the poems.²

Having presented in outline the two bodies of material, the

author begins to make his comparisons. "One needs only to compare," he

"the Sinai-Narration of J given in section I with the Balaam oracles

imparted in section III in order to recognize immediately that the same spirit

prevails here."³ In both he finds a joyful acceptance of the goals of Israel's

political power and its landed property. The designation of Canaan as the

land of promise and the land that flows with milk and honey (Exod. 33:1-3),

and the determination of the expansion of the Israelite possession from the

Reed Sea to the Sea of the Philistines from the River on (Exod. 23:31), in

the J portion of the Sinai-Narration--are said to correspond to the Balaam

oracles of J in the lofty and inspired description of the fixed land of Israel

(Nun.. 24:4-9).⁴ He points as well to the references to the borders of the

first two kings of Israel, the conqueror of the Amalekite king Agag, and

David, the vanquisher of Moab, Amnon, and Edom (Num. 24:15-19).

To the appreciation of the offering cultus which stands in the
¹ Ibid., pp. 182-85. ² Ibid., 186-88.

³ Ibid., p. 188. ⁴ Ibid.

129

Balaam oracles of J. On the other hand, the Balaam oracles of E exhibit

with the Horeb-narrative of E an entirely noteworthy relationship. Both are

said to stance in an explicit or tacit contrast to the inspired ideals of the

Sinai-narrative and the J oracles of Balaam.

The Horeb-narrative of E regards the land of Canaan as the gift

of God for Israel (Ex. 23:20), but his joy is surely dampened. Burdened with

severe offense, whose punishment is yet outstanding, Israel removes to

Canaan. Without Israel's sin, she might have remained on Horeb with her

God (Ex. 19:4). So that the departure from there means more than just taking

possession of the land designated by God. It also means that there was a

renunciation of abiding in the immediate presence of God on Horeb. So it

is no accident that the text of the E oracles of Balaam have almost no word

regarding the essential land property of Israel.

In the E Horeb narration and in the E Balaam oracles there is

knowledge of the help of God in driving away the former inhabitants of Canaan

(Ex. 23:28; Num. 23:10). But such power is no end in itself. Israel was to

make it possible that of all other peoples, they might become a realm of

priests and a holy people (Ex. 19:5). They were to become a people that

lives separated from the nations, not reckoned among them (Num. 23:9).

Israel is to be God's own possession among the peoples (Ex. 19:5), which

therefore no divination and no sorcery can hold or withstand. Hence, E

130

mentions, in contrast to J, nothing in general of the kings of Israel. Rather,

is her God, that God is with the nation, and that the rejoicing over the

king, Yahweh, is with the nation (Num. 23:21). Finally, in E the covenant

conclusion between God and man is united on the mount with all manner of

cultic actions.

In terms of the two decalogues, the following distinctions are

made by Eissfeldt. The J decalogue had for the larger part of its contents,

commands and prohibitions which refer to the sacrificial cult (Ex. 34). The

E decalogue speaks of the prohibition of the service to other gods, and of

the manufacture of an image of God. Further, the sabbath has become a

bit questionable in this viewpoint, having become merely a day of rest (Ex.

20).

relationships of the decalogues of E and J is maintained by Eissfeldt. The

decalogue of Exodus 20 is said to relate to that of Exodus 34 "as Amos to

his contemporaries.”¹ Just as in Exodus 19-34 there are two strands or