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

There is no mention of Balaam by name in the Qur'an, but there

have been attempts to see him within those pages. Albright, writing in 1915,

summarized an early position, since discarded, that Salaam enters the Qur'an

under the name Logman, a pre-Islamic prophet:

In 1850 Joseph Derenbourg, in his Fables de Loqman le Sage,

following the suggestion of Ewald and Rodiger, identified the pre-

Islamic prophet, Logma n, mentioned in the thirty-first sura of the

Quran, with Balaam. Loqman seems to be a translation of Balaam,

as both Heb. bala^c and Arab. laqama mean to swallow.²

Other scholars have adduced an inference to Balaam in Sura 7,

line-1- 175-177:

Relate to them the story

Of the men to whom

We sent Our Signs,

But he passed them by:

So Satan followed him up,

And he went astray.

such an equation. For a succinct summary of the manner of compilation of the

Talmud (ca. A. D. 100-500), see Gleason L Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old

Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1964), pp. 55-56.

² William Foxwell Albright, "The Home of Balaam, " JAOS, XXV

(1915) 386. Albright discards this concept in the article cited; few moderns

to follow the view.

52

If it had been Our Will,

With Our Signs; but he

Inclined to the earth,

And followed his own vain desires.

Of a dog: if you attack

Him, he lolls out his tongue,

Or if you leave him alone,

He (still) lolls out his tongue.

That is the similitude

Of those who reject Our Signs;

So relate the story;

Perchance they may reflect.

Evil as an example are

People who reject Our Signs

And wrong their own souls.¹

Abdullah Yusuf Ali comments on this passage as it may or may

not relate to Balaam in. the following way:

ad, by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (Washington, D. C.: Khalil Al-Rawaf, 1946), pp. 394-

95. It may be noted respecting this line that we have an exceptionally fine

example of the use of the Arabic word XXXX meaning "similitude, likeness, com-

parison." The line begins XXXXX XXXXX XXXX, "his comparison is like

the comparison of a dog. " this may be related to the discussion of the Hebrew

word for "parable, proverb, comparison, " lwm, which is used for the

Oracles of Balaam [See chapter V of the present paper.] Ali writes, respecting

the Comparison of the dog: "The dog, especially in the hot weather, lolls out

its tongue, whether he is attacked and pursued and is tired, or he is left alone.

It is a part of his nature to slobber. So with the man who rejects God. Whether

he is warned or left alone, he continues to throw out his dirty saliva. The

injury he will do will be to his own soul. But there may be infection in his

evil example. So we must protect others. And we must never give up hope of

our amendment. So we must continue to warn him and make him think. "

Ibid., p. 395, n. on line 176. See below, p. 244.

53

Commentators differ whether this story or parable refers to a

seer, who was called out by Israel's enemies to curse Israel, but

who blessed Israel instead, (Num. xxii., xxiii., xxiv.) is quite

different. It is better to take the parable in a general sense. There

are men of talents and position, to whom great opportunities of

spiritual insight come, but they perversely pass them by. Satan

sees his opportunity and catches them up. Instead of rising higher

in the spiritual world, their selfish and worldly desires and ambitions

pull them down, and they are lost.¹

Haim Z'ew Hirschberg adds, however, that it is the general

Opinion of Qur'anic scholars that the inference in the passage at hand is to

Balaam. He mentions, however, that some commentators take the reference

to be to Umayya ibn ^cAbd al-^cAziz, a contemporary of Muhammad, and a

competitor as a prophet. Other examples of interpretation are given by him

as well.² We may conclude that if this sura is indeed a reference to Balaam,

it depicts him in a negative light, as an example and warning to others.

It has been the purpose of this chapter to set the stage for further

work in the Balaam narrative by examining the use made of the material in the

pre-critical era. We began with a survey of the background of the narrative

as it stands in the Book of Numbers. This was followed by a summary of the

narrative itself, for orientation into the subject. Then we moved into the use

54

of the Balaam oracles in early Jewish tradition. It was seen that the oracles,

at Qumran used Numbers 24:17 at least three times in an eschatological and

Messianic sense in their writings. The eschatological and Messianic use

of this verse was also seen in the events surrounding the Second Roman War

of 132 A. D., respecting the person of Bar Kochba.

Then we turned briefly to the early Church Fathers and noted

that Justin the Martyr and Athanasius the Great both employed the "Star"

passage of Numbers 24 in a Messianic sense as well, but they applied it

to the true Messiah rather than to a lie.

A survey was made of references to Balaam in the Talmud and

it was demonstrated that Jewish opinion of Balaam is negative without exception.

"Balaam, the wicked" is the refrain throughout the Talmud respecting this

soothsayer.

Finally, we looked at one passage that may refer to Balaam

in the Qur’an (Sura 7). If this passage does refer to Balaam, it casts him

in a very negative light. There is dispute regarding the interpretation of the

sage as representing Balaam, however.

With this brief survey of the employment of the Balaam materials

in the pre-critical era, we may now turn to the subject, Balaam in modern

scholarship.

CHAPTER III

A CRITICAL STUDY

BALAAM IN MODERN SCHOLARSHIP
Introduction

In the introductory chapter it was stated that one of the reasons

for the study of the Balaam oracles is the fact that this section of the Old

Testament impinges on major critical issues in Old Testament scholarship.

As a matter of fact, the Balaam section has become something of a cause

celebre, a veritible test case, for many of the critical theories in Old Testa-

ment studies. This point is aptly made by von Pakozdy in the following

remark:

critical Old Testament scholarship mostly as a compilation of different

fragments of different times with many editorial layers and additions.

They are used by many research scholars as a demonstrative example

for the accuracy of the Documentary Hypothesis and for the separation

of different sources.¹

in der Bileam-Perikope (Num 22-24)," Von Ugarit nach Qumran, ed. Otto

Eissfeldt (Berlin: Verlag Alfred Topelmann, 1958), p. 161. His words are:

“Die Bileam-Perikope Num 22-24 . . . wird von der historisch-kritischen

alttestarrentlichcn Wissenschaft meist als eine Kompilation von verschiedenen

Stucken aus verschiedenen Zeiten mit vielen redaktionellen Schichten und

Zutater angesehen. Sie wind von vielen Forschern als demonstratives Beispiel

fur die Richtigheit der Urkundenhypothese and fur das Trennen der verschiedenen

Quellen gebraucht."

56

Since our section is regarded by modern scholarship in this

modern critical studies. The present writer has found few treatments of the

Balaam narrative in which a critical stance was not taken. It has indeed

been used "als demonstratives Beispiel fur die Richtigkeit der Urkundenhypo-

these." It is felt by the present writer that a thorough presentation of several

representative treatments of the Balaam section is important for our study. In

this manner we will appreciate more readily the problems involved in the

presentation of critical issues from a positive viewpoint, the substance of

chapter IV of the present paper. But in addition to that factor, we may also

see that the critical position vis-a-vis the Balaam oracles is flawed through-

out with improper methodology. If our section is the test case for literary

analysis, a survey in some depth of critical writing on the passage is cer-

tainly in order.

A large number of articles might have been chosen for this sur-

vey, as may be indicated by a perusal of the bibliography of the present

study. Rather than attempt to summarize every approach available, and have

to deal with each only briefly, it was decided to choose major studies that

might represent the totality. Those studies so selected include the work

of Wellhausen, Lohr, Mowinckel, Burrows, Albright, von Pakozdy, and Eiss-

feldt. Some interaction and evaluative comments will be made within the

body of this chapter, but the systematized positive presentation of critical

57

issues will be reserved for chapter IV.

Critical orthodoxy respecting Numbers 22-24 was formulated by

Julius Wellhausen in his major work, Die Composition des Hexateuchs, the

third edition of which appeared in 1899.¹ Hence, it seems proper to begin

the study of Balaam in critical scholarship with a survey of the reconstruction

of the narrative developed by Wellhausen, the popularizer of the Documentary

Hypothesis.

A convenient summary of Wellhausen's reconstruction of the

narrative is presented by Bewer in an article written in 1905.² In this account

there is the apportioning of elements of the narrative to two principal sources,

“J” (the Yahwist), and "E" (the Elohist).
^l Albright states, "Most critics follow Wellhausen in the main,

and assign the pericope, including the poems, to JE, though few are perhaps

as prudent as he was. Even so, at the end of his treatment he was forced to

say: 'Man kommt uber Fragen and Zweifeil nicht hinaus."' William Foxwell

Albright citing Wellhausen's Die Composition des Hexateuchs, p. 352, "The

Oracles of Balaam, " JBL, LXIII (1944), 207. Comparison may be made to S.

R. Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, "International

Theological Library," (9th ed.; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1899),

pp. 66-67. An early attack on the critical position in its formative period was

published by the Bishop of Ostrojsk in Russia, the Very Rev. Seraphim. This

book dealt with critical issues, cultural issues, and exegetical commentary.

The Soothsayer Balaam (London: Rivingtons, 1900). This work has been una-

vailable to the present writer. A review by A. B. Davidson appeared in ET,

all (1900-1901), pp. 329-30.

² Julius A. Bewer, "The Literary Problems of the Balaam Story

in Numbers Chapters 22-24, " AJT, IX (1905), 238-40.

58

According to J the ambassadors from Balak come to Balaam with

insisting that he must be dependent on the will of Yahweh in every-

thing (Num. 22:17-18). He lets the ambassadors go back, and then tells them

that he would come if Yahweh should command him to do so--and then he

starts without consulting Yahweh. In this he is enticed by the promised hono-

rarium.

vokes the anger of Yahweh. The Angel of Yahweh confronts him on the way

and commands him to return home. Balak, who is very disappointed that

Balaam has not arrived, decides to go to meet Balaam at the latter's home

personally to entreat him to reconsider his decision. This latter interpre-

tation is based on Wellhausen's understanding of the words in verse 37, "Why

did you not come to me?" as implying that Balak has gone to meet Balaam,

He reasons that if the two are together, and Balaam did not go to meet Balak--

"what in the world can we infer but that Balak has gone to Balaam? It is a

case of Mohammed's going to the mountain."¹

The answer of Numbers 22:38 is not the proper response to the

question of verse 37, as postulated by Wellhausen; hence the original con-

nection is lost, But Balaam does finally go with Balak and J has recorded

his oracles as we find them in chapter 24.

59

Now for E as it is presented by the Wellhausen scheme. When

the night that he might be able to inquire of Yahweh. Yahweh appears to him

and commands him regarding two issues: (1) he was not to go with the men,

and (2) he was not to curse Israel. Balak then sends another group of mes-

senders with more honor and promises than the former group. Again, Balaam

consults with Yahweh and this time is given permission to go, but is still

told not to curse Israel. E does not have the story of the speaking ass, and

is thus quite consistent. E has recorded the oracles of Balaam as they are

preserved in Numbers 23.

Bewer summarizes the results as they relate to chapter 22:

With this we have the present status of the question before us,

and we may at once say that several things appear to be clearly made

out: (1) that the story of Balaam and his ass (vss. 22ff.) is not the

original continuation of the preceding story as we have it in vss. 2-21;

(2) that of vss. 2-21 we have a composite narrative resulting from a

combination of J and E; (3) that vss. 22-34 belong to the document J,

for we have in them several of J's characteristic marks, as has been

pointed out again and again; [ such as the theophany in broad day-

light, the speaking ass (parallel to the speaking serpent, J)] ; (4) that

there is a strong presumption for the supposition that the beginning

of the ass story is still preserved somewhere in the introductory

verses (2ff.).¹

Bewer discusses Wellhausen's approach to the problematic

introductory section, Numbers 22:2-7, as demonstrating apparent marks of

composition. There is first of all the doublet in verse 3 in which nothing new
¹ Ibid. , p. 240.

60

is added. This is followed by the irrelevance of verse 4b after verse 2, and

clause placing it on the Euphrates, the other in 'the land of the children of

Ammon’ (so read with G).”¹

From these several points, Bewer summarizes:

Since vs. 2 refers back to 21:21ff. (E), it must come from E; one-half

of vs. 3 must also come from E, since the other comes from J. As in

4b Balak is introduced anew, it must come from J, for E has him already

in vs. 2. One of the two references to Balaam's home in vs. 5 belongs

to E, most probably the one that makes him come from Pethor on the

Euphrates, for according to vss. 22ff. we have the impression that he

does not come from so far in J.²

In the remainder of the article Bewer attempted to modify what

he felt to be some of the more hypothetical elements of Wellhausen's position.

But in doing so, the then professor of Union Theological Seminary in New

York showed himself to be well-established in the Wellhausen school of

approach.

It was the established critical position from the time of Well-

hausen to regard the Balaam narrative in the manner described. Although the

bulk of the Book of Numbers was allotted to the Priestly writer, the Balaam

narrative was said to have come from J and E. Both J and E had elements of

the story as recorded in chapter 22. Further, both sources had two main

oracles. The oracles of chapter 23 belong to E, those of chapter 24 belong

61

to].

in the leading critical commentaries. Three such commentaries on the Book

of Numbers were published in 1903 (by Baentsch, Gray and Holzinger), each

demonstrating full allegiance to Welihausen.¹ One scholar who did attack

the critical orthodoxy respecting Numbers 22 was E. F. Sutcliffe. In articles

written in 1926 and 1937,² he attempted to demonstrate the internal unity of

Numbers 22 as well as the inconsistency of the critical approach. His

articles seem to have had little impact, however, if one may judge from the

relative lack of reference to them in subsequent critical literature on the

Balaam oracles. Wellhausen's approach was established for at least a gen-

eration.
The Reconstruction of Lohr

In the 1927 issue of the journal Archiv fur Orient-Forschung,

there appeared an article by Max Lohr of Konigsberg, Prussia, on Balaam.^3
1 Compare Bruno Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri, "Hand- it

kommentar zum Alten Testament," ed. W. Nowack (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck

und Ruprecht, 1903); George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commen-tary on Numbers, ICC (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1903); H. Hol-

zinger, Numeri, "Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament, " ed. Karl

Marti (Tubingen and Leipzig: Verlag von J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1903).

² E. F. Sutcliffe, "De Unitate Litteraria Num. XXII, " Biblica,

VII (1926), 3-39; idem, "A Note on Numbers XXII," Biblica, XVIII (1937), 439-

42.

³ Max Lohr, "Bileam, Num 22, 2--24, 25, "AOF, IV (1927), 85-89.

62

This article was an appeal for a reexamination of the standard literary-

zinger, Baentsch and Gray. The approach was at times a bit sarcastic and

cutting. Lohr begins, "First a word concerning the literary-critical handling--

better mishandling--of our text."¹ At another point he refers to a view of

Wellhausen with disapproval, terming it "incorrect exegesis, such as appears

often with Wellhausen."²

Lohr states that he is suspicious of the minute analysis of the literary

critic. Further, he is not impressed by the labor of the form critics of his

day. He says that he does not agree with the commentators of the critical

position, that it is "indisputable" that 22:4b is an indicator of sources when

compared with 22:2. The one case of doublets that he does find in chapter

22 is in verse 3, respecting the two words for "fear." But he feels this one

example to be slim basis for the assumption of two sources.³

Lohr does not agree with that type of criticism that would look for

sources based on the alternation of words for "messengers. " He rather

maintains that the narrator takes pleasure in the changes of expression. He

cites other examples of parasynonymous expressions, and says that one may

not build so assuredly upon this type of argument.⁴

Next, Lohr turns to the employment of the divine names in the
¹ Ibid., p. 85. ² Ibid., p. 87.

³ Ibid., p. 86. ⁴ Ibid.

63

MT and the LXX versions of the Balaam materials. In view of the many

or an Elohistic source.^l Further, as to the remarks of Holzinger and Baentsch

to the effect that the editing of the section is "very skillful," or "excellent,"

he asks why the section may not be read with good will as a unity apart from

editing.²

Then, having argued against the standard presentations of his

day, Lahr begins his own presentation of the material. He states that in

actuality Numbers 22:2-21+36-41; 23:1-24; 24:10-14a; 25--is essentially

a uniform presentation which he prefers to term the oracle history [die Spruch-

Geschichte], to differentiate it from the donkey narrative in 22:22-35. He

does admit that when the latter section was added to the former, there may

have been some alteration in the beginning verses of chapter 22.³

Two items are characteristic in 22:4-21 in Lohr's view: (1) the

curse of Balaam is supposed to weaken the Israelites in order that Balak can

attack them successfully (22:6, 11), and (2) Balaam can say only that which

the deity inspires (22:20, 38; 23:12, 26; 24:12f. ).⁴ Further, Lohr agrees

with other commentators who see 22:21 connecting directly to 22:36. Balak

goes to the city of Moab to meet Balaam, which lies on the border of the

region. The first relative clause in verse 36 is a gloss, serving to connect

64

the added section of the donkey episode. Lohr is quite strong in his opposition

Balak himself sought out Balaam in the home town of the prophet.¹

In terms of the oracles proper, Lohr regards only 22:41; 23:1-24;

24:10-14a; 25, as part of the original execration material. While this is less

than the total corpus as we now have it in the Book of Numbers, it is more

than that allowed by many critics. He does not regard 23:7-10 and 18-24

as blessings in the strict sense, but rather statements concerning Israel's

present manner, number, and strength. Further, he does not regard the oracles

of Balaam as spoken as against a concrete goal, so that the object is there-