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

fore affected as from an arrow.²

As to the origin of the Balaam material, Lohr presumes that the

basis for our text was a higa' document which experienced strong modifications

to the glory of the God of Israel. A higa’ document would refer to a prophetic

announcement of an ancient Arabic pattern. For Balaam, the worshipper of

Yahweh, Yahweh is the active divine being, not just any demon available to

Balaam. The gap between the old Arabic literature (the higa’) and the Balaam

narrative as we now find it, thus becomes clear. It is a higa' document that

has undergone considerable modification.³

Hence, the oracles, namely 23:7-10 and 18-24, contain expressions
¹ Ibid. ² Ibid. ³ Ibid.

65

of the glory of Israel in the past, with close association of political and

24 are probably derived, according to the context, from the Golden Age of

Israel's history, about the time of the first three kings. When the supposed

original higa’ document was modified, however, nothing more can be said.¹

Then Lohr turns to the issue of the donkey episode. This is

taken to be an independent narrative. The sudden change of mind on the

part of the Deity in 22:22-ff. is striking, when compared with verse 20. Also,

the repeated introduction of the donkey in verse 22 (after the initial intro-

duction in verse 21) is unnecessary. The beginning of the donkey tale is

broken off. Presumably that beginning told how Balaam allowed himself to

be tempted by Balak's gift, thus arousing the anger of the Deity who stood

in his way. Verse 35 seems to be editorial, linking the situation from verse

20.²

He concludes that the Balaam of the oracle history and the

Balaam of the donkey story are different individuals. The first makes his

actions dependent from the beginning on the will of Yahweh, and is in fact

immune to bribes and gifts. The second goes in search of reward.

Two questions are suggested by the donkey narrative to our

writer. (1) May one conclude from this story that there was a complete
¹ Ibid., p. 88. ² Ibid.

66

parallel to the oracle history? To this question, Lohr's response is negative.

of the donkey history does not regard Balaam highly, and he uses the donkey

story to pit the insight of a beast against the limitation of the seer. This

is particularly apt since the seer is an adversary of Yahweh and Israel. Yet

he also sees in him one who finally bows to the Lord of Israel.¹

As to the Gattung of the story, Lohr remarks:

Finally, it matters little, whether the donkey tale is declared to be

a fairy tale or a legend [ ob die Eselin-Geschichte als Marchen oder

als Sage deklariert wird ] , as the border between the two types is

often despairingly uncertain. For me it is incomprehensible, when

one posits from our story as Gressmann does, that the deity is out-

witted, indeed not by Balaam, but by the donkey.²

Lohr then traces the several references to the Balaam story in

the Old and New Testaments, tracing the two conceptions of Balaam as given

above. As to the problem of the Home of Balaam, Lohr points to a study by

Th. Noldeke, Untersuchung zur Kritik des AT [Keil, 1869 ] , in which the

prophet is identified "without doubt in the least" with the first king of the

Edomites, Bela^c ben Beor, of Genesis 36:32. Lohr feels this view is countered

by sound arguments. Hardly will one see the equating of the old Moabite

Dannaba with Dinhaba, the city of the Edomite king Bela^c (as is done by

Noldeke). Such an identity is "assumed repeatedly as a steadfast fact, "
¹ Ibid.

² Ibid.; cf. Hugo Gressmann, Mose and Seine Zeit: Ein Kommen-

tar zu den Mose-Sagen (Gottingen: Vanenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1913), pp.

318-34.

even by Gressmann. Lohr states that such cannot be proved in any way.

Further, he states that the obvious references in the Old Testament to both

figures speak to the contrary.¹

Numbers 22:5 speaks of Pethor of the Euphrates as the home of

Baalaam, he observes. Pethor, according to Deuteronomy 23:5, lies in Aram

Naharaim, which accords well with Genesis 29:1. Hence, the accusations

by scholars against the "artificial geography" as construed by Gressmann are

totally valid. Gressmann, indeed, destroys the obvious situation through

his textual changes and combinations.²

present writer. In the first place, Lohr stands out as a relatively cautious

critic. This is somewhat remarkable considering the time in which he was

writing (1927). He is pointedly sarcastic about the haughty opinions of the

critics in their self-assured atomistic methodologies. He was, to be sure,

not above suspicion in his own analysis of the "two pictures of Balaam,"

his divorcing the donkey narrative from the rest of the saga, and in his

eliminating the prophetic element by positing a date in the kingdom period.

But when he is placed within his cultural context, in the school of scholar-

ship flourishing in his day in Europe, his analysis is found to be a refreshing

variation on the common critical theme.
¹ Ibid., p. 89. ² Ibid
68

A second observation to be made about this article is the

relative neglect of it by later writers on the Balaam oracles. One finds no

mention of it, for instance, in the very lengthy article by Sigmund Mowinckel

written three years later.¹ One is tempted to say that there seems to be a

tendency among critical writers generally to ignore those writers less critical

than they.

The Reconstruction of Mowinckel

A critical study of major importance appeared in the 1930 issue

of the Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. The article is titled,

"Der Ursprung der Bil'amsage," by Sigmund Mowinckel of Oslo, Norway.²

Because of the importance of the author of this article in the field of Old

Testament studies in general, and because of the importance of this article

written by him, a rather extensive summary will now be given.

Mowinckel states at the outset that he is writing in response to

the revisionary articles by von Gall and Gressmann as over against the then-

standard literary-critical presentations of Wellhausen and Baentsch.³ The

“Zussamensetzung and Herkunft der Bileam-spruche," Festschrift B. Stade

(Giessen, 1900) [thus far unavailable to the present writer]; Hugo Gressmann,

Mose und Seiune Zeit, pp. 318-34; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticu-Numeri, pp.

443-702; Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs, 3d ed. , pp. 110ff.,

345ff. A brief review of von Gall's treatise by J. A. Selbie appeared in

69

analysis by Wellhausen of the sources in our pericope is regarded by Mowinckel

beyond doubt. Von Gall's attempt to revise Wellhausen's work is regarded

as "overly-ingenious [uberscharfsinniger], and Gressmann's modification

of the standard presentation is regarded as in the essentials "a groundless

delivering of a produced opinion."¹ As was noted above, Mowinckel does not

refer to Lohr' s article at all.

Mowinckel begins with a survey of the literary-critical issue.²

The settled convictions of the literary-analytical position regarding the

Balaam story include the thoroughgoing doublets in 22:2-6, the problem in

reconciling the donkey episode with the foregoing material, and the unjusti-

fied anger of Yahweh (when the earlier section stated that Yahweh had given

Balaam permission to go). Verses 35 and following "also could not have been

used in agreement with verses 22-34; hence they must be understood as a

suture [Naht] of the redactor, written with the intention to absorb again

the threads of verses 20 and following according to the interpolation of

verses 22-34.”³

Nu 22-24 have their difficulties, and while the analysis of these chapters has

perhaps never been satisfactorily achieved, we find it impossible to follow

Freiheer. Gall in his extreme conclusions. " J. A. Selbie, "Recent Foreign

Theology. Miscellaneous," ET, XIII (1901-1902), 125.

¹ Mowinckel, "Der Ursprung, " p. 233.

² Ibid., pp. 233-34. ³ Ibid., p. 233.

70

Chapter 22:7b-21 is taken as a unity derived from E, as indicated

"Elohim. " Chapter 22:22-34, having an archaic impression, must

belong to J. The source analysis of the beginning and concluding verses of

the chapter is quite complex in Mowinckel's estimation. E uses "princes" for

the Moabite ambassadors, but J terms them "elders. The atomistic schema

of Mowinckel thus results in the following, respecting chapter 22:

To J: 22:2, 3a, 5a^B b^B, 6a^B, 7a, 22-34, 37, 39.

To E: 22:3b, 4, 5a^a b^a, 6a^a b, 7b-21, 36, 38, 40, 41.

To R^JE: 22:35.¹

Respecting the oracles, Mowinckel concludes that the songs in

chapter 24 are much older than the songs in chapter 23. Those in chapter 23

form one of the last integrated parts of the narrative. Further, 24:20-24 forms

two very late additions to R^JE.

The second division of the article by Mowinckel² begins with J

the problem of the homeland of Balaam. Mowinckel avers that Balaam comes

from a land southeast of Moab, as may be seen from geographical indications

within the story. More precisely, he comes from Edom. Hence, Mowinckel

reads "Edom" in 23:7 rather than "Aram." The notice in verse 5, "Pethor,

which lies by the (Euphrates) River," is therefore false. Pethor is perhaps

the name of a village in Edom, or is a misreading altogether. E seems to
¹ Ibid., p. 234. ² Ibid., pp. 235-38.

71

falsely identified with Pitru of the Akkadian texts. Mowinckel does not

agree with the concept that J has Balaam coming from Ammon, for the land

of Ammon lies to the northeast of Moab. The Massoretic reading of Numbers

22:5 Om.fa-yneB; Cr,x, is a conscious redactionary correction, and has origin-

ated from ym.ifal; in 24:14, in order to conceal a contradiction in 22:5. J

must have meant originally a location southeasterly of Moab approximating

a sense similar to that of E.¹

"Balaam ben B^ecor" is consequently an Edomite. In essence

he is identical with the first king of Edom, Bala^c ben B^ecor (Gen. 36:32).

Hence, the Balaam of our stories is not to be regarded as an historical

person in the strict sense of the word. The well-known seer originally was

an anonymous legendary figure, a fairy-tale representative of the ancient

Hebrew and North-Arabic seer- (kahin- and hakim-) type after all.²

Mowinckel is not sure of the reason for the association of

Balaam with Bela of Edom. Perhaps the latter figure became a prototype of

"Wisdom" and for that reason was tied closely by tradition to a wise man and

magician. Be that as it may, that which is historical concerning him is the

name; otherwise he belongs to the fabulous [Marchen]. In summary: "This

fairy-tale and legendary figure is of an origin outside of Israel and came to

72

Israel from the Edomites and the North-Arabians."¹ That we know Balaam to

with no explanation. Hence, we are dealing with a saga. Further, the

donkey-story confirms the fairy-tale motif.

The third section of the article² begins with the thought that

one needs no longer to prove that the Balaam-Balak narrative is a saga, as

it has the characteristics of the fairy-tale. An indicator of this is to be

seen in the name of the king of Moab, Balak, which is nothing more than the

name of the region in which the narration is located. Even today, he affirms,

the district is called by the Arabs, Balka. It is impossible that this name

be a transference from the biblical story.³

Mowinckel then adds that there is a "novelistic" form through-

out the entire episode. It is noteworthy that the entire encounter between

Israel and Balaam has almost no sequence. The assault of Balak fails, and

Israel and Moab go as under amicably, never to see each other again. That

chapter 25 might be regarded as the sequence of the account is not even

mentioned by Mowinckel as a possibility.

He then turns to Gressmann's view. Gressmann said that the

unbloody manner of the story and its seeming lack of result are only apparent.

The chief supposition of the Balaam saga is not articulated, but is regarded it

as obvious: the historic conquest of Moab by Israel. Mowinckel regards

this suggestion by Gressmann as an entirely ungrounded assertion. If this

73

question; indeed, it would have been the climax of the narrative.¹

Now the present story is joined to the narrative of the entrance

of Israel into the land of Canaan. It also speaks of an underlying hostility

between Israel and Moab. However, it is very noteworthy, Mowinckel says,

that the other immigration sagas never notify one concerning anything about

an encounter with Moab. The Israelites did battle with the Amorites, but they

had no need to go through the land of Moab. The Yahwist and the Elohist

agree that the Amorites had conquered the land north of the Arnon before the

approach of the Israelites.

The Israelites came through this previously conquered country

and then forced entrance into Canaan. They defeated Sihon and Og and

camped in what might be called the "Steppes of Moab," but which were no

longer under the control of Moab. They needed to have nothing to do with

Moab; the peoples of the Arnon had nothing to fear. The introduction to the

Story in 22:2 is thus clearly to be regarded as placed externally; it is not

harmonious with the whole.²

Mowinckel then moves to the problematic issue of the origin of

the song of Numbers 21:27-30. His personal view is that it speaks of a later
^l Ibid., p. 239.

² Some of Mowinckel's observations are apt; for an approach to

the problem from a harmonistic viewpoint, see above, pp. 19-24.

74

conquest of Moab by the Israelites, which regarded itself as the heritage of

the song mentions a former conquest of Moab through Sihon is felt to be

questionable by Mowinckel. He has an extended discussion on this issue.¹

Hence, he argues for a late date for the origin of the Balaam-

Balak narrative and for its legendary character. The historical relationship

has been forgotten entirely. The combination with the Amorite war is secon-

dory and redactional. It cannot fit into the time of the entrance of Israel

into the land of Canaan.

origin of the Balaam-Balak saga. He reminds the reader that the first two

songs (chapter 23) stand in the casement of E, and the last two songs (chapter

24, excluding verses 20-24) belong to J. Mowinckel notes that von Gall

viewed the songs as not having stood in the narratives from the early period,

but that they were the creations of the Hellenistic or even the Roman period

and were then interpolated into the text after the combination of J and E into

JE. Wellhausen, on the contrary, regarded the two song-pairs as belonging

to the two prose narratives.

Gressmann began a new type of study, however, when he com-

bined form criticism to literary-analysis, as applied to the Balaam materials.
¹ Mowinckel, "Der Ursprung, " p. 241, n. 1.

² Ibid., pp. 241-45.

75

He came to the conclusion that the first two songs are older and are approxi-

time of Saul. He feels, however, that the substance of the saga is older.

The last two songs, because of the reference to Agag, are placed in the time

of David or his successors. They are a secondary addition to the E variant

of the narrative.¹

Mowinckel then goes on to note other options in Gressmann's

view, concluding that he speaks very unclearly here. The vagueness in

Gressmann's thought is attributed by Mowinckel to the former's lack of

appreciation of the niceties of literary criticism. He feels that Gressmann's

view of literary criticism relating to the Balaam section is that it is false,

and that he had wished to ascribe the whole of chapter 24 to E, but had found

himself "discontent" because of the unlikelihood of the result ²

The real point of the story, however, is that blessing was pro-

duced instead of the intended curse. The presupposition of both the songs

and the saga is the belief in the effective, real power of blessing-words and

curse-words. He compares the Hebrew belief in such to that of the ancient

Arabic terms hakim "the knowing," and kahin "the seer." These words were

used of those who were inspired of the higher powers so that they could speak

"the speech of the gods."³ In these ancient Arabic mantics there is the same
^l Ibid., p. 242. ² Ibid. ³ Ibid., p. 243.

76

poetic-rhythmic form we find in the Balaam saga. Psychologically speaking,

the ecstatic state, and it is to be seen exerting the greatest working on the

soul, primitively speaking. Hence, Mowinckel regards Gressmann to be

correct in stressing this factor as a realistic feature of the saga. Such an

effcctive way of breaking down the power of one's enemy before the battle

is to be stressed.¹ He then makes further comparisons with the higa', the

Arabic mantic who hurls imprecations against the enemy.²

Section five of Mowinckel's study³ is concerned with an

analysis of the Yahwist songs of Numbers 24. Mowinckel classifies these

oracles as of the same literary Gattung as that which includes the blessing

of Jacob (Genesis 49) and the blessing of Moses (Deuteronomy 33). In both

of these "so-called" blessings there are blessing and curse words placed

in the mouths of the figures from antiquity by later writers. By this means

the Incidents of the present are explained by the poets as the result of the

"so-called" effective words. These words thus have the character of

The first Balaam song by the Yahwist (Numbers 24:3-9) is an

expression of the glory of Israel over its beautiful, fruitful land, its warlike

power, its mighty king. Mowinckel insists that the king in view cannot be

77

or the Messiah, for to call Yahweh mightier than Agag would be of

song. “His king" is obviously the king of Israel in general, especially in

such a manner that is contemporary with the poet. All of this splendor the

celebrated Seer Balaam had prophesied, and it is done even through the

effective power, through the prophecy of fortune.¹

Secondly, the next song in the Yahwist section (Numbers 24:

15-19) evidences the form of a prophecy of concrete events. The "star" and

the "comet" ("scepter" in common versions), which rise out of Jacob and

radiate out and shatter the temple of Moab--these images refer neither to

Messiah nor to any other actual celebrity in the future. This is taken for

granted from the knowledge we may obtain from the Gattung of such songs.

In general, these employ only what has in reality already been done. Hence,

the reference must be to David who conquered Moab and Edom and put them

under Israel.²

To Mowinckel, it is remarkable that Gunkel, the pioneer in

form, critical studies of the Old Testament, did not recognize this feature of

such Gattunuen. Mowinckel finds it difficult to believe that Gunkel interpreted

the "Shilo" passage in Genesis 49 messianically. To Mowinckel, the reference

in Genesis 49:10 is also but to David.^3
1 Ibid. ² Ibid., p. 248. ³ Ibid., p. 248, n. 1.

78

In this disputed passage in Numbers 24 the supposed seer uses

of Israel, as had the poet of the Jacob blessing in similar words. The pre-

supposition of the narrative is that there was first the word of blessing, and

that this word of blessing was given in the form of a prophecy. The prophecy

was then followed by an out-working in history. But, to Mowinckel, such