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

mise: "Es besteht fur mich daruber gar kein Zweifel, dass die von Well-

hausen and Bantsch vorgenommene Scheldung in der Hauptsache das Richtige

getroffen hat."³

This article may be stated to be "Exhibit A" in the defense of

literary-critical analysis. In opposition to revisionists such as von Gall

and Gressmann, and in ignorance or disregard of critical "heretics" such as

Lohr--Mowinckel methodically sloshes through the quagmire of the reasoning
¹ Compare the words of von Pakozdy, cited above, p. 55.

² Compare, above, p. 57, n. 1.

³ Mowinckel, "Der Ursprung, " p. 233.

93

of source-analysis. After almost forty pages of closely printed text, he

sich erstens, dass die von anderen Kriterien heraus vorgenommene Quellen-

schceidung Wellhausens und anderer . . . die richtige ist.”¹

This is not the place to attempt to present a thoroughgoing

refutation of literary-criticism;² such has been done well by others.³ It

is enough simply to display the manner of argumentation by Mowinckel in

detail (as done above), in order to exhibit the logical and scientific flaws
^l Ibid., p. 269.

² Arguments will be advanced, however in the discussion that

follows in the present chapter as well as in the following chapter, in which

a positive approach will be made to the several critical issues. The use of

the designations for Deity in the Balaam narrative will be discussed in the

chapter on theological insights from the Balaam materials, below.

³ Compare G. Ch. Aalders, A Short Introduction to the Pentateuch

(London: The Tyndale Press, 1949); Oswald T. Allis, The Five Books of Moses

(Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1964);

idem, The Old Testament: Its Claims and Its Critics (Philadelphia: The Presby-

terian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1972); Gleason L, Archer, Jr. , A

Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch:

The Hebrew University, 1967); Roland Kenneth Harrison, Introduction to the

Kenneth A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chicago: Inter-Varsity

Press, 1966); idem, Pentateuchal Criticism and Interpretation, Notes of Lectures,

Dec., 1965 (London: Theological Students Fellowship, 1966); Merrill F.

Unger, Introductory Guide to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan

Publishing House, 1951); and Edward J, Young, An Introduction to the Old

1960).

the bibliography of the present paper for a number of titles that pertain to the

discussion.

94

of the literary-critical hypothesis.

drawn, conflicting data are excised as being "intrusions," premises are

proved--and the author marvels at the result. One example may suffice.

Rather than see a progression and development in the several oracles of

Numbers 23 and 24, Mowinckel inverts their order, excises "intrusions" that

conflict with his presuppositions, and then "proves" that the songs of chapter

24 are earlier than those of chapter 23 on the basis of presuppositions of

historical context and evolution of religion. As for the employment of the

word "Yahweh" in Numbers 23:2:1--our author says that this proves "nichts

gogen 'E' als Verfasser."¹ Yet it was precisely on the basis of the employ-

ment of the divine names that the sources were first identified.

With these circular reasoning and question-begging techniques,

our author may seek any historical situation he wishes for a given passage.

The word "history" is employed in a very cavalier fashion. It may well be

that the mere presentation of the arguments of Mowinckel serves as a most

potent argument against the system.

However, the presentation of this material also serves to con-

firm an observation made in Chapter I of the present paper. Much of the loss

of simhat torah in Old Testament studies must be attributed to the atomizing

process of critics such as Mowinckel. What delight after all is there in his

95

manner of approach?¹ Further, what his approach does to the authority of

A rather fanciful approach to the problem of the oracles of Balaam

was taken in 1938 by an English Jesuit scholar, Eric Burrows.² Father Burrows'

approach was to connect both the Blessing of Jacob in Genesis 49 and the

Oracles of Balaam in Numbers 22-24 to the concept of astral phenomena in

general, and to the zodiac in particular. He notes in his introduction that

attempts to do the same had been made before him by a number of Orientalists,

principally by German scholars. He argues, however, that the study of the

early history of the zodiac had developed considerably since the last attempts

had been made, sufficiently so as to warrant this new book.

It is the contention of Burrows in this book that the earlier

treatments of the same theme had failed in that they had insisted on an appli-

cation of the data of the biblical passages to the elements of astral phenomena

and the zodiac of a later period (classical history), rather than to apply these

data to the knowledge of the zodiac that obtained at an earlier (ancient) period.
¹ Compare Cyrus H. Gordon, "Higher Critics and Forbidden .

Fruit," CT, IV (November 23, 1959), 6; see also above in the present paper, ''

p. 6.

² Eric Burrows, The Oracles of Jacob and Balaam, "The Bellar-

mine Series, " III, ed. Edmund F. Sutcliffe (London: Burns Oates & Wash-

bourne, Ltd., 1938).

96

In this vein Burrows writes:

of the first millennium and to some extent earlier there were already

approximations to the zodiac. It seems not to have been sufficiently

recognized either by the astralists or by their critics that the allied

astral scheme of Gen. 49 should be compared rather with these approxi-

mate zodiacs than with the stabilized zodiac of the Greek age.¹ [Empha-

sis in original.]

As to the relationship of astral phenomena and the blessing of

Jacob in Genesis 49, he summarizes:

There are allusions to eleven of the twelve zodiacal constellations;

also allusions to other asterisms within the zodiac and to constellations

more or less closely adjacent to it on the north and south. Almost all

of these additional constellations are also included in the above cunei-

form documents.²

Turning to the oracles of Balaam, Burrows gives a summary of

his position in these words:

Of the four oracles of Balaam on Israel in Num. 23-4, the first is a

blessing without noteworthy figures; the other three contain figures

as follows:

Second oracle (Num. 23, 18-24): King, Bull, Lioness, and Lion.

Third oracle (24:3-9): Water-pourer, Bull, Arrows, Lioness, and

Lion.

It will be seen that these oracles are reminiscent of certain

oracles of Jacob: those of Joseph-Taurus, Judah-Leo, Reuben-Aquarius.

The choice is conformed to the zodiacal pattern, as Taurus, Leo, and

Aquarius correspond to three of the cardinal points. These represen-

tative oracles are here applied to Israel as a whole.³

97

to develop the zodiac features he claims to have found. To the present writer

themes and zodiac imagery is not beyond question. It may be remembered that

Balaam is pictured as a diviner from Mesopotamia, and as such, would have

employed all the mantic art of the East.

The case for astral themes is strengthened, moreover, by the

appeal to the "Star" in Numbers 24:17. Hence, one may not state that the

concept of asterisms in the oracles has to be dismissed without a hearing.

But Burrows does not begin with the oracles of Balaam to present his thesis.

He begins with the oracles of Jacob and spends the bulk of his book on them.

On the basis of several admitted ties between Genesis 49 and Numbers 23-24,

he brings his study of the astral motif to the latter passage. His very presen-

tation seems to imply that the case is stronger in the oracles of Jacob than

It is in the oracles of Balaam. It may be observed that one cannot read imagery

of the zodiac into every biblical text that uses the symbol of a lion or a bull,

particularly since the latter is a dominant fertility motif in the ancient Near

East.¹

One interesting sidelight to Burrows' book lies in the fact that
¹ It may be noted in passing that the role of astrology in Post-

exilic Judaism and in the artistic motifs of the modern state of Israel is not

to the point in the present discussion. It was under Greek influence that

such developed--a different cultural milieu. For an article of interest respecting

these post-exilic and modern phenomena see Hannah Gilman. "Prognostication end Postage Stamps, " Minkus Stamp Journal, VII (1972), 20.

98

points. As to the origin of the Balaam oracles, Burrows regards them as

dependent upon the oracles of Jacob. This argument is based on word asso-

ciations common to the two. One example he uses is the concept of blessing.

Since Numbers 22:12 states that the people are blessed before Balaam had

uttered his blessing, the blessing in view is that of Jacob.

An application of his astral motif to the unity of the narrative

may be seen respecting the donkey narrative. Whereas most critical scholars

wish to excise this story from its context, Burrows states:

In the puzzling episode 22, 22-35a, commonly considered to be

an incomplete narrative from J, the miracle of the ass in the vine-

yard may have been a sign connected with the coming king (motif of

the asses and the vine in the Oracles of Jacob) and so more closely

related to the principal theme than is generally supposed.¹

His reconstruction of the oracles is based on the assumed

relationship they had to the oracles of Jacob. Since Genesis 49 is a Judean

document in his view, he posits that "it is not an unreasonable hypothesis

that the other recension [of the Jacob Oracles] originated in northern Israel."²

He then argues against the common opinion of the division of the oracles of

Balaam into J and E sources, with two songs for each stratum. For his theory

of the zodiac imagery to be correct, he has to have the third oracle in both

sources so as to retain the set of given figures in both J and E traditions³

99

Burrows compares the oracles of Jacob and Balaam to the

differences, and suggests that all may be explained on the basis of a supposed

northern and southern recension of each. In terms of the date of the oracles

of Balaam, Burrows says that there is no relationship to be imagined between

the date of the addition of the astral motifs (which are thus secondary) and

the original oracles themselves. "It may be assumed that there were oracles

of Balaam in the original tradition . . . going back to the time of Balaam and

Moses.”¹

It would have been in the Judaean recension of the oracles that

the astral imagery of Leo the lion would have been added, pointing to the

time of David. The northern recension, on the other hand, would have

added the complementary astral motifs referring to the principal tribes of

the nation Israel. "These were naturally taken from the northern Israelite

recension of the Oracles of Jacob."² Hence, even he does not suggest that

the astral elements were from the time of Balaam the Mesopotamian seer, who

might have been interested in such. Rather, he has some of the most telling

figures of the Balaam oracles (the lion, aurochs, king, water-pourer [?],

star, and scepter) as later additions to the text implanted because of a

nascent interest in astrology.
¹ Ibid., p. 78. ² Ibid., p. 75.

100

to have observed astral motifs in the oracles of Balaam and identifies these

motifs with the principal images of the poems. He desires to maintain three

elements which are spread through the putative J and E sources, so he explains

common Vorlage for each source, and then substitutes northern and southern

recensions for the usual strata. Then he says that the astral imagery is all

the result of later additions to the original poetic corpus,

In a word: This has not been the most influential study of the

Balaam oracles:
The Reconstruction of Albright

If the study on Balaam by Burrows was less than of first import,

the same cannot be said of the study by the late William Foxwell Albright in

the 1944 issue of the Journal of Biblical Literature.¹ David Noel Freedman,

a former student of Albright, comments on this article in a memorial tribute

to him, written after Albright's death in September, 1971. Freedman terms

the article by Albright on the oracles of Balaam an example of the landmark

contributions which produced turning points for Old Testament studies.²

Similar praise comes from Harry M. Orlinsky:
¹ William Foxwell Albright, "The Oracles of Balaam," JBL,

LXIII (1944), 207-233.

Albright's study was so - -ell done that his dating of the Oracles

("we must date the first writing down of the Oracles in or about the tenth

century B. C. . . . " p. 210) and his insistence "that there is no reason

why they may not be authentic" (p. 233), together with the textual

analysis proper, have gained wide acceptance in the scholarly world.¹

Another type of testimonial comes from Elmer Smick. In his

commentary on the Book of Numbers in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, he

makes constant use of, and gives repeated reference to, this article by W.

F. Albright.²

Albright's article is in three sections. There is an introduction

(pp. 207-11), followed by an extensive philological commentary (pp. 211-26),

and a concluding exposition (pp. 226-33). In this survey we shall look at

the introductory and concluding sections, employing relevant exegetical

material in Chapter V of the present paper.

Albright begins his article by surveying quickly the problems of

literary analysis of the Balaam chapters of Numbers. He notes that most

critics follow Wellhausen, as was noted above.³

& Company, Inc. , 1965), p. 158. In another article the same writer states

that he regards thce study by Albright "to be a really important contribution

to both the lower and higher criticism of the Hebrew Bible, quite apart from

the historical implications. " Harry M. Orlinsky, "Rabas for sakab in Num.

24.9," JQR, XXXV (1944-45), 173.

102

a brief overview of the major treatments of the poetry of the narrative. He

notes that von Gall made some good suggestions, but that he was far astray

in dating the last oracle at the time of Pompey or even Christ!¹ Next, he

turns to the work of Mowinckel which was summarized in the present study.

He says that Mowinckel "has dealt honestly with the text of our poems," and

then he refers to the dates given by Mowinckel as they were noted above.²

As for his own procedure, Albright says that he plans to present

a new text based on a cautious use of the versions, "and especially on full

use of the mass of material now available for early Northwest-Semitic grammar,

lexicography and epigraphy."³ As for his own dating method, Albright states

that it "depends wholly on the inductive agreement of textual criticism with

the spelling of epigraphic documents."⁴

Hence, Albright desires to reconstruct the consonantal text as

it might have appeared when first written. Matres lectionis will be dismissed.

Consonantal indications of contracting dipthongs are also to be omitted, on

the basis of clear parallels. An early indicator in orthography that he cites

is the use of he instead of waw for pronominal suffixes of the third person

approach to dating Hebrew poetry, consult David Alan Robertson, "Linguistic

Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry" (unpublished doctor's dissertation,

Yale University, 1966).

103

It is on the basis of these indicators of epigraphically known

spellings that Albright says, "we must date the first writing down of the

Oracles in or about the tenth century B. C.”² The oracles are earlier than the

Mesha Stone (ca. 840 B. C.) and the ostraca of Samaria (ca. 774-766 B. C. ),

as they employ final vowel letters as aginst the lack of such in the oracles

of Ba1aam.

After his reconstruction of the text and his new translation of

the poems, Albright then turns to a summary and conclusion. He emphasizes;

that the changes that he has made are all orthographic and that they belong

to well-attested types. Two facts may be deduced, he says:

the orthographic evidence of MT, Sam, and occasionally of the

versions or of the most obviously correct changes of reading points

to a date not later than the tenth or early ninth century B. C. and

probably not earlier than the same century for the original writing

down of the Oracles; the content and style of the poems are homo-

geneous and point to the period between the middle of the thirteenth

century and the end of the twelfth as the time of composition.³

Albright does not feel that the oracles have been passed down

as they were delivered. The remaining elements of the oracles were preserved

and collected and were later reduced to writing. He attacks Mowinckel's

reading the poems in exact strophes as being "highly improbable."⁴

He does not believe that there is anything in the poems that
^l Ibid. ² Ibid., p. 210.

³ Ibid., p. 226 ⁴ Ibid.

104

references to royalty in 23:21 and 24:7, he says, might belong to any age.

Respecting the fourth poem, he states:

no tenth century explanation of 24:21-24 is practicable without violent

assumptions. The Kenites of later times were scattered among the

Israelites; it is only when we go back to the time of the Mosaic age

that we find them taking tangible shape as an autonomous people.

Nor was there any great Mediterranean irruption in the tenth century.¹

Albright then mentions the work of the late Nelson Glueck as

to the dating of sedentary occupation of Moab and Edom going back to the

twelfth century, but that there was not such before the thirteenth century.²

He deals at length with other historical matters concerning the occupation

of Transjordan, particularly from Egyptian sources.

The author relates the passage in Numbers 24:23-24 to the

Egyptian accounts of the invasion of the Sea Peoples.³ As to the origin of

Balaam, Albright is quite emphatic: "Balaam has nothing to do with Bela of

Edom or with Luqman of Arab saga; he was certainly believed to be a diviner

from Northern Syria,"⁴ He also speaks with approval of the work of Daiches

who related Balaam to the baru diviners of Babylon. Further, he notes a
¹ Ibid., p. 227.

² Ibid. It may be noted that recently the surface explorations of

Gleuck have come into question. Compare, e. g., Leon T. Wood, "Date of

the Exodus," New Perspectives on the Old Testament, ed. J. Barton Payne

(Waco, Tex.: Word Books, Publisher, 1970), p. 79.

105

Beth-shan in a thirteenth-century level stratum The seal itself, he says,

cannot be later than the sixteenth century B. C.¹

Albright's conclusion may be quoted in full:

We may, accordingly, conclude that Balaam was really a North-

Syrian diviner from the Euphrates Valley, that he spent some time at