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

the Moabite court, that he became a convert to Yahwism, and that he

later abandoned Israel and joined the Midianites in fighting against

the Yahwists (Num. 31 8, 16). We may also infer that the Oracles

preserved in Num 23-24 were attributed to him from an early date as

early as the twelfth century, and that there is no reason why they

may not be authentic, or may not at least reflect the atmosphere of

the age.²

Observation and Evaluation

When judged against the articles surveyed at length in the

preceding pages of the present study, it is apparent at once how pivotal this

article by Albright really was. Writing in 1944 he argued for the historical

credibility of the person of Balaam and for the historical authenticity of the

corpus of poems (including those dismissed by almost all critical scholars,

the last three in Numbers 24).

Moreover, this article is to be seen in the context of Albright's

a decided shift in opinion from that the same scholar held in 1915. At that

time his conclusion read: "Balaam was an Edomite sage, and the Israelites

whom he was called upon to curse were idolaters, " William F. Albright, "The

home of Balaam," JAOS, XXXV (1915), 389.

106

his life-long opposition to the Hegelian principles of Wellhausen and his

followers which led to late dating of the poetry of the Bible.

It was no less a scholar than Julius Wellhausen, to whose

Hegelian presuppositions we owe the still dominant theory of Israelite

religious evolution--which I have opposed throughout my life--who

was largely responsible for dating the poetry of the Bible so late. He

was the first to insist on the Hellenistic date of the Psalms, and to

oppose the early dating of much Hebrew poetry by men like Heinrich

Ewald and Franz Delitzsch. As a result the followers of Wellhausen

vied with one another in lowering the date of biblical verse, until

finally most Hebrew poetry was actually dated after most Hebrew

prose:

Now contrast with this critical view, the fact (which may easily

be shown that the oldest literary prose is later than the oldest verse.¹

In another setting Albright speaks of his increasing confidence

in the early dating of the Bible. He also sets his views in perspective as he

relates Hebrew poetry to the poetry of the ancient Near East.

During the past twenty years I have become increasingly con-

fident that the minimal dating of Israelite poetry by the Wellhausen

school is generally quite erroneous. This is particularly true of the

earliest Hebrew verse. . . . Thanks to the discovery and decipherment

since 1929 of early Northwest-Semitic epics at Ugarit in northern

Canaan, it is now possible to place the Song of Miriam (Exodus 15)

at the beginning of Israelite verse, since it is consistently closer

to Ugaritic style than any other poem of any length in the Bible. The

Song of Miriam is followed in stylistic dating by the Song of Deborah

and the Oracles of Balaam, both from the twelfth century. The latter

two replace the types of repetitive parallelism characteristic of Ugarit

and the Song of Miriam by repeating single words in parallel verse
¹ William Foxwell Albright. "The Impact of Archaeology on Biblical

Research--1966," New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, ed. David Noel

Freedman and Jones C. Greenfield (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company,

Inc. 1969), p. 12.

107

units. They are followed by the Blessing of Moses (Deut. 33),

order which is supported both by stylistic sequence dating and by

indications from the content. For instance, Levi is still highly

praised in the Blessing of Moses, before the fall of Shiloh, but is

bitterly condemned in the Blessing of Jacob, after the fall of Shiloh.

With the Blessing of Jacob we enter the period of elaborite play on

words (paronomasia), which continued for several centuries. Stylistic

sequence alone would place the Song of Moses in the eleventh cen-

tury. There are numerous other indications of genuine archaism, and

the author's rugged and often intemperate monotheism best suits the

time of Samuel, as we shall presently see.¹

After this survey of his method of stylistic dating, Albright

assures his readers that his insistence on an early dating of the poetry of

Israel is not a return to the pre-critical days of biblical research. It is

clothing of the kind, he states.

My uncompromising insistence of the high antiquity of these

poems--and of others in the Psalter and elsewhere--may sound like

a return to pre-critical methods of biblical research. Actually it is

nothing of the kind. Here again we have complete agreement between

internal evidence--both of content and style--and the evidence of

historical analogy. It would be passing strange if the Hebrew Bible

were the only extant national literature of the Old World which began

with prose and did not compose poetry until later.²

As has been seen in these quotations, one of Albright's arguments

for the early poetry of Israel is the comparative argument. There was early

poetry throughout the ancient Near East. In fact, he points to Sumerian

Movement," The Goldenson Lecture of 1961, Interpreting the Prophetic Tra-

Inc, pp. 169-70.

108

the noted Sumerian scholar, Samuel Noah Kramer:

Sumerian poetry--and the vast majority of the Sumerian literary

works were composed in poetic form--has its roots in the pre-literate

and illiterate court minstrel and in the temple singer-musician; it is

no wonder, therefore, that repetition, the aesthetic device common

to the ballad-monger and folk-singer, was one of its predominant

stylistic features. The earliest Sumerian poetic compositions can

be dated back to the twenty-fifth century B. C.; one of the outstanding

examples is a myth inscribed on a solid clay cylinder with twenty

columns of text.²
Albright sought to establish Ugaritic poetry as the control for

his evaluation of the relative dating of Hebrew poetry. He speaks of his

dating of the three major Ugaritic epics,³ and then of the basis of the pro-

portion of repetitive parallelism in the early poems of the Bible. He puts

these data of a comparative nature on a grid, as it were, to show relative

dating. He explains the procedure as follows:

& Company, Inc.. 1968), pp. 2-3.

1969), A. 23.

large part, Baal, Aqhat and Keret, were put into approximately their extant

form between the seventeenth and the fifteenth centuries in the order given,

and are in substantially the same poetic style. In particular, each has

roughly the same proportion of repetitive parallelism." Albright, Yahweh and

the Gods of Canaan, pp. 4-5.

109

closely related in style to the verse of Ugarit. We find in both similar

grammatical phenomena, similar vocabulary, similar stylistic pecu-

liarities. If one sets up a stylistic sequence-dating and takes account

of the changes between ca. 1300 and ca. 900 B, C.E. one can easily

arrange them along a curve that agrees beautifully with the succession

of historical allusions. The analogies involved are so close that it

is hard to escape the force of their impact. The forms of repetitive

parallelism characteristic of the song of Miriam from the early thirteenth

century can be duplicated in the Canaanite epics copied at Ugarit in

the preceding century. By the late tenth century we have a completely

transformed style, without repetition and with maximal variation in

vocabulary. In other words, the chronological shift in poetic style is

pegged at beginning and end and directly conforms to the evidence of

content. This means that our analogies do indeed enable us to con-

struct a model.¹

We have quoted the late Albright at length because of his monu-

mental importance to the history of the study of early Hebrew poetry among

American scholars in particular, and Old Testament scholars world-wide.

The "Albright School" includes Frank Moore Cross, Jr., David Noel Freedman,

Mitchell Dahood, and a host of others.²

But not all scholars have followed Albright's enthusiastic views

concerning the dating of Hebrew poetry. This seems especially true of Euro-

pean scholars. Coppens may be cited as an example. He summarizes the

Balaam oracles and the study by Albright. He refers to the fact that he was

able to read Albright's study one day after the War in a small Hungarian

library in 1948. Ladislas Martin von Pakozdy, "Theologische Redactions-

arbeit in der Bileam-Perikope (Num 22-24)," p. 162, n. 11. Cf. p. 55, n.

1, above.

110

article calling it “important and original," but then he rejects Albright's

W. F. Albright's essay has not found many adherents. Certainly

no one dreams any longer of underscoring the views of A. von Gall

who proposed relocating the composition of our poems in the age of

the Maccabees, rather, as a general rule--at least in that which

concerns the last two oracles--one generally continues to see here

songs dating from the age of Saul and David.¹

Even one as closely associated with Albright as Cross has

recently expressed the opinion that Albright dated the original composition

of the oracles too early. Cross would date them in the tenth century B. C.

Further, it is Cross's opinion that there were probably many "oracles of

Balaam" from which the present collection was made.²

This leads us to an important observation concerning the method-

ology of Albright. Despite his disclaimers to the contrary, there were many

subjective elements that entered his grid for the dating of early Hebrew poetry.

While references to Ugaritic literature do play a large part, the dates of the

Exodus and Conquest are also very important to his schema. A date in the

twelfth century for the original composition of the oracles of Balaam does

aire et leur porte prophetique, Melanges Eugene Tisserant, Vol. I, Ecriture

Apostolica Vaticanna 1964) pp. 76-77.

Los Angeles, California, September 4, 1972. (This followed the presentation

of an unpublished paper by George F. Mendenhall ["The Abrahamic Narratives"]

for which Frank Moore Cross, Jr., was a respondent.)

111

grant them an aura of authenticity, but only if one's dating for the Exodus and

That the dating of the Exodus and the Conquest did play a role

in Albright’s dating of the poetry of Israel may be seen in his last book, Yah-

weh and the Gods of Canaan. He speaks of a shift in the dating for certain

Egyptian rulers which caused a shift in his date for the Exodus, and conse-

quently for the poetry. Compare the following:

All my dates have had to be raised by the recent demonstration

(included in the revised edition of CAH) that Ramesses II became king

in 1304 B. C., and that the date of Ramesses III's accession must thus

be raised again to between c. 1200 and 1195 B. C. This means that

my original arguments for a date c. 1150 [ for the Song of Deborah

stand and my subsequent dating about 1125 must be given up.¹

It is further to be observed that while Albright did oppose the

Hegelian evolutionary schema of Wellhausen, as he insisted(!),² he never

broke completely with the literary-analytical methodology. Abundant evidence

exists for this assertion, despite some hopeful claims to the contrary.³ One

example of Albright's clinging to the critical school has been quoted above

In the section from his article, "Samuel and the Beginnings of the Prophetic
¹ Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, p. 13, n. 3 5.

² See above, p. 106.

³ Such seems to be the case with F. I. Andersen who wrote:

"The most radical reversal in Old Testament studies was Albright's abandon-

ment of the old Wellhausen synthesis--a thing which many Old Testament

scholars have still not liberated themselves from." "W. F. Albright," BHis.,

VIII, (March, 1972), p. 9. Andersen may he referring to the evolutionary aspect

only, but if so, he is not sufficiently clear.

112

Movement." In that article he stated that one might mistake his changing

“Actually it is nothing of the kind."¹

In an important article written in 1938, Albright seemed to feel

that his audience would misunderstand his position at that time as a return

to conservatism. He wrote:

it may seem that he has returned to the conservative position of a

century ago. Not at all. . . . His attitude toward the use of historico-

critical method is the same as that of the great German school; he

recognizes the same fallibility of oral tradition, or the official

historian, and of the ancient copyist. But the picture of Israel's

history that he draws, from the Patriarchal Age to the Restoration, is

curiously like the traditional one in essentials. Details may be

altered, our new knowledge of the ancient world may shade the

picture differently--but the broad outlines remain substantially the same.²

So that while the conservative may use many of the results of

the fertile mind and outstanding scholarship of the late "Dean" of biblical

archaeology--the one who could truly call himself an "Orientalist" --the

conservalive scholar must always remember that Albright operated from different

methodological and philosophical premises than one who has prior commitments

to the reliability of the text.³

p. 170.

Criticism, " The American Scholar, VII (1938), p. 188. As late as 1968, he

reaffirmed the principle of the use of divine names to distinguish sources.

See Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, p. 30.

Oswald T. Allis, "Albright’s Thrust for the Bible View, " CT, III (May 25, 1959),

7-9; (June 8, 1959), 12-14.

113

Ladislas Martin von Pakozdy is a professor of Old Testament

at the Reformierte Theologische Akademie in the city of Debrecen, Hungary.

Debrecen is about 120 miles east of Budapest and is in the center of Hungarian

Protestantism. He wrote an article on the problem of the Balaam materials in

1958 titled, "Theologische-Redaktionsarbeit in der Bileam-Perikope,"¹ which

will now be surveyed.

Von Pakozdy begins by stating that the Balaam story has been

used by critical scholars as a demonstrative example of the accuracy of the

Documentary Hypothesis. He notes that this is true in spite of the fact that

the reconstructions of the Balaam materials by the several critical scholars

have all had some differences. Despite the attempts of Gressmann and

Rudolph to alter the earlier views, von Pakozdy avers that the earlier view-

point of Wellhausen has been sustained. He cites as examples of this fact

the 1930 article by Mowinckel and the commentary by Marsh on Numbers that

appears in the well-known set, The Interpreter's Bible.² He also cites the

beginning on p. 55.

rated in the foregoing survey of Balaam studies. John Marsh collaborated

with Albert George Buttrick in the section on Numbers in The Interpreter's

Bible, ed. George A. Buttrick (12 vols.; New York and Nashville: Abingdon

1958), II, 137-308. Harvey H, Guthrie, Jr., has "Numbers" in the

new revision of IB. Compare. The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on

the Bible, ed. Charles M. Laymon (Nashville and New York, 1971), pp. 85-

99.

1939 article on Balaam by Eissfeldt.¹

Von Pakozdy says that there has been a change, however, from

the critical analysis of the days of von Gall, in that the overly subtle type of

literary analysis of that former day (1900) would be considered too risky today.

Pakozdy says that it is not his intent in the present article to go through all

of the old arguments for source division again. Rather he intends to look at

the existing narrative as it has come from the hand of the final redactor, and

to ask the question: What did the final redactor wish to make through his

redaction work of the materials? Or, stated somewhat differently, What did

he wish to preach? Hence, the approach of von Pakozdy is to be that of the

theologian.²

in terms of the use of the divine names in the oracles as understood by our

author. He says that the proclamation-design [Verkundigungsabsicht] of

the redactor in the Balaam materials which he transformed was to preach anew

the superiority of his God In doing this the redactor used the several early

for God, but now identified them with Yahweh, and thus demonstrated

Yahweh's superiority over all forms of heathen mantic arts.⁴

Von Pakozdy says that it is his settled conviction that the names

of God employed in the oracles may not be used to distinguish the putative
¹ See below, pp. 125-32.

² Von Pakozdy, "Theologische Redaktionsarbeit, " p. 163.

³ Ibid., pp. 164-68. ⁴ Ibid., p. 164.

115

publication (written in Hungarian in 1938).¹ He holds to a rigid unity of the

Balaam materials [eine viel straffere Einheitlichkeit der B-P].² This unity

is a unity of design and art and is the product of the redactor. The several

components of the Balaam pericope have in fact been bound into what he terms

a kerygmatic unity [zu einer kerygmatischen Einheit].³ He observes that

he is not the first to make the observation that the alternation of the divine

names may not be used for source analysis in this section of Scripture. He

cites Baentsch who spoke of an unbroken unity in Numbers 22:7-21.⁴ Baentsch

said that the passage had the impression of such, though most critical scholars

regard it as mixed (as, for example, Eissfeldt, as noted below). For our present

author these names of God are used according to a predetermined plan.

Von Pakozdy refers to the work of Rudolph in a somewhat more

favorable light than most critical scholars. Rudolph had argued that there

was no E source at all in the Balaam story,⁵ He then turns to the work of

Eissfeldt (of 1939) who criticized Rudolph,⁶ but seems to equivocate respecting

Text des Buches Numeri," ZAW, LII (1934), 113-20.

LVII (1939), 212-42. Eissfeldt's approach is discussed below, pp. 125-32.

116

his own view.

it has a wider range of use than just that of "God." He further observes that

ancient world there was not as clear a division drawn between God and

man. For, he says, Elohim can be used of the mighty, the powerful, the judge,

etc. For these data he refers to the standard lexica and cites a few passages

quoted therein.¹

More important for his own argument, however, is the meaning

of Elohim in I Samuel 28:13, where it is used, he says, of a dead spirit.

Again, the word may be used of demons as well as foreign gods. It is on

the possibility of using Elohim for demons that he desires to build his case,

Further, he suggests that the word Elohim originally was not a plural, but was

a singular with an old mimation. Only later, he says, did it become viewed

as a plural. When it became a plural, it was termed plural of majesty, and

was then used of a single god as well as of the true God.²

Balaam is to be compared, he states, with the old Arabic