Balaam In Text And Tradition Jonathan Miles Robker

Balaam In Text And Tradition Jonathan Miles
Robker download
https://ebookbell.com/product/balaam-in-text-and-tradition-
jonathan-miles-robker-50683084
Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.
The Prestige Of The Pagan Prophet Balaam In Judaism Early Christianity
And Islam George
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-prestige-of-the-pagan-prophet-
balaam-in-judaism-early-christianity-and-islam-george-33577806
Miserys Mathematics Mourning Compensation And Reality In Antebellum
American Literature 1st Edition Peter Balaam
https://ebookbell.com/product/miserys-mathematics-mourning-
compensation-and-reality-in-antebellum-american-literature-1st-
edition-peter-balaam-51312626
Excellence In Supply Chain Management 1st Edition Balram Avittathur
https://ebookbell.com/product/excellence-in-supply-chain-
management-1st-edition-balram-avittathur-33168582
Islamic State In Translation Four Atrocities Multiple Narratives 1st
Edition Balsam Mustafa
https://ebookbell.com/product/islamic-state-in-translation-four-
atrocities-multiple-narratives-1st-edition-balsam-mustafa-46854240

The Barlaam And Josaphat Legend In The Ancient Georgian And Armenian
Literatures Fc Conybeare
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-barlaam-and-josaphat-legend-in-the-
ancient-georgian-and-armenian-literatures-fc-conybeare-49454928
The Barlaam And Josaphat Legend In The Ancient Georgian And Armenian
Literatures F C Conybeare
https://ebookbell.com/product/the-barlaam-and-josaphat-legend-in-the-
ancient-georgian-and-armenian-literatures-f-c-conybeare-50346920
Womens Bodies In Psychoanalysis 1st Edition Rosemary M Balsam
https://ebookbell.com/product/womens-bodies-in-psychoanalysis-1st-
edition-rosemary-m-balsam-37531092
A Comparative Study Of The Three French Versions In Verse Of The Story
Of Barlaam Et Josaphaz Ouellette
https://ebookbell.com/product/a-comparative-study-of-the-three-french-
versions-in-verse-of-the-story-of-barlaam-et-josaphaz-
ouellette-5692430
Advances In Soil Microbiology Recent Trends And Future Prospects
Volume 1 Soilmicrobe Interaction 1st Edition Tapan Kumar Adhya
https://ebookbell.com/product/advances-in-soil-microbiology-recent-
trends-and-future-prospects-volume-1-soilmicrobe-interaction-1st-
edition-tapan-kumar-adhya-6990230

Forschungen zum Alten Testament
Edited by
Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (Princeton)
Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen) · Andrew Teeter (Harvard)
131

Mohr Siebeck
Jonathan Miles Robker
Balaam in Text and Tradition

ISBN 978-3-16-156355-3 / eISBN 978-3-16-156356-0
DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-156356-0
ISSN 0940-4155 / eISSN 2568-8359 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament)
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie;
detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de.
© 2019 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com
This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by
copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproduc
-
tions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems.
The book was printed on non-aging paper by Gulde Druck in Tübingen, and bound by Buch
-
binderei Spinner in Ottersweier.
Printed in Germany.
Jonathan Miles Robker, born 1980; 1999-2003 studied History and Philosophy, with a concen-
tration in Religious Studies; 2006 Master of Theological Studies from Duke Divinity School;
2011 PhD from the Faculty of Protestant Theology at the FAU Erlangen, Germany; since 2013
at the Faculty of Protestant Theology of the WWU Münster, Germany; 2018 Habilitation.
orcid.org/0000-0002-9793-3530

Foreword
This monograph presents a reformatted version of my Habilitationsschrift,
which was accepted at the University of Münster in January 2018. Prof. Dr.
Reinhard Achenbach and Prof. Dr. Reinhard Müller served as reviewers for the
committee. Other than formatting and some minor typographical issues, the
content of this volume is identical with the manuscript submitted to the univer-
sity. The initial impetus for this research stemmed from the project “Traditions-
und Redaktionsprozesse im Buch Numeri und ihr Zusammenhang mit der Ent-
stehung des Pentateuch” under the auspices of Christian Frevel (Bochum),
Thomas Pola (Dortmund), and Aaron Schart (Essen) during my time as a re-
searcher in Essen from 2011–2013.
Through the aforementioned research project, I gained substantial insight
about the peculiarities of the book of Numbers and developed an interest in
how the pericope about Balaam relates to these issues. Having perused a num-
ber of attempts to explain the passage in Numbers 22–24, I found myself some-
what dissatisfied with earlier theses about this story’s genesis and how it fits
into its current literary context. Beyond that, the connection to other biblical
and the singular relevant extrabiblical attestations of the figure Balaam, son of
Beor, had not been, in my opinion, sufficiently explicated. At the root of all of
this, I developed an interest in the character Balaam, both as a literary figure,
but also as a potentially historical personage. Questions about this figure,
whether he was historical or not, guided me through this research and moti-
vated this study.
Along this path, a number of people instructed and aided me. To them I owe
much and, for their guidance, I offer my thanks. After the completion of my
dissertation, Prof. Dr. Siegfried Kreuzer (Wuppertal) and Prof. Dr. Aaron
Schart (Essen) found positions for me as a researcher and instructor at their
institutions. Prof. Kreuzer shared my strong interest in text-historical questions
and encouraged me to continue this line of research in the Pentateuch. Prof.
Schart brought me into the research project on Numbers and helped me to nar-
row down and focus the study on Numbers 22–24 as a specific problem in the
book of Numbers. Without their initial input and support, this study would not
have been possible.
After moving to Münster in 2013, I found continuing interest and vigorous
discussion with Prof. Dr. Reinhard Achenbach, one of the current experts on

VI Foreword
Numbers in particular and the Pentateuch more generally. With the addition of
Prof. Reinhard Müller to the faculty in 2014, I was able to engage with another
exegete of great repute. Even though I was often of an opinion distinct from
theirs, these scholars served as the whetstone on which I was able to sharpen
my theses. With their extremely detailed observations and poignant questions,
they engaged my research critically, helping me to refine it. In this capacity, I
must also thank the Alttestamentliche Sozietät in Münster, which provided a
productive forum to proffer observations, debate their meanings and evalua-
tions, and synthesize theses. In particular, I would like to note and thank, be-
yond the aforementioned professors, Lars Maskow, who took time both during
and outside of the colloquium to discuss and engage with my ideas.
I would like to thank the editors of the series Forschungen zum Alten Testa-
ment for their willingness to accept this monograph into their series. The team
at Mohr Siebeck, as well, deserves my praise for their helpful technical support
and editing advice. Specifically, my thanks go to Dominika Zgolik and Katha-
rina Gutekunst.
Outside of a professional capacity, I remain indebted to my friends and col-
leagues at the faculty in Münster and elsewhere in Germany, who supported
me with friendly words and plenty of coffee and sweets. Noteworthy were the
contributions of Patrick Bahl, Sabine Joy Ihben-Bahl, Eike Herzig, and Rudi
de Lange. For time away from the office, I thank “The Holy Rollers” for af-
fording me with the regular opportunity to clear my head by bowling down as
many pins as we could. Finally, I wish to thank my family: my wife Anja for
her continual support in virtually every imaginable capacity, even at the most
stressful times during this project, and our daughter Miriam, who permitted
Anja to stay home from work, granting her the time to read and correct my
manuscript. Both Anja and Miriam taught and continue to teach me what joy
truly means.
To them and all of the aforementioned, I express my deepest gratitude.

Jonathan Miles Robker
In Münster
February 2019

Table of Contents
Foreword ..................................................................................................... V
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................... XIII
Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................ 1
1.1 The Question ......................................................................................... 1
1.2 Is the Balaam Narrative in Numbers 22–24 Uniform? .......................... 10
1.2.1 Walter Gross ...................................................................................... 10
1.2.2 Alexander Rofé .................................................................................. 11
1.2.3 Meshullam Margoliot ........................................................................ 12
1.2.4 Andreas Schüle .................................................................................. 14
1.2.5 Uwe Weise ........................................................................................ 15
1.2.6 Summary of Unified Models .............................................................. 17
1.3 Is the Story in Numbers 22–24 the Product of Multiple Sources? ......... 17
1.3.1 Julius Wellhausen .............................................................................. 19
1.3.2 August Freiherr von Gall ................................................................... 19
1.3.3 Heinrich Holzinger ............................................................................ 20
1.3.4 George Buchanan Gray ...................................................................... 21
1.3.5 Hugo Greßmann ................................................................................ 22
1.3.6 Otto Eissfeldt ..................................................................................... 23
1.3.7 Martin Noth ....................................................................................... 25
1.3.8 Jules de Vaulx ................................................................................... 27
1.3.9 Baruch Levine ................................................................................... 27
1.3.10 Axel Graupner ................................................................................. 29
1.3.11 Ludwig Schmidt .............................................................................. 32
1.3.12 Horst Seebass .................................................................................. 34
1.3.13 Joel Baden ....................................................................................... 34
1.3.14 Summary of Source-Critical Models ................................................ 37

VIII Table of Contents
1.4 Redaction-Historical Models for the
Development of Numbers 22–24 ................................................................. 38
1.4.1 Hedwige Rouillard ............................................................................. 38
1.4.2 Erhard Blum ...................................................................................... 40
1.4.3 Christoph Levin ................................................................................. 41
1.4.4 John Van Seters ................................................................................. 46
1.4.5 Reinhard G. Kratz ...............................................................................50
1.4.6 Markus Witte ..................................................................................... 52
1.4.7 Reinhard Achenbach .......................................................................... 57
1.4.8 Rainer Albertz ................................................................................... 66
1.4.9 Summary of Redaction-Historical Models ......................................... 67
1.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 67
Chapter 2: The Text of Numbers 22–24 .......................................... 69
2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 69
2.2 Textual Criticism .................................................................................. 73
2.2.1 Num 22:5–6 ....................................................................................... 73
2.2.2 Num 22:10–11 ................................................................................... 76
2.2.3 Num 22:21–35 ................................................................................... 76
2.2.4 Num 22:2–5 and 15–17 ...................................................................... 78
2.2.5 Num 23:10 ......................................................................................... 80
2.2.6 Num 23:18–21 ................................................................................... 81
2.2.7 Num 24:6–7 ....................................................................................... 83
2.2.8 Num 24:17–24 ................................................................................... 88
2.3 The Restored Text of Numbers 22–24 and Its Translation ................... 101
2.4 The Emendations to M in Numbers 22–24 .......................................... 118
2.5 The Character of the Textual Traditions ............................................. 119
2.5.1 The Septuagint Tradition ................................................................. 119
2.5.2 The (Pre-)Samaritan Tradition ......................................................... 122
2.5.3 The (Proto-)Masoretic Tradition ...................................................... 123
2.6 Conclusions ........................................................................................ 125

Table of Contents IX
Chapter 3: Literary Criticism ........................................................... 128
3.1 Structural Analysis ............................................................................. 128
3.2 Literary-Critical Remarks and the Unity of the Composition .............. 131
3.3 The Narrative’s Exposition(s): Numbers 22:1–4 ................................. 133
3.4 The Main Narrative Body: Numbers 22:5–23:6, 11–17, 25–30 ........... 139
3.5 The Oracles: Num 23:7–10, 18–24; 24:3–9, and 15–24 ..................... 156
3.6 The Narrative’s Conclusion: Numbers 24:1–2, 10–14, and 24 ........... 171
3.7 Summary of Literary-Critical Results ................................................. 174
3.8 Redaction History ............................................................................... 195
3.9 The Story of Balaam in the Redaction Version(s) ................................ 197
Chapter 4: The Bible’s Balaam beyond Numbers 22–24 .......... 207
4.1 Genesis 36:32–33 // 1 Chronicles 1:43–44 ......................................... 207
4.2 Numbers 31 ........................................................................................ 209
4.3 Deuteronomy 23:4–6 .......................................................................... 218
4.4 Joshua 13:21–22 ................................................................................ 229
4.5 Joshua 24:9–10 .................................................................................. 233
4.6 Judges 11:25 ...................................................................................... 241
4.7 Micah 6:5 ........................................................................................... 243
4.8 Nehemiah 13:1–3 ................................................................................ 246
4.9 Conclusions: Balaam in the Hebrew Bible .......................................... 250
4.10 Balaam at Qumran and in the New Testament .................................. 253
4.10.1 Balaam at Qumran ......................................................................... 254
4.10.2 Matthew 2 ...................................................................................... 256
4.10.3 2 Peter 2:15–26 .............................................................................. 259
4.10.4 Jude 11 .......................................................................................... 261
4.10.5 Revelation 2:14 .............................................................................. 262
4.11 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 263

X Table of Contents
Chapter 5: An Inscription from Deir ʿAlla.
Balaam in Transjordan
....................................................................... 271
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 271
5.2 The Inscription’s Language ................................................................ 276
5.3 The Text, Its Reconstruction, and Its Translation ................................ 279
5.4 Commentary and Evaluation .............................................................. 288
5.5 The Inscription’s Form ....................................................................... 293
5.6 The Inscription’s Sitz im Leben .......................................................... 295
5.6.1 The Scribe ....................................................................................... 296
5.6.2 The Location ................................................................................... 297
5.6.3 The Function ................................................................................... 298
5.7 The Relationship to the Bible’s Balaam(s) .......................................... 300
5.8 Conclusions: What Does the DAPT
Reveal about the Bible’s Balaam? ............................................................ 304
Chapter 6: Balaam as a Character.
His Origin and Background
.............................................................. 306
6.1 What’s in a Name? ............................................................................. 306
6.2 Balaam’s Heritage .............................................................................. 308
6.2.1 א הרותפרשׁ רהנה־לע .......................................................................... 309
6.2.2 ומע־ינב ץרא)ן( ................................................................................... 311
6.2.3 םרא .................................................................................................. 312
6.2.4 םדק־יררהמ ........................................................................................ 314
6.2.5 ןידמ .................................................................................................. 316
6.2.6 םירהנ םרא רותפמ .............................................................................. 317
6.2.7 Conclusions about Balaam’s
Ethnicity and Geopolitical Background .................................................... 318
6.3 Balaam’s “Profession” ...................................................................... 319
6.3.1 רתופ (Num 22:5) .............................................................................. 320
6.3.2 ררא (Num 22:6, 12; 23:7; and 24:9) ................................................. 321
6.3.3 םסק (Num 22:7; 23:23; and Josh 13:22) ........................................... 324
6.3.4 בבק (Num 22:11, 17; 23:8, 11, 13, 25, 27; and 24:10) ...................... 326

Table of Contents XI
6.3.5 הלע (Num 23:2 and 4) ...................................................................... 328
6.3.6 םעז (Num 23:7–8) ............................................................................ 330
6.3.7 שׁחנ (Num 23:23 and 24:1) ............................................................... 331
6.3.8 םיהלא חור וילע יהתו (Num 24:2) ....................................................... 334
6.3.9 ןיעה םתשׁ רבגה (Num 24:3 and 15) ................................................... 336
6.3.10 לא־ירמא עמשׁ (Num 24:4 M and 16) ............................................... 337
6.3.11 הזחי ידשׁ הזחמ (Num 24:4 and 16) .................................................. 337
6.3.12 םיניע יולגו לפנ (Num 24:4 and 16) ................................................... 338
6.3.13 ןוילע תעד עדיו (Num 24:16) ............................................................ 339
6.3.14 ללק and הללק (Deut 23:6; Josh 24:9; and Neh 13:2) ....................... 340
6.3.15 Balaam’s Profession in the Inscription from Tell Deir ʿAlla .......... 342
6.3.16 Conclusions about Balaam’s “Profession” ..................................... 344
6.4 Balaam’s “Religious Affiliations” ...................................................... 347
6.4.1 הוהי .................................................................................................. 347
6.4.2 םיהלא / ןהלא ..................................................................................... 349
6.4.3 לא .................................................................................................... 350
6.4.4 ידשׁ
................................................................................................... 353
6.4.5 ןוילע .................................................................................................. 356
6.4.6 Conclusions about Balaam’s Religion .............................................. 357
6.5 Conclusions about the Character Balaam ........................................... 358
Chapter 7: Conclusions and Impetus for Further Research ...... 361
Bibliography ............................................................................................. 367
Source Index ............................................................................................ 387
Author Index ............................................................................................ 395
Subject Index ............................................................................................ 398

List of Abbreviations
Generally, the abbreviations in this volume follow the SBL Handbook of Style,
Second Edition. Abbreviations that do not follow or appear in SBL are present
here.
DAPT The Deir ʿAlla Plaster Texts, specifically Combination A
G The Septuagint
HexRed The Redactor of the Hexateuch
La The Vetus Latina
M The Masoretic Text
M
L
Codex Leningradensis
PentRed The Redactor of the Pentateuch
Q Qumran
R1 The first redactor / redaction of a biblical text
R2 The second redactor / redaction of a biblical text
R3+ The third redactor / redaction of a biblical text
S The Peshitta
S1 The oldest source text behind Numbers 22–24 and cognate texts
S2 A second, fragmentary source text attested in Numbers 22–24
Smr The Samaritan Pentateuch
T Targum Version(s)
V The Vulgate

Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 The Question
1.1 The Question
Who was Balaam, and what did he do? This curious figure is most well known
from Numbers 22–24, but he appears in many other texts as well. Interested
readers encounter him in Numbers 31; Deuteronomy 23; Joshua 13 and 24; and
Micah 6, as well as in the New Testament. The biblical material presents a
broad spectrum about this enigmatic character, who has fascinated readers
since Antiquity. Philo spends time commenting on him and interpreting his
undertakings.
1
The community at Qumran cited as messianic one of his sup-
posed prophecies recounted in the book of Numbers,
2
while at the same time
including him in a list of false prophets.
3
Josephus proffers a lengthy recount-
ing and explication of the biblical material.
4
No fewer than four New Testa-
ment authors obliquely allude to or expressly refer to either him or his proph-
ecy.
5
Others around the transition between the eras refer or allude to him or his
prophecies, such as the community at Qumran, the author of 1 Enoch, Pseudo-
Philo, and Philo.
6
The Targums demonstrate further analysis of this figure in

1
Cf. Praem. 91–97 and 163–72; Mos. 1.290–1. Regarding Philo’s interpretive engage-
ment with Balaam, cf. Herbert Donner, “Balaam pseudopropheta,” in Beiträge zur Alttesta-
mentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Herbert
Donner, Robert Hanhart and Rudolf Smend (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1977), 118–19 and Peder Borgen, “‘There Shall Come Forth a Man’: Reflections on Messi-
anic Ideas in Philo,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity,
ed. James H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 341–61.
2
Cf. Florentino García Martínez, “Two Messianic Figures in the Qumran Texts,” in Cur-
rent Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Donald W.
Parry and Stephen D. Ricks (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 14–40.
3
Cf. 4Q339 and Aharon Shemesh, “A Note on ‘4Q339’ ‘List of False Prophets’,”
RevQ 20, no. 2 (December 2001): 319–20.
4
Cf. Ant. 4.102–58.
5
Namely, the authors of Matthew, 2 Peter, Jude, and the Revelation.
6
For Qumran, cf. the discussion in Chapter Four. For 1 Enoch, cf. Eibert Tigchelaar,
“Balaam and Enoch,” in The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Chris-
tianity, and Islam, ed. George H. van Kooten and Jacques van Ruiten, TBN, vol. 11 (Leiden:
Brill, 2008), 87–99. For Pseudo-Philo, cf. Jacques T.A.G.M. van Ruiten, “The Rewriting of
Numbers 22–24 in Pseudo-Philo, Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 18,” in The Prestige of the
Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity, and Islam, ed. George H. van Kooten

2 Introduction
the Aramaic-speaking Judaism of Antiquity, sometimes in common with Philo
or other interpreters.
7
The engagement with this figure continued also in Me-
dieval Judaism and Christianity.
8
Yet, even the most superficial reading of the
biblical materials about Balaam demonstrates disparate images of this peculiar
personality.
9
This confused and confusing characterization has left an impres-
sive mark even into the twenty-first century in the form of the extensive sec-
ondary literature devoted to Balaam.
Much of the modern fascination with Balaam, particularly before the 1970s,
focused on the identification of sources behind the biblical Balaam material.
Exegetes sought to explain why Numbers characterizes Balaam in several dif-
ferent manners, why Balaam in Deuteronomy and Joshua remains distinct from
Balaam in Numbers, and what Micah might have known about any literary or
historical Balaam figure. For the material in the Hexateuch, such discussions
made Balaam more or less a pawn in iterations of the Urkundenhypothese (the
Documentary Hypothesis). Often this process began already with regard to the

and Jacques van Ruiten, TBN, vol. 11 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 101–30. For Philo, cf. George
H. van Kooten, “Balaam as the Sophist par Excellence in Philo of Alexandria: Philo’s Pro-
jection of an Urgent Contemporary Debate Onto Moses’ Pentateuchal Narratives,” in The
Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity, and Islam, ed. George
H. van Kooten and Jacques van Ruiten, TBN, vol. 11 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 131–61.
7
Cf. Robert Hayward, “Balaam’s Prophecies as Interpreted by Philo and the Aramaic
Targums of the Pentateuch,” in New Heaven and New Earth. Prophecy and the Millennium.
Essays in Honour of Anthony Gelston, ed. Peter J. Harland and Robert Hayward (Leiden;
Boston; Cologne: Brill, 1999), 19–36 and Alberdina Houtman and Harry Sysling, “Balaam’s
Fourth Oracle (Numbers 24:15–19) According to the Aramaic Targums,” in The Prestige of
the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity, and Islam, ed. George H. van
Kooten and Jacques van Ruiten, TBN, vol. 11 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 189–211.
8
For Rabbinic Judaism, cf., the overview of material and the comments in, e.g., Geza
Vermes, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism. Haggadic Studies. Second, Revised Edition.,
StPB, vol. 4 (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 127–76 and Ronit Nikolsky, “Interpret Him as Much as
You Want: Balaam in the Babylonian Talmud,” in The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Ba-
laam in Judaism, Early Christianity, and Islam, ed. George H. van Kooten and Jacques van
Ruiten, TBN, vol. 11 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 213–30, as well as the literature cited there. For
an introduction to Patristic comments on Balaam, cf. Johan Leemans, “‘To Bless with a
Mouth Bent on Cursing’: Patristic Interpretations of Balaam (Num 24:17),” in The Prestige
of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early Christianity, and Islam, ed. George H. van
Kooten and Jacques van Ruiten, TBN, vol. 11 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 287–99.
9
Though, some have gone to remarkable lengths to conform the retelling of Balaam’s
story in the Bible. Cf., e.g., Rufus Phineas Stebbins, “The Story of Balaam,” The Old Testa-
ment Student 4, no. 9 (May 1885): 385–95, who regarded the whole story of Numbers 22–
24 as Balaam’s self-serving and deceitful autobiographical report. However, Stebbins para-
phrasing the tale does not conform to the strictures of critical study. Nor does the retort of
Stebbins’ report; cf. B.F. Simpson, “The Story of Balaam Reconsidered,” The Old Testament
Student 5, no. 3 (November 1885): 125–28.

1.1 The Question 3
textual history of Numbers 22–24 (and other passages about Balaam), as Wev-
ers noted:
“Most commentaries on Num concentrate on obvious inconsistencies in the text, and resort
to source analysis. The Alexandrian translator of course knew nothing of Yahwists, Elohists
and Priestly writers. He certainly did not distinguish between a source using הוהי and another
using םיהלא; he was faced with a completed text, much like a consonantal BHS text. Oddly,
he seems not to have been concerned about the inconsistencies which trouble modern schol-
ars, though some of them are ob|vious. Thus that for the second visit of Moabite dignitaries,
divine approval for Balaam’s journey to Moab was given, though at the first visit it was not.
Nor does the translator show concern at the uneasy fit of the angel’s barring the way to
Balaam’s ass in spite of permission to go to Moab having been granted. He made no attempt
at reconciling such difficulties, but simply translated what was before him.”
10

Genuflections on the literary background of the figure of Balaam continue to-
day, albeit often (though by no means exclusively) quite divorced from the
source-critical epistemology of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Some
more recent studies have considered the redactional characterizations of the
literature and its Balaam figure. Others have sought to affirm the general unity
of Numbers’ portrayal of Balaam, at least as found in Numbers 22–24. The
literary issues have by no means been entirely resolved, but they are also not
the only table at which Balaam is discussed.
11

After the deciphering of cuneiform and the subsequent availability to mod-
ern audiences of Mesopotamian literature and the customs attested therein, in-
terest in Balaam renewed with a new nuance. No longer could he only be com-
pared and contrasted with biblical prophets or those known from the Hellenistic
and Roman world. The opportunity arose to compare him with equivalents
found in the Akkadian sources. Exegetes and students of Oriental culture could
reflect on Balaam’s mantic background and practices, in what ways the biblical
image of Balaam suggests or affirms his supposed Mesopotamian back-
ground.
12
The mysterious city of his origin – simply called “Pethor on the
river” in the Hebrew Bible – could be recognized and equated with a city found
in Akkadian sources, namely Pitrû.
13
This discussion in turn left its traces on

10
John William Wevers, “The Balaam Narrative According to the Septuagint,” in Lec-
tures et Relectures de la Bible. Festschrift Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, ed. Jean-Marie Auwers,
André Wénin (Leuven: Peeters, 1999), 136–37.
11
Chapter Three will address these literary-critical and redactional-historical issues.
12
Cf., e.g., already Samuel Daiches, “Balaam – A Babylonian Bārū,” in Hilprecht Anni-
versary Volume (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1909), 60–70, who attempted to present ten com-
mon features between Mesopotamian bārū and Balaam. Against this position, cf. Leonhard
Rost, “Fragen um Bileam,” in Beiträge zur Alttestamentlichen Theologie: Festschrift für
Walther Zimmerli zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Herbert Donner, Robert Hanhart and Rudolf
Smend (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 377–87.
13
This identification goes back to at least 1885; cf. the translation of Shalmaneser’s Mon-
olith Inscription in Archibald Henry Sayce, Assyria. Its Princes, Priests and People (Lon-
don: The Religious Tract Society, 1885), 147, though George Buchanan Gray, A Critical

4 Introduction
biblical exegetical discourse about Balaam, even about what this new data im-
plied about the sources’ engagement with this traditional figure. And yet, this
certainly was not the final aspect of the discourse about Balaam.
14

In 1967, Balaam received renewed interest with the recovery of an ancient
Transjordanian inscription – found at Tell Deir ʿAlla – that mentions him by
name, even with the same patronymic as that of the Bible.
15
Now attention
could turn to Balaam as a Transjordanian personage or epigraphic literary fig-
ure. Exegetes could contrast the Bible with a new source of material about this
fabled figure. That the inscription also featured a vision and foretold some
forthcoming destruction hardly went unnoticed. But the poorly preserved in-
scription required more attention simply to decipher what it said. With more
time to appreciate the inscription, more can be said about it, particularly re-
garding the text’s composition and the circumstances behind its creation. Any
relationship it might have to the biblical tradition, a relationship which was
expounded quite vociferously shortly after the inscription’s discovery, can also
be appreciated more fully.
16

Each of these matters – the biblical text, the traditions behind it, their rela-
tionships to the world of the ancient Orient, the specific nature of any common
background between the biblical text and the inscription from Deir ʿAlla – still
merits discussion. None of the problems have been resolved with anything ap-
proaching certainty or scholarly consensus. Particularly in the case of the bib-
lical materials, continued interest and the development of fundamentally dis-
tinct literary-historical models in the past several decades mandate that a new
approach to this old discussion be advanced. This work will attempt to cover
the various features of the debate around Balaam, including a strong focus on
the biblical materials. Methodologically, the traditional canon of historical crit-
icism, with reference to other methods where appropriate, guides this study.
The monograph will approach Balaam from several perspectives, but the pri-
mary focus remains the biblical text, particularly regarding questions of 1) its
textual transmission; 2) its literary inception; 3) its literary transmission and
redactional history; 4) its tradition-historical background; and 5) its theological

and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers, Impression from 1986, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1903), 325 dated it to some publication of Sayce’s from 1878 that I have been unable
to identify.
14
The discussion of Balaam’s background and any potential relationship to Mesopotamia
follows in Chapter Six.
15
The initial publication followed only in 1976 (Jacob Hoftijzer and Gerrit van der Kooij,
eds., Aramaic Texts from Deir ‘Alla, DMOA, vol. 19 [Leiden: Brill, 1976]), though a notice
about the discovery occurred already in the same year; cf. Hendricus Jacobus Franken,
“Texts from the Persian Period from Tell Deir ‘Allā,” VT 17 (1967): 480–81.
16
Chapter Five discusses this inscription and its implications for our understanding of
Balaam. Some additional tradition-historical considerations of this inscription follow in
Chapter Six.

1.1 The Question 5
or religious-historical impetus and development. This provides a framework
for the discussion at hand.
Ultimately, this work will identify the ancient background of this historical
or fictional figure as an Aramean with some metaphysical capability. Due to
Aramean influence on the Cisjordan and Transjordan, Israelite familiarity with
this character developed such that they incorporated him into their literary en-
gagement with the neighboring kingdom of Moab. The historical background
for this earliest literature must have been during the ninth or eighth centuries
BCE, when Israel and Moab stood as opposed militant combatants and Aram-
Damascus occupied the Transjordan. Both the biblical and Transjordanian ep-
igraphical accounts of Balaam reflect this historical and cultural background.
Though the historical background of the oldest literary Balaam tradition be-
longs to the monarchic period in Israel, even this primary version was retro-
jected into a narrative about Israel’s origin from the time of the exodus. This
created the impression that Moab and Israel had not been amenable since be-
fore Israel arrived in the land, according to one of their biblical origin stories.
This first biblical account about Balaam existed from its literary inception
as a written source, which currently stands in Numbers and can be recon-
structed with some reliability. This recovered source cannot be identified as
one of the Pentateuch sources traditionally postulated and reconstructed in the
Documentary Hypothesis (J, E, D, or P). It may have initially consisted essen-
tially only of the Balaam narrative and oracles in an abbreviated form as found
in Numbers 22–24. The oldest biblical material about Balaam viewed him un-
equivocally positively. Perhaps scribes at the royal court of the late ninth or
first half of the eighth century
BCE (the Jehu dynasty) composed this piece. The
loose integration of this material suggests that its place within Numbers stems
from a later editorial integration into its current context, though it could have
represented a portion of a longer contiguous source from its inception.
After its initial composition, this Balaam source was edited, expanded, and
combined with other materials now found in Numbers. Its incorporation into a
larger Deuteronomic/Deteronomistic exodus-eisodus narrative or even some
kind of early Enneateuch present the most likely scenarios. This later compo-
sition afforded the Israelite entrance into the land from the east to accommo-
date the incorporation of the Balaam material. This “edition” must have con-
tained at least portions of Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Joshua.
17
Yet, others also
continued to emend and append other material to this Balaam story now found
in Numbers. At least one layer of these later redactions present part of a priestly
composition that expounded on the Deuteronomistic composition including the

17
A satisfactory engagement with that material in a literary-critical and redactional-his-
torical perspective goes generally beyond the bounds of this study. For this reason, I will
only superficially address them here.

6 Introduction
Balaam story and oracles. Other additions may have been part of larger redac-
tional undertakings, but probably only represent specific, context-oriented
Fortschreibungen.
At the same time, other literature about Balaam now found in the Hebrew
Bible (Deuteronomy 23; Joshua 13 and 24; Judges 11; Micah 6; and Nehemiah
13) reflected on the various versions of the story in Numbers 22–24, interpret-
ing what they found and transforming Balaam’s image in Israelite literature.
Gradually these interpretations attest the development of negative sentiment
toward Balaam. Material about Balaam in the Hebrew Bible continued to adapt
even into the stage of transmission attested by the manuscripts. These latest
impressions of Balaam were quite influential on Jewish authors, who demon-
strate some ambivalence towards Balaam, including some New Testament au-
thors, who all view him negatively, though one – Matthew – at least appropri-
ates one element of an oracle ascribed to Balaam in Numbers through a positive
reception.
18
With that, we can trace an ancient Oriental figure from ninth or
eighth century
BCE and his development into the Roman Period and witness the
transitions in attitudes toward him.
19

The primary interest of this work rests in the biblical materials, particularly
that found in Numbers 22–24. These chapters are the longest about Balaam and
the most important in any discussion about him. For that reason, Chapters Two
and Three focus on Numbers 22–24 from text-historical, literary-critical, and
redactional-historical perspectives. These chapters present my reconstruction
based on many impetuses found in the secondary literature published to date.
In order to familiarize the reader with the various literary-critical and redac-
tion-historical positions about Balaam proffered, a brief cross section of the
history of scholarship will open this work below. Particularly those unfamiliar
with the development of German literary-historical and redaction-critical mod-
els in the past few decades will find this opening section helpful. At the same
time, the growing split between some North American and Israeli models with
those of continental Europe will be addressed. This introductory chapter fo-
cuses primarily on the discussion surrounding Numbers, but also naturally in-
cludes some reflections on the Balaam materials in Deuteronomy and Joshua,
as these texts frequently appear along with Numbers in models that reconstruct
the development of the Pentateuch or Hexateuch.

18
This study only obliquely addresses the works attested at Qumran, Philo, and Josephus.
The New Testament texts, which have become biblical – albeit to a particular audience –
receive somewhat more attention.
19
The further reception history of this character in art and literature, even Rabbinical
literature, remains outside of this study’s scope. Cf., however, Stefan Beyerle, “‘A Star Shall
Come Out of Jacob’: A Critical Evaluation of the Balaam Oracle in the Context of Jewish
Revolts in Roman Times,” in The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, Early
Christianity, and Islam, ed. George H. van Kooten and Jacques van Ruiten, TBN, vol. 11
(Leiden: Brill, 2008), 163–88 and Nikolsky, “Interpret Him”.

1.1 The Question 7
Following this introductory history of scholarship, Chapter Two will address
a variety of text-critical issues in the primary text, Numbers 22–24, focusing
on distinctions with the textual traditions and translations, such as the Maso-
retic textual tradition (M), the Samaritan Pentauch (Samaritanus; Smr), and the
Septuagint (G). Since much of the debate about the place of Numbers 22–24
(as well as the other biblical texts discussed in this volume) in the developing
literary corpus of the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch has occurred
somewhat divorced from text-critical discussions, this chapter seeks to bring
these two approaches closer together. The necessity of this remains conspicu-
ous, as the text of Numbers 22–24 attests a number of significant variants in
the manuscripts. From this survey, it will become apparent that variants in the
Numbers text demonstrate its development even into the Roman Period, into
the time from which manuscripts still exist. At the same time, the text-critical
analysis demonstrates the remarkable stability of the textual tradition of Num-
bers over centuries of transmission.
Having plumbed the depths of the text-critical issues in the passage, Chapter
Three addresses literary-critical issues in Numbers 22–24. This chapter pro-
poses a new reconstruction of the literary development of Numbers 22–24.
Several elements in the version reconstructed at the conclusion of Chapter Two
demonstrate diachronic development behind even that oldest reconstructed ver-
sion. That is, several hands expressed themselves in the composition now
found in Numbers 22–24; we should reckon with at least four. That being said,
the majority of material in Numbers 22–24 appears to have existed from its
literary conception as a unity. Having identified the secondary, tertiary, and
later additions to Numbers 22–24, Chapter Three then continues, briefly turn-
ing to the larger problem of the redactional development of Numbers 22–24 in
the context of larger literary compositions. The focus here remains primarily
on the developing literary context within the book of Numbers, but this cannot
be viewed entirely divorced from the rest of the narrative literature in (Genesis
or) Exodus through Kings. First and foremost, the redaction-historical study
advances the thesis that the Balaam story of Numbers 22–24* in its oldest form
either existed as an independent literary composition outside of some exodus–
eisodus composition, though presuming some such historical or – more accu-
rately, narratological – context or as part of a collection of exodus material.
This oldest version presumably dates back to the monarchic period in the
Northern Kingdom, i.e., Israel. Later editors and scribes incorporated new ele-
ments over the course of transmission. These included additions that appear to
stem from Deuteronomistic (late preexilic or exilic) and Priestly (exilic or post-
exilic) backgrounds, as well as even later editorial developments that some
have identified with redactions bearing monikers like “Hexateuch Redaction”,
“Pentateuch Redaction”, or “Theocratic Editing”. These considerations affirm
the developing negative attitude toward Balaam described in the literary-criti-
cal examination of these chapters.

8 Introduction
Having approached those issues and hopefully having proffered some plau-
sible new solutions, Chapter Four turns attention away from Numbers 22–24
to the other biblical texts about Balaam. These are studied in the same way as
the text of Numbers 22–24, first text-critically, then literarily, and redaction-
historically. Many of the same issues occur in these texts as in Numbers 22–
24. Many of the proposed theses from the preceding chapters will echo here.
This survey will demonstrate that some other biblical traditions demonstrate
affinity with distinct phases of the development of Numbers 22–24. Others
demonstrate attitudes distinct from some versions of Numbers 22–24 that
might have impacted its development. This chapter concludes with an overview
of Balaam’s reception history at Qumran and in the New Testament. This re-
ception again affirms Balaam’s development as a literary figure, with his neg-
ative reception coming to dominate later interpretations of his activities.
Having covered the biblical material about Balaam, Chapter Five addresses
the relevant epigraphic inscription from Tell Deir ʿAlla. Here, the focus is first
on the inscription itself. What can we read from the surface? What does it
mean? How old is it? Does it demonstrate diachronic development? What does
its Balaam look like and how does it express information about him? Then this
chapter compares and contrasts its Balaam from the one in the Bible. While the
amount of common material between the biblical and epigraphical Balaam fig-
ure remains manageable, it will become clear that they share some common
elements in their historical and tradition-historical backgrounds. That informs
our reconstruction of any plausible earlier or common literary or historical Ba-
laam figure.
From here, Chapter Six addresses the tradition-historical backgrounds of the
changing images of Balaam, generally appraising the terminology applied to
him. The backgrounds reflected in all of the material about Balaam in the He-
brew Bible and the Tell Deir ʿAlla Inscription flow into this survey. This dis-
cussion will demonstrate and elucidate the distinct and often disparate back-
grounds of literary material about this figure. It will conclude with an appreci-
ation of whether we should reckon with Balaam as a historical or literary figure
and what the cultural background for such a supposed figure might be, though
any conclusion achieved here must remain necessarily speculative.
Finally, Chapter Seven reviews the conclusions of each element of this
study, summarizes them, and reflects on their interrelatedness. At the same
time, it will present matters that remain open for future study, particularly the
development of the biblical literature in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Ennea-
teuch.
However, before diving into the examination of Numbers 22–24, I would
like to reiterate my objectives and specify my theses, as well as offer an over-
view of developments in the history of studies about Balaam. Several theses
will be proffered and defended in this study. First, an older version of the Ba-

1.1 The Question 9
laam story in Numbers 22–24 will be reconstructed based on manuscript evi-
dence. This reconstructed version has been lost, but stood in some fashion be-
hind the various biblical versions of Numbers 22–24 currently known to us
(Smr, G, Q, and M). Text-historically, it will become apparent that this story
about Balaam in Numbers 22–24 continued to develop and change in a limited
manner well into the Roman era, as demonstrated by the manuscripts and the
versions. Secondly, this final layer of adaptation will be shown to present the
culmination of earlier editorial processes, here theoretically mapped and recon-
structed. The tale in Numbers 22–24 began as a smaller core, consisting of both
narrative and oracular material. This core, which should be dated tentatively to
the ninth or – more likely – early eighth century
BCE, was expanded and
adapted on a number of occasions. One, the first redaction, demonstrates affin-
ity with material and theology that can be described as Deuteronomistic. This
first redaction added some narrative and oracular material, and recontextual-
ized the whole by incorporating it into an exodus narrative, a Deuteronomistic
composition, to borrow the vernacular of Blum.
20
At a later date, scribes in-
serted this expanded story into other material, commonly identified as charac-
teristically Priestly, following in the wake of some priestly tradition. Later ma-
terial can also be identified, the final elements of which appear remarkably
similar to those revisions apparent in the manuscript traditions and the variants
attested by the ancient translations. The other biblical texts about Balaam af-
firm this redaction-historical reconstruction and evince many of the same phe-
nomena. The inscription from Tell Deir ʿAlla provides an external datum sup-
porting the date of the oldest reconstructed Balaam material and suggests that
a wider Balaam corpus was known in the southern Levant before and during
the eighth century
BCE. This extrabiblical tradition permits the postulation of a
historical figure behind the distinct Balaam traditions, but more importantly
demonstrates that Balaam was not merely a creation of the biblical authors’
imaginations, even though they certainly filled out his figure with more data
than we can find outside of the Bible. Finally, the tradition-historical data
demonstrate divergent attitudes towards Balaam and affirm the development in
the complex literary figure we find in the biblical materials at present. Perhaps
he bases on some historical figure, but little could be said about such a person-
age. A concluding chapter will reflect on the possibility and need for further
related study based on the features identified here, particularly those dealing
with the text-history and redactional development of the Enneateuch, Hexa-
teuch, or Pentateuch. With that, we can turn to our survey of scholarly research
on the figure of Balaam, beginning with modern literary and source-critical
approaches.

20
Cf. Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW, vol. 189 (Berlin:
de Gruyter, 1990).

10 Introduction
1.2 Is the Balaam Narrative in Numbers 22–24 Uniform?
1.2 Is the Balaam Narrative in Numbers 22–24 Uniform?
For some time, some scholars have argued for the general unity of Numbers
22–24; that is, Numbers 22–24 is not the product of two or more sources. Some
go so far as to suggest that it did not come about through the expansion of one
(or more) primary narrative(s) with redactional material. Often, as a necessary
caveat, scholars genuflect on the narrative’s unity as a sign of its independence
from its context. Only a few exegetes have argued that the text of Numbers 22–
24 came to exist as a uniform narrative without any recourse to postulated
sources in the sense of the Documentary Hypothesis or redactional embedding
and/or expansion (to each of these, see below); the following discussion covers
some important examples.
21

1.2.1 Walter Gross
In 1974, Walter Gross published a dissertation describing Numbers 22–24 as
consisting of several units in contrast to being the product of two sources.
22
In
this study, he focused primarily on literary-historical and form-critical con-
cerns, thus concentrating exclusively on the prose portions of the text. His
working principle is that texts that do not mandate division, should be regarded
as uniform.
23
The primary unit, Num 22:4b–21* (without םדיב םימסקו ןידמ ינקזו
in 22:7a); 22:36–23:25* (without 23:4b and 13agd); and 24:11 and 25 was the
oldest version, a literary unit about Balaam. Later editors expanded this unit on
a few occasions: the first expansion (= Unit 2, in Gross’s nomenclature) added
material from Num 23:26–24:10 (without 24:1ag); and 24:11–15; Unit 3 added
22:2–3a, and 4a; finally, Unit 4 added the narrative about Balaam’s interaction

21
The position and reconstruction of Sutcliffe will not be addressed here, since it requires
filling too many narrative gaps with mere speculation; cf. Edmund F. Sutcliffe, “De Unitate
Litteraria Num XXII,” Bib 7, no. 1 (1926): 3–39 and Edmund F. Sutcliffe, “A Note on Num-
bers XXII,” Bib 18, no. 4 (1937): 439–42. Rather than recognize the tensions in the text as
such, Sutcliffe goes to great lengths to explain why they are indeed not tensions, filling in
substantial narrative and quasi-historical information to fulfill this need. Since Timothy R.
Ashley, The Book of Numbers, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans,
1993), 454–55 did not really argue the model, but mostly presumed it, particularly in the
case of the donkey narrative, it will also not be detailed here. László Pákozdy, “Az istenne-
vek használata a Bileámperikópában,” Theologiai Szemle 14 (1938): 160–65 argued for the
consistency of a single source in Numbers 22–24 for theological reasons. The narrator used
distinct divine names to demonstrate with certainty Y
HWH’s superiority over the mantic
practices of other peoples, as well as over oracles, magic, and prophetic undertakings.
22
Cf. Walter Gross, Bileam: Literar- und formkritische Untersuchung der Prosa in Num
22–24, SANT (Munich: Kösel-Verlag, 1974).
23
Cf. Gross, Bileam, 16: “Textteile, die nicht zur Zertrennung zwingen, gelten als zu-
sammengehörig”.

1.2 Is the Balaam Narrative in Numbers 22–24 Uniform? 11
with his donkey, 22:22–35.
24
To arrive at this reconstruction, he considered
several elements that traditionally led to the division of Numbers 22–24 into
the sources J and E and demonstrated their insufficiency to explain the condi-
tion of the text.
25

Gross’s whole reconstruction relies essentially on the identification of 23:25
+ 24:11 and 25 as the conclusion of the story, with all of the material in 23:26–
24:10 as a later interpolation. However, his reasoning for this reconstruction is
insufficient. He names two criteria for this decision to regard 23:25 as the real
conclusion of the narrative: syntax and duplication.
26
Regarding the first point,
the curious phrase ונכרבת אל ךרב־םג ונבקת אל בק־םג, with its curious parallel
syntax, demands that something else follows. Otherwise, Balak commands Ba-
laam to do something, or rather – more accurately – forbids him from doing
something, without its being fulfilled. Such would be the case nowhere else in
this story. N.b. particularly the case in 24:11 + 25. That alone suggests a weak-
ness in Gross’s reconstruction. The duplication of information in 22:41–23:2,
13–14 that he recognizes in 23:27–30 is not, in fact, a duplication. Rather, it
presents a progression of the narrative. It has been edited to some degree, as
will become apparent in Chapter Three, but it does not represent the copying
of an original now found in 22:41–23:2, and 13–14. Reading 24:11 and 25 im-
mediately after 23:25 provides an unsatisfactory conclusion to the narrative.
The reader reckons with Balaam telling Balak something else, something that
Balak has even explicitly demanded of him. Without at least some of the inter-
vening material in 23:26–24:10, the climax would be substantially reduced and
the story without a satisfactory denouement. On the other hand, Gross’s obser-
vations regarding the donkey story and the opening of the pericope in Num
22:1–5 merit further consideration. He did note that editors incorporated this
material into an older version, an observation worth remembering.
1.2.2 Alexander Rofé
Rofé regards Numbers 22–24 generally as an independent narrative unit. For
him, that means, that it has no constitutional connection to the surrounding
Numbers material.
27
Nonetheless, Rofé recognizes one piece of the Balaam

24
Gross does not provide provenience for the “additions” in 22:3b, 7a*; 23:4b, 13aγδ;
and 24:1aγ. For his observations about the secondary status of the donkey story, cf. Gross,
Bileam, 121–23.
25
Among other elements, he considered duplication of material, the divine nomenclature,
the verbs used for cursing, the terminology used for Balak’s messengers, and the various
terms used for the group undertaking the exodus; cf. Gross, Bileam, 64–88.
26
Cf. Gross, Bileam, 136–37.
27
Cf. Alexander Rofé, “The Book of Balaam” (Numbers 22:2–24:25). A Study in Meth-
ods of Criticism and the History of Biblical Literature and Religion. With an Appendix: Ba-
laam in the Deir ʿAlla Inscription, JBS (Jerusalem: Simor Ltd., 1979), 12–36.

12 Introduction
story that does not belong to this uniform scheme: the episode about Balaam’s
ass represents a later interpolation into the story.
28
His argumentation covers
particularly form-critical and tradition-historical matters and regards the vari-
ant attitude toward Balaam in the donkey pericope as evidence for this episodes
distinct background from the rest of Numbers 22–24. Additionally, he identi-
fies the usage of divine epithets as divergent in the two types of material: the
main body of Numbers 22–24 relies on םיהלא in the narrative and הוהי in the
oracles, with only the story of Balaam’s ass referring to הוהי in narrative mate-
rial. The few other appearances of the Tetragrammaton outside of the donkey
story resulted from cross-contamination from the donkey episode in its sur-
rounding context over the course of textual transmission and are not relevant
for source-critical undertakings.
29

Otherwise, the rest of Numbers 22–24 and its general independence over-
looks the presupposed narrative background of the story: why is Israel in
Moab? Freed from the context of some exodus–eisodus narrative, the Balaam
story of Numbers 22–24 lacks sufficient prerequisites to have existed inde-
pendently, presuming that the beginning has not gone missing. Either that, or
it must have belonged to a larger collection of stories reflecting the exodus
period. At the same time, Numbers 22–24 mandates that the story occur during
the period of the exodus (Num 22:5, 11; 23:22; and 24:8). The initial reference
to a historical period in Rofé’s reconstructed version mandates a missing ante-
cedent: to what does אוהה תעב refer in Num 22:4? In turn, therefore, it could
not have existed as an independent unit, but would have had to have been com-
posed for some extant context within the book of Numbers (i.e., a
Fortschreibung). The addition of v. 22:2, the appending of which Rofé regards
as the editorial embedding of the rest, does create some tension with the sub-
sequent material.
30
At the same time, this explanation remains insufficient for
other tensions and duplications within Numbers 22–24, the most obvious ex-
ample of which appears in the next verse: Num 22:3. Nonetheless, Rofé’s ap-
preciation of the general unity of Numbers 22–24, excepting the donkey story,
presents a welcome impetus for the evaluation of this pericope.
1.2.3 Meshullam Margaliot
Another attempt to regard Numbers 22–24 as a literary unit, in this case entirely
devoid of editorial insertions or expansions appeared in two presentations in
1973 and 1989. In the subsequently published essays,
31
Margaliot argued based

28
Cf. Rofé, Book of Balaam, 42–57.
29
Cf. Rofé, Book of Balaam, 37–40.
30
Cf. Rofé, Book of Balaam, 34–36.
31
Cf. Meshullam Margaliot, “The Connection of the Balaam Narrative with the Penta-
teuch,” in Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Vol. 1 (Jerusalem:

1.2 Is the Balaam Narrative in Numbers 22–24 Uniform? 13
on theme, that Numbers 22–24 must be regarded as a whole, conceived of by
a single author. The theme that unites both pieces is that of the faithless
prophet. Over the course of the story, Margaliot’s presumed author recounts
the story of Balaam’s transformation from a true prophet (איבנ) to a mantic
(םסוק). Within this transition, he afforded the donkey story a prominent role:
after the two occasions upon which God visited Balaam in the night, God al-
lowed Balaam to go with the officers in order to graciously provide Balaam
four more chances to change his mind.
32
In order to allow this reading, Mar-
galiot equated the donkey story’s הוהי ךאלמ with the םיהלא of the rest. To this
end, the story of Balaam’s ass remains a necessary and integral part of the
whole. Finally, he appreciated the final oracle complex as an important piece,
since the story would otherwise lack an appropriate response to Balak’s at-
tempted cursing. A sense of retribution, in Margaliot’s opinion, mandates that
the fourth oracle stand in this context.
33
The complex structure of the whole
demonstrates the unity in Margaliot’s opinion. The Pentateuch transmits this
story, in Margaliot’s conception, with a threefold purpose: 1) to balance Num-
bers’ otherwise negative attitude toward Israel; 2) to tell the story of the first
prophets of the nations, i.e., Balaam as the first non-Israelite prophet; and 3) to
demonstrate that prophet’s failures, making him a kind of anti-Moses, and jus-
tifying for that reason God’s rejection of all other non-Israelite prophets.
34

A number of issues in this reconstruction merit brief evaluation. First, nei-
ther of the terms Margaliot identified as referring to Balaam and describing his
transformation even appears in Numbers 22–24, particularly not about him.
That makes it unlikely that the story must be understood as Margaliot inter-
preted it. Second, the equation of the הוהי ךאלמ with םיהלא is forced in order
to demand the unity of the composition. Should it have been the author’s or
editor’s intention to equate these two, he or she certainly could have done it in
a more conspicuous fashion. Third, the recognized sense of retribution could
have easily been an editorial addition to an earlier whole. Nothing from the
story’s inception demands that the Israelites should destroy Balaam. For that
matter, the story ends without them even doing it. Fourth, the complexity of a
passage hardly demonstrates its unity. It must not necessarily affirm its disu-
nity, but complexity seems an odd choice to mandate uniformity. Finally, his
comments about nature of prophecy belonging to exclusively to Israel after
Balaam’s failure presumes that what Balaam said was inaccurate or reads it a
priori in light of Deuteronomy 23. Neither of these is necessary or particularly

World Union of Jewish Studies, 1977), 279–90 and Meshullam Margaliot, “Literary, Histor-
ical and Religious Aspects of the Balaam Narrative, Numbers 22–24,” in Proceedings of the
Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, August 16–24, 1989. Division A: The
Bible and Its World (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1990), 75–82.
32
Cf. Margaliot, “Literary, Historical and Religious Aspects,” 77–80.
33
Cf. Margaliot, “Literary, Historical and Religious Aspects,” 81.
34
Cf. Margaliot, “Literary, Historical and Religious Aspects,” 82.

14 Introduction
likely. His comments about prophecy among non-Israelites read more like
apologetic than exegesis.
1.2.4 Andreas Schüle
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Andreas Schüle proposed a more
canonical approach to uncover the unity of the Balaam pericope. He began his
diachronic analysis discussing the story of Balaam’s ass, describing it as a more
or less necessary portion of the story. To his mind, the episode between Balaam
and his donkey should clarify to whose will Balaam will submit, Balak’s or
God’s.
35
Regarding this as a necessary component of the plot, he then assumed
that any multiplicity of versions of the Balaam story must have included it.
However, that both wildly overestimates the integration of this passage into the
whole and presumes that Balaam the character cannot be taken at his word. To
the latter point, the audience has no reason to doubt whom Balaam will follow;
he has repeatedly demonstrated to that point in the story that he does what God
says (Num 22:11–13, 18, and 20–21). Thus there is no narrative basis before
Num 22:22 for regarding Balaam as anything other than obedient to the divine
will. To suggest otherwise, one must read a malicious characterization of Ba-
laam into this story, since it is not immanent to the text. Add to this the con-
spicuous Wiederaufnahme in Num 22:21 and 35, and this point fails to con-
vince.
Schüle proceeded from this observation as his starting point to argue (co-
gently) against the differentiation of source documents from the Urkundenhy-
pothese in Numbers 22–24.
36
He recognized the problems of cogency in the
sources (see the examples below) and affirmed the observation of Noth (see
below) that, without the premise that the sources J and E must stand behind J
and E, no one would come up with the idea of J and E from Numbers. With
that in mind, he then turned to discuss the model of Gross (see above). He
rejected Gross’s evaluation of Numbers 22–24 on the grounds that Numbers
22–24 must have existed as an independent narrative and that it could not have
existed as such in the form that Gross reconstructed.
37
However, Schüle has not
demonstrated that Numbers 22–24 must have existed as an independent narra-
tive. He just states that such was the case. He continues against Gross’s obser-
vations, by suggesting that Gross did not accurately recognize how the text of
Numbers describes Israel in this pericope, generally using “the people”, but
later in the story’s recounting also using “Israel”. While arguing against Gross,

35
Cf. Andreas Schüle, Israels Sohn – Jahwes Prophet: ein Versuch zum Verhältnis von
kanonischer Theologie und Religionsgeschichte anhand der Bileam-Perikope (Num 22–24),
Altes Testament und Moderne, vol. 17 (Münster: Lit, 2001), 501–51.
36
Cf. Schüle, Israels Sohn, 51–59.
37
Cf. Schüle, Israels Sohn, 60.

1.2 Is the Balaam Narrative in Numbers 22–24 Uniform? 15
however, Schüle himself overlooked one of the primary distinctions in the no-
menclature about the people leaving Egypt: he stated unequivocally that Israel
never appears before Num 23:7,
38
which is simply false (cf. Num 22:2). This
oversight becomes all the more ironic and problematic when he paraphrases
this verse, leaving out “Israel”, on the very next page.
39
Since Schüle then in-
terpreted this as an important motif for the rest of the story and the incorpora-
tion of the oracles, namely that Balaam is the one who first really sees “Israel”,
but it is patently incorrect, we can reject this portion of Schüle’s argumentation.
Schüle then continued his approach by combining both of the aforemen-
tioned points to discern the development of a motif over the course of Numbers
22–24.
40
Since neither of these points appears to be accurate, his reconstruction
can be rejected. Additionally, one could raise the question as to whether a com-
petent editor could not have created such a development in terms of sight and
seeing, as Schüle has postulated. Must such a motif be the creation of a single
author of a uniform text? Possibly, but that must be demonstrated. Rather, in
general Schüle’s initial argumentation awakens the impression that he must
argue for the uniformity of the pericope Numbers 22–24 in order to approach
it theologically as an aspect of the whole canon.
41
To that end, his argumenta-
tion would have probably functioned better with a purely synchronic evaluation
of Numbers 22–24 without any recourse to diachronic processes behind the
text.
1.2.5 Uwe Weise
A more recent primary proponent who identifies Numbers 22–24 as a unity is
Uwe Weise in his volume Vom Segnen Israels.
42
Fundamentally, one must rec-
ognize that Weise’s objective is not some description of the figure Balaam, nor
of a literary-historical analysis of Numbers 22–24. Rather, he approached
Numbers 22–24 on the basis of text and communication theory. For the most
part, thus, this study reads like a synchronic evaluation of the Balaam story that
attempts theoretical explanations for the text as it stands that must stem from
one hand. The unity is more presumed than argued; the argumentation focuses
only on maintaining the unity. To that end, various marked breaks in the text
are simply explained away as intentional. There are several problems with
Weise’s model and his thesis. Some examples should aid in demonstrating this.

38
Cf. Schüle, Israels Sohn, 60.
39
Cf. Schüle, Israels Sohn, 61.
40
Cf. Schüle, Israels Sohn, 61–65.
41
Cf. Schüle, Israels Sohn, 69–119.
42
Uwe Weise, Vom Segnen Israels: eine textpragmatische Untersuchung der Bileam-
Erzählung Num 22–24, Textpragmatische Studien zur Literatur- und Kulturgeschichte der
Hebräischen Bibel (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2006).

16 Introduction
From the outset, he smoothed elements of the text that one might consider
diachronically relevant. For example, in one of the most curious matters in his
evaluation of the text of Numbers 22–24, he simply correlates Moab and Balak
in the first four verses of Numbers 22.
43
In my opinion, this appears to be an
unsatisfactory answer to the question of the duplication in verses 2 and 4 with
the transition of subject to Moab (and its duplication, as well) in order to grade
the story’s opening. He applied the same logic with the terminology for Israel,
which changes a few times in Num 22:1–4, a matter that Weise ignored, re-
garding them as uniform. He overlooked conspicuous duplications. These over-
sights become all the more poignant, since he described the syntax of the text
with precision and attention to detail. Why should that attention to detail stop
at the lexical level? That presents a serious deficit to his thesis. More likely,
there is secondary material to be found in Num 22:1–4. However, following
Blum’s model (see below), Weise ultimately recognized that these four verses
stemmed from an editorial hand that compiled the Balaam story with the pre-
ceding material.
44
Does his constitution of the rest of Numbers 22–24 as a unit
fare any better?
The most poignant example of a literary-critical break in Numbers 22–24
and the one that has thus far received the most consensus is the interpolation
of the story of Balaam’s ass. However, Weise did not regard this as an inser-
tion. Nevertheless, Weise’s rejection of the secondary nature of 22:21aβb–35a
also fails to convince. His points are: 1) other texts demonstrate similar ten-
sions; 2) the transition in the prepositions from תא in 22:20 to םע in 22:21;
3) the repetition of the root √ףסי in 22:15a, 19b, 25b, and 26a.
45

To the first point: other texts demonstrating such tension could also evince
editing. To make this claim stick, Weise would have to demonstrate that no
tension in the Bible is the result of editing, particularly in the cases he cited.
That is a monumental task, even in the cases he cited. Therefore, this argument
does not appear particularly strong.
To his second point: this transition in prepositions possibly transports mean-
ing and might be significant, suggesting that God permitted Balaam to go with
them, but he joined them instead. Should that have been the case, one wonders
if the preposition carries the same meaning in, e.g., 22:22, and why Balaam’s
servants, who apparently joined the movement causing anger did not receive
any warning or punishment. Distinct prepositions, particularly those with ex-
tensive semantic overlap hardly present overwhelming evidence of narratolog-
ical development. Such a transformation, of one preposition to the other could
have happened at any stage in the text’s transmission and need not affirm the
unity of the composition. This argument is pretty weak.

43
Cf. Weise, Vom Segnen Israels, 72.
44
Cf. Weise, Vom Segnen Israels, 187–96.
45
Cf. Weise, Vom Segnen Israels, 105–6.

1.3 Is the Story in Numbers 22–24 the Product of Multiple Sources? 17
To his third point: The √ףסי constructed with an infinitive in sentences de-
scribing repeated activity is normal Hebrew syntax. Is there some other way to
express this sentiment? Are all sentences in the HB that use such constructions
products of a single source? That hardly seems likely. This argument is as
flimsy as the other two.
The text in Num 22:22–35 demonstrates obvious tensions with the surround-
ing material that cannot be readily explained in the conception of a single au-
thor. It remains implausible that the same author whose God commanded Ba-
laam to go with Balak’s intercessors should be the author whose God then en-
flames in anger at Balaam doing as he was commanded. The appearance of an
intermediary between the deity and Balaam in 22:21aβb–35a, where none was
needed in 22:9–20 makes it unlikely that these episodes are from the same
hand. The theology of 22:21aβb–35a is distinct from that of the surrounding
material, which implies that it is not from the same composer as the surround-
ing material. That example, and the difficulties with the text’s exposition
should suffice to demonstrate the difficulties with Weise’s reconstruction, even
ignoring for the moment other tensions, like in 24:14. With that, I conclude the
overview of some positions that commend regarding Numbers 22–24 as a unit.
1.2.6 Summary of Unified Models
The fundamental matter that scholars emphasizing the unity of the text have
demonstrated remains the generally unified character of Numbers 22–24. They
recognize that, in general, the text recounts one narrative with some connected
oracles. That is a welcome observation, as we will see in the following study.
However, they fail to account in all cases for the various tensions and breaks
within the text. Some of these are quite conspicuous, such as the donkey epi-
sode, for which – admittedly – some, like Rofé, are willing to make an excep-
tion. These models often tend to emphasize the independent character of the
narrative and its freedom from the surrounding material. Because of the re-
maining tensions and the current factual interdependence between Numbers
22–24 and its surrounding, however, many exegetes have sought to reconstruct
a plurality of sources, usually two, behind the text of Numbers 22–24. To this
we now turn.

1.3 Is the Story in Numbers 22–24
the Product of Multiple Sources?
1.3 Is the Story in Numbers 22–24 the Product of Multiple Sources?
Since the uniform coherence of the text must be called into question, other
compositional models for Numbers 22–24 must be sought. In the development
and advancement of the Urkundenhypothese(n), many scholars postulated or
subsequently affirmed the existence of source documents – usually four in

18 Introduction
number – behind the Pentateuch.
46
These documents were combined, presum-
ably keeping as much material from each source as possible, in order to form
the whole of the Torah. These positions dominated the landscape of Pentateuch
research for most of the 19th and 20th centuries and have enjoyed a renaissance
among some contemporary scholars.
47
The sources, generally postulated based
on material in Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy, were traced with greater or
lesser finesse through the whole of the Pentateuch. To arrive at the content of
a specific source, duplicate or triplicate material often played an important role,
as did the divine nomenclature. That is, scholars often regarded the sources as
reporting the same things in different versions with distinct terminology for
God. When such tactics were applied to Numbers 22–24, scholars found dupli-
cate material in Balaam’s visions and oracles as well as inconsistencies within
the naming of God (as either םיהלא [=E] or הוהי [=J]) and thus developed sev-
eral similar models for dividing the story into two narrative strands, each a part
of a respective Pentateuchal source: J or E.
48
However, few have reflected on
whether Numbers 22–24 inherently justifies this approach and whether either
of these postulated, reconstructed strands can be understood in and of itself or
connected to the preceding and subsequent material in their postulated source
documents.
49
These problems are particularly acute in older version of the Doc-
umentary Hypothesis, but remain in newer iterations as well.

46
N.b. this discussion of various iterations of the Documentary Hypothesis neither seeks
nor desires to be exhaustive. Such an exercise would be, due to the massive amounts of
literature and the long-running popularity of this model, tedious and superfluous to the dis-
cussion here. For anyone seeking a more exhaustive list, I would point them to the table in
Gross, Bileam, 419–27, which covers the material well, at least until 1974. In this discussion,
I have focused on representative models that have especially impacted scholarly reception.
47
Cf., e.g., Joel S. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documen-
tary Hypothesis (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2012).
48
For Nöldecke, Num 22:1 was part of his Grundschrift (later identified as the Priester-
schrift) and 22:1 alone in Numbers 22–24 belonged to this composition in his reconstruction,
whereas the rest stemmed from other sources; cf. Theodor Nöldeke, Untersuchungen zur
Kritik des Alten Testaments (Kiel: Schwers’sche Buchhandlung, 1869), 86–87. Adherents to
the documentary hypothesis generally followed Nöldecke in identifying P in 22:1 and only
in 22:1 in Numbers 22–24.
49
Cf., e.g., Max Löhr, “Bileam, Num 22,2–24,25,” AfO 4 (1927): 86: “Wie will man an-
gesichts dieser Textüberlieferung ernstlich eine jahwistische und elohistische Quelle fest-
stellen?” Even earlier, Heinrich Holzinger, Numeri, KHC, vol. 4 (Tübingen; Leipzig: Mohr
Siebeck, 1903), 107 noted that “…der Gebrauch von הֶוְהַי und םיִהלֱֹא ist, wie Sam. und LXX
nahelegen, in der Bileamperikope zum Teil gründlich in Verwirrung geraten und leistet kei-
nen Führerdienst.” Nonetheless, while regarding Holzinger as advancement over previous
models, Rudolph still rejected his thesis that divine terminology cannot lead to literary-crit-
ical decisions in this pericope; cf. W. Rudolph, Der “Elohist” von Exodus bis Josua, BZAW,
vol. 68 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1938), 103–5. In this, he relied exclusively on Bruno Baentsch,
Exodus, Levitikus, Numeri, HKAT, vol. 1.2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1.3 Is the Story in Numbers 22–24 the Product of Multiple Sources? 19
1.3.1 Julius Wellhausen
Though not its first proponent, the starting point for much of this discussion
about source criticism can be found with Julius Wellhausen, the most widely
known version. In a very few pages of his Composition des Hexateuchs, he
identifies the sources J and E in Numbers 22–24 and ascribes their combination
to the Jehowist, a redactor whose primary function in Wellhausen’s model was
the conflation of these two oldest sources.
50
After more or less carefully divid-
ing the material into the sources J and E, Wellhausen implies inability to
achieve this goal: “Die Erzählung namentlich scheint ganz aus einem Guss und
ist wol auch wirklich vom Jehovisten neu gegossen worden.”
51
In this way,
Wellhausen weakens his own thesis and demonstrates its improbability. He im-
plies that the complete reformulation of the sources must have made their re-
covery impossible. The more responsible resolution would have been to reject
the sources outright as an explanation, rather than create a productive Jehowist
as a redactor. Nonetheless, this model continued to find followers for more than
the next century. Still, many of them were able to operate in Numbers 22–24
without recourse to a Jehowist, as Wellhausen did. Others often were not as
reluctant to reconstruct source documents as Wellhausen was. On the other
hand, some needed even more editors to fit their supposed reconstructed
sources into the grander scheme.
1.3.2 August Freiherr von Gall
An early proponent of a source-critical model for the development of the Pen-
tateuch with recourse to a number of redactions is August von Gall.
52
Ulti-
mately, he distributed the material in Numbers 22–24 into three unequal
sources (J, E, and P, with P, of course, covering the least material) and several
redactions.

1903), 595. More recently, and based on both text-critical and literary-historical considera-
tions, Gross, Bileam, 69–80 demonstrated that dividing Numbers 22–24 into J and E sources
based on the terminology used for the divinity remains inefficacious and insufficient.
50
Cf. Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher
des Alten Testaments, Dritte Auflage. (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1899), 109–11 and 347–52.
51
Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 111.
52
Cf. August Freiherr von Gall, “Zusammensetzung und Herkunft der Bileam-Perikope
in Num. 22–24,” in Festgruss Bernhard Stade zur Feier seiner 25jährigen Wirksamkeit als
Professor, ed. Wilhelm Diehl, et al. (Giessen: Ricker, 1900), 1–47.

20 Introduction
P: 22:1
E: 22:3b, 4* (without ןידמ ינקז־לא), 5*, 6*, 7*, 9–10 ,12, 20, 36, 38, 40; 23:1,
3*, 5, 6a, 12
J: 22:2, 3a, 5*, 6aγ, 7aβ, 8, 11, 13–17, 18*, 19* (from ובשׁ), 21 (to ךליו), 22–34,
37, 39, 41; 23:1, 3*, 2a, 4b, 2b, 4a; 24:10a; 23:11; 24:11, and 25
RJE: 22:6* (לכוא), 18* (from ידבע־לא), 21*, 35* (באומ ירשׂ םע); 23:7–10
RII: 23:13–24
RIII: 23:25–24:9
RIV: 24:12–19
RV: 24:20–22
RVI: 24:23–24
Gloss: 23:6b
Table 1: August von Gall (1900)
His leading criterion for the division into sources remains the name of the di-
vinity; in cases that present problems, he simply looked for a manuscript or
textual tradition with the reading he required for his model.
53
At the same time,
he recognized that different names for Israel could demonstrate distinct prove-
nience for the literary material.
54
In order to fit his program, he requires no
fewer than three source documents.
55
To these, he adds no fewer than six edi-
tors.
56
Nonetheless, none of his sources is legible or understandable and his six
redactions can possibly be more readily and easily explained. He thus created
more literary-critical problems than he solved, a common problem with these
models.
57
His final redaction requires a dating in the Roman Period in order to
conform to his interpretation.
58
That requires him in turn to note that G and
Smr were constantly updated to accord with proto-M,
59
which, while a possible
explanation for their consistency, could be more readily explained through an
earlier dating of that editorial expansion. Yet, it remains noteworthy that by
1900 at least some authors had begun to reckon with more complex redactional
processes behind the Pentateuch.
1.3.3 Heinrich Holzinger
In 1903, Holzinger, while admitting that “with some goodwill” [my translation]
one could read Numbers 22–24 (without 22:22–34) as a uniform text,
60
divided

53
N.b. examples of this in Gall, “Zusammensetzung und Herkunft,” 6–7, 9, 11, and 13.
54
Cf. Gall, “Zusammensetzung und Herkunft,” 4–5.
55
Cf. the division into sources in Gall, “Zusammensetzung und Herkunft,” 9.
56
Cf. particularly Gall, “Zusammensetzung und Herkunft,” 13–16.
57
Cf. the critique of precisely this point in Schüle, Israels Sohn, 57–59.
58
Cf. Gall, “Zusammensetzung und Herkunft,” 43–46.
59
Cf. Gall, “Zusammensetzung und Herkunft,” 47.
60
Cf. Holzinger, Numeri, 104.

1.3 Is the Story in Numbers 22–24 the Product of Multiple Sources? 21
the text into narrative strands of J and E. In this he essentially followed Well-
hausen’s division.
61
Distinct from many of the other exegetes reflecting on this
passage, Holzinger suggested that the episode describing Balak’s interaction
with Balaam may be incomplete in both sources: no description of what hap-
pens to Balak after this incident remains.
62
In this he disregards Num 24:25 as
a sufficient conclusion.
63
Like Wellhausen, Holzinger identified a creative ed-
itor R
JE
, who was able to craft a narrative that precluded the reconstruction of
the pure source documents. Nonetheless, he attempted to do so.
E: 22:2b, 3b, 4, 5* (including Pethor and bγ), 6b, 7* (without Midian), 8–11a,
12–16, 19–21aαb, 36, 38; 23:13aαb*, 14a, 1–2a, 4bα, 2b, 5a; 24:10aβb*;
23:12; and 24:13a
J: 22:3a, 5* (Ammon + b β), 6a, 11b, 17–18, 21aβ, 22–34, 37, 39–41; 23:3, 4a,
5b, 6a; 24:10aα; 23:11; 24:11b–12, and 13b
R
JE
: 22:2a, 35; 23:4bβ, [6b,] 13aγδb, 14b–17
P: 22:1, 4*, and 7* (Midianites)
Gloss: 23:6b, 13a*; 23:7–10; and 23:25–24:2
Table 2: Heinrich Holzinger (1903)
The most obvious issue in his reconstruction is the apparent and superfluous
transposition of material within chapters 23–24. These transpositions remain
implausible, needlessly complex, and do not even further the cause of recon-
structing plausible sources. The extensive amount of material that Holzinger is
forced to ascribe to “glosses” hardly impresses literary-critical sensibilities.
The incomplete nature of his reconstructed sources commend their rejection
and do not serve to aid in affirming the plausibility of source-critical resolu-
tions to the tensions and supposed duplications in Numbers 22–24.
1.3.4 George Buchanan Gray
Nor is this matter exclusive to German literature. George Buchanan Gray re-
flected a similar vein in his commentary on Numbers. He identified Num 22:1
as P and disregarded its relevance as a connecting element between 21:33–35
or 21:21–32 and 22:2. Yet, he failed to explain how this transition might have
otherwise occurred.
64
Generally, he divided the narrative such that Numbers 23
stems from E, whereas Numbers 24 generally stems from J, while chapter 22
presents an amalgamation of both.
65
Much of this division relies on the names

61
Cf. Holzinger, Numeri, 105.
62
Cf. Holzinger, Numeri, 106.
63
Cf. Holzinger, Numeri, 126.
64
Cf. Gray, Numbers, 306–7.
65
Cf. Gray, Numbers, 310–13.

22 Introduction
of God and the invention of new tensions in the text. For example, Gray pre-
sumed that multiple narratives were compiled here, which is why he suggests
that 24:1, “attaches to nothing that precedes it”, which of course is only true if
one precluded its attachment to the immediately preceding verses. Yet his ina-
bility to adequately divide the sources led him to identify passages as, e.g.,
“mainly J”.
66
In this, he follows Wellhausen. Rather than reject the model of
dividing the narrative into two strands, he continued to favor reconstructing
narratives that remain senseless when regarded independently of each other.
Thus, this model fares no better than similarly constructed ones.
1.3.5 Hugo Greßmann
Still before the first World War, Hugo Greßmann suggested the redactional
development of a particular source.
67
Having divided the text of Num 22:2–40
into J and E strands,
68
Greßmann regarded the whole of 22:41–24:25 as E, a
segment of E without a J pendant.
69
However, within this E tradition, he iden-
tified two editorial expansions exclusive to E. The first, E
2
(23:25–24:3), was
added to incorporate the third poem (24:4–9). The editorial character of this
material becomes apparent from the distinct manner of revelation in 24:2 and
the independent character of the fourth oracle, attested by the introduction of
its author.
70
An even later E editor, E
3
, appended the fourth oracle (24:16–24)
through the addition of 24:12–15. Greßmann’s evidence for this E-internal ex-
pansion is the boring repetition (“langweilige Wiederholung”) of 22:18 in
24:12–13 and the “stilwidrig[er]” character of Balaam’s lengthy final oracular
complex (24:17–24). Balaam’s lengthy answer to Balak contradicts 24:10–11;
a king would not tolerate such a verbose answer.
71
That last point rests on the-
oretical historical plausibility and cannot be regarded as literary-critically rel-
evant: the literary critic of the Bible should not be interested in the historical
plausibility of what some actual Balak may or may not have permitted in his
presence, but rather with the rigor of his consistent image in the primary liter-
ature. None of Greßmann’s versions presents a real advance in terms of legi-
bility over that of his predecessors. To some degree, he does represent a turn
from the Jehowist of Wellhausen.

66
Cf. Gray, Numbers, 324.
67
Cf. Hugo Greßmann, Mose und seine Zeit. Ein Kommentar zu den Mose-Sagen,
FRLANT, vol. 18 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913), 318–34.
68
Cf. Greßmann, Mose und seine Zeit, 318–19.
69
Cf. Greßmann, Mose und seine Zeit, 328–31.
70
Cf. Greßmann, Mose und seine Zeit, 329.
71
Cf. Greßmann, Mose und seine Zeit, 329.

1.3 Is the Story in Numbers 22–24 the Product of Multiple Sources? 23
P: 22:1
E: 22:3b, 4* (without ןידמ ינקז־לא), 5*, 7*–10, 12–21, 36, 38, 40–41; 23:1–24,
24:10–11, and 25
E
2
: 23:25–24:9
E
3
: 24:12–24
J: 22:2, 3a, 5* (ןומע־ינב), 6, 7a*, 11*, 22–34, 37, 39; 23:28; 24:1aαb, 2aαb, 3–
10aαb, 11–12a, 14aβb–17 (18–19)
R: 22:5* (רהנה־לע רשׁא הרותפ), 35
Table 3: Hugo Greßmann (1913)
1.3.6 Otto Eissfeldt
Another example of a source-critical division without a Jehowist can be found
in Otto Eissfeldt’s Hexateuch-Synopse.
72
Eissfeldt distributes the material as in
the following table.
P: 22:1
E: 22:2, 3b, 8*, .9–10a, 12*, 13*, 19a, 20, 21*, 36*, 38b, 40–41; 23:1–26
J: 22:3a, 4–8*, 10b–11, 12–13*, 14–18, 19b, 21*, 22–35, 36*, 37–38a, 39; 23:28;
24:2–19, 25
R: 22:4*, 7*; 23:27, 29–30; 24:1, 20–24 (Possibly also 24:18–19, since one antic-
ipates finding only an oracle regarding Moab)
Table 4: Otto Eissfeldt (1922)
The redactor in this model combined all of the sources at the same time. While
P could match its postulated surroundings in Eissfeldt’s model (preceded by
Num 20:22–30 and followed by Num 25:19–26:65), J and E present difficul-
ties. Neither of Eissfeldt’s reconstructed J and E narratives can be understood
by itself; they mutually rely on each other, a matter that contradicts their orig-
inally coming from separate narratives. In other words, their mutual depend-
ency precludes their independent backgrounds. Some examples should help to
clarify this.

72
For this discussion, cf. Otto Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse. Die Erzählung der fünf Bü-
cher Mose und des Buches Josua mit dem Anfange des Richterbuches in ihre vier Quellen
zerlegt und in deutscher Übersetzung dargeboten samt einer in Einleitung und Anmerkungen
gegebenen Begründung, reprint, 1922 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
1973), 183*–189*; Otto Eissfeldt, “Die Komposition der Bileam-Erzählung. Eine Nachprü-
fung von Rudolphs Beitrag zur Hexateuchkritik,” ZAW 57 (1939): 212–41 (= Otto Eissfeldt,
“Die Komposition der Bileam-Erzählung. Eine Nachprüfung von Rudolphs Beitrag zur He-
xateuchkritik,” in Kleine Schriften. Zweiter Band, ed. Rudolf Sellheim and Fritz Maass [Tü-
bingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1963], 199–226); and Otto Eissfeldt, “Sinai-Erzählung und Bileam-
Sprüche,” HUCA 32 (1961): 179–90 (= Otto Eissfeldt, “Sinai-Erzählung und Bileam-Sprü-
che,” in Kleine Schriften. Vierter Band, ed. Rudolf Sellheim and Fritz Maass [Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 1968], 21–31).

24 Introduction
The fractions of verses from Num 22:8 and 19 that Eissfeldt attributes to E
cannot be sensibly read as part of that narrative without presuming that sub-
stantial material is missing. Rather, they would better fit his other postulated
source, J. The same is true of the fractions of verses in 22:12–13 that he attrib-
utes to J: without the material attributed to E, the J material in his reconstruc-
tion is nonsense (“and he said to them: stay here, as Y
HWH speaks to me. Balak
ben Zippor, king of Moab spoke to me, saying…” and “Come now, curse it for
me. Perhaps I could engage it and defeat it. You should not go with them…”).
73

Beyond this, the reconstructed J and E sources in Eissfeldt’s model do not
readily match their reconstructed narrative context. The J source reads “and
Israel dwelt in the land of the Amorites. And Moab greatly feared the people
because it was large…”.
74
The transition to Moab presents a non sequitur and
implies that these two elements do not belong together. Eissfeldt’s E in Num-
bers 22 begins with “and Balak ben Zippor saw everything that Israel did to
the Amorites” in 22:2, which presents a problem, as Israel has done nothing to
the Amorites in Eissfeldt’s E before 22:2.
75
He consequently created an im-
probable textual link.
The end of the narrative fares no better in Eissfeldt’s model. After Balaam
returns home in Eissfeldt’s J, the reconstructed narrative continues “and the
people began to whore with the daughters of Moab” (25:1b). This revelation
surprises Eissfeldt’s audience, as Israel was not in Moab in Eissfeldt’s J, but
was rather in the land of the Amorites (21:31).
76
While such a transition is the-
oretically possible – granted, the rest of Eissfeldt’s J material in Numbers 22–
24 deals with the Moabites – it can hardly be regarded as obvious. E fails even
to fulfill such a low standard of narrative quality by jumping from Num 23:26
(23:27, 29–30; 24:1 are regarded as coming from a redactor in Eissfeldt’s
model) to Num 32:1: “And Balaam answered and said: did I not say thus to
you: all that God will say to me, that I shall do? And the Reubenites and the
Gadites had many animals…”. Thus, both reconstructed narrative strands in
Numbers 22–24 fail to conjoin with the reconstructed sources preceding and
following them. Such a reconstruction fails to convince or satisfactorily inter-
pret the evidence. Rather, the guiding principle behind it – and the only reason
that someone could legitimately attempt to reconstruct such sources – is the
variant nomenclature for the deity: Eissfeldt sought to keep texts about הוהי
distinct from texts about םיהלא. These examples demonstrate two things:
1) Num 22–24 cannot be separated solely based on the nomenclature for God
into two original strands that could be regarded as even remotely complete in

73
Cf. Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse, 184*. All translations from the German are mine.
74
Cf. Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse, 183*.
75
Cf. Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse, 182*–183*.
76
Cf. Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse, 183* and 190*.

1.3 Is the Story in Numbers 22–24 the Product of Multiple Sources? 25
these cases: they would be nonsensical; and 2) neither version could be a Fort-
schreibung of the other, since each remains incomplete without the other. Thus,
the narrative is better understood as a unity in these cases. These examples
from Eissfeldt’s reconstruction could be readily multiplied and repeated with
the preceding cases.
1.3.7 Martin Noth
Martin Noth, although recognizing the limits of the Documentary Hypothesis
in the book of Numbers and expressing some reservation, still favored this
model above all others in his commentary of the book. He famously noted:
“Nimmt man das 4. Mosebuch für sich, so käme man nicht leicht auf den Gedanken an
‘durchlaufenden Quellen’, sondern eher auf den Gedanken an eine unsystematische Zusam-
menstellung von zahllosen Überlieferungsstücken sehr verschiedenen Inhalts, Alters und
Charakters (‘Fragmentenhypothese’). Aber es wäre eben […] unsachgemäß, das 4. Mose-
buch zu isolieren. Es hat im alttestamentlichen Kanon von Anfang an zu dem größeren Gan-
zen des Pentateuch gehört; und auch die wissenschaftliche Arbeit an diesem Buch hat immer
wieder nur bestätigen können, daß es in diesem größeren Zusammenhang gesehen werden
muß. Es ist daher gerechtfertigt, mit den anderwärts gewonnenen Ergebnissen der Penta-
teuchanalyse […] an das 4. Mosebuch heranzutreten und die durchlaufenden Pentateuch-
‘Quellen’ auch in diesem Buche zu erwarten, selbst wenn, wie gesagt, der Sachverhalt im 4.
Mosebuch von sich aus nicht gerade auf diese Ergebnisse hinführt. Doch muß angesichts der
besonderen Art des Buches diese Anwendung gewonnener Ergebnisse mit Zurückhaltung
und Vorsicht vorgenommen werden; und es geht keinesfalls an, einfach nur eine Aufteilung
des Textbestandes auf die Pentateuchquellen J, E und P (und allenfalls noch sekundäre Wu-
cherungen dieser Quellen) durchführen zu wollen.”
77

Nonetheless, his identification of the sources in the Balaam narrative presents
a series of problems similar to those identified in the preceding iterations.
Comparing all of the notices that Noth proffered, his reconstructed sources
in Numbers 22–24 distribute the material as in Table 5: Martin Noth (1966).
78

P: 22:1b
E: 22:2, 9–12a, 17b?, 20, 38aβb, 41; 23:1–2, 3–6?, 7–26
J: 22:4–8, 12b?, 13–19, 21–35, 36–38aα, 39–40; 23:28*; 24:1–19
R: 22:1a, 4*, 7*, 23:27–30*; 24:1aβ, 10*, 20–24
Table 5: Martin Noth (1966)
It should be immediately apparent that Noth mentioned no specific source(s)
for anything in 22:3, though he did identify it as a doublet.
79
The distinction

77
Martin Noth, Das vierte Buch Mose: Numeri, übersetzt und erklärt, ATD, vol. 7 (Göt-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 8.
78
To the following table, cf. Noth, Numeri, 150–64.
79
Cf. Noth, Numeri, 155.

26 Introduction
from Eissfeldt’s reconstruction are limited, but the problems identical. As an
example, we can consider the first sentences of Noth’s E: “And Balak ben Zip-
por saw everything that Israel did to the Amorites. And God came to Balaam
and said: who are these men with you?” J fares no better in this regard; the
connection of 22:8b to 12b–13 should serve exemplarily: “And the princes of
Moab stayed with Balaam. You shall not curse the people, for it is blessed. And
Balaam arose in the morning and said to the Princes of Balak: return to your
land…” Attributing these verses to these sources (and redaction) fails to elim-
inate the problems identified in Eissfeldt’s source-critical undertaking. The
reader is left with two portions of incoherent text, each illegible without the
other, and a handful of minor additions included to smooth the current narra-
tive. Such a solution is hardly desirable when better alternatives can be found.
Elsewhere, Noth identified the common feature of every tradition about Ba-
laam in his affiliation with Peor, going so far as to describe that as virtually the
only feature readily recognizable about this character.
“Allen Zweigen der Bileamerzählung gemeinsam und darum dem ältesten Bestand der Über-
lieferung zuzurechnen ist außer dem Namen die Verbindung mit dem Heiligtum des Baal
Peor und das Bild von einem mit ‘Macht’ des Wortes begabten ‘Wahrsager’. Darüber hinaus
ist nichts einigermaßen Sicheres mehr zu ermitteln.”
80

This image must be refined, particularly as Peor plays no role at all in Deute-
ronomy 23, Joshua 24, Judges 11, and Micah 6. In the same context, Noth rec-
ognized two variations on themes about Balaam. In the first, he identified three
stages of the integration of the initially foreign Balaam story into the Penta-
teuch. 1) Israel’s God’s greater power over the curses of a foreigner and God’s
transformation of the curse into blessing (Deut 23:5–6); 2) God prevented Ba-
laam from even invoking the curse; 3) Instead of the curse, God forced him to
utter a blessing. The other line of development turned into the material known
in Num 31 and Josh 13, in which Balaam remained a dangerous foreigner.
81

“Damit war der ehedem heidnische Zauberer tatsächlich in einen israelitischen Gottesmann
verwandelt und die Voraussetzung dafür geschaffen, ihm weissagende Segenssprüche für
Israel in den Mund zu dichten, wie es die beiden Bileamlieder von Num. 24 sind, die auch
ihrerseits die in der erzählenden Weitergabe seit alters überlieferte Verbindung des Bileam
mit dem Heiligtum des Baal Peor wenigstens andeuten.”
82

However, as will become apparent in the discussion below, the transformation
of this character must have followed different lines than those Noth prelimi-
narily sketched.

80
Martin Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 3. reprint, 1948 (Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966), 83.
81
Noth, ÜGP, 83–85.
82
Noth, ÜGP, 85.

1.3 Is the Story in Numbers 22–24 the Product of Multiple Sources? 27
1.3.8 Jules de Vaulx
Jules de Vaulx generally followed these source-critical designations in the Ba-
laam pericope.
83
However, he added stages in the development of the texts be-
fore their incorporation into the sources or into the larger Balaam composition.
He recognized two sources with two parenthetical processes (i.e., one at each
end, the beginning and the conclusion) behind the whole. The process began
with a pre-Israelites, probably Gadite, legend about the Mesopotamian Balaam.
From this legendary tradition, the Yahwistic and Elohistic oracles developed.
These oracles then became part of their respective sources. Finally, an editor
combined the traditions. This presents a traditional view about the Balaam nar-
rative evincing the same problems as the other source-critical explanations with
the added insecurity about the material preceding the sources on some literary
or even pre-literary stage.
1.3.9 Baruch Levine
At the outset of the twenty-first century, Baruch Levine commended another
source-critical appreciation of Numbers 22–24. He regarded Numbers 22–24
as generally E’s product.
84
This E material was embedded in its current context
through the addition of verses 22:1 and 2, the former being “a priestly post-
script to Numbers 21” and the latter presenting the primary connection of Num-
bers 22–24 to its current context.
85
There is obviously some truth in this, as
reiterated here in Chapter Three. Levine also identified the oracles as independ-
ent and coming from another source and the “Tale of the Jenny” as an interpo-
lation.
86
While this more or less uniform image may be correct for much of the
matter in Numbers 22–24, the identification of the oracles as separate from the
narrative remains problematic, as do some of his other observations.
For example, Levine – having identified 22:2 as redactional – regarded 22:4
“as a gloss, linking Numbers 22:3–21 to the introductory verse, Numbers
22:2.”
87
This interpretation cannot be accurate, as removing one verse of a par-
allel set from the narrative as part of a redaction and identifying the other as a
gloss, results in the unfortunate circumstance of having no introduction for the
character Balak in the original narrative. He would just appear from nowhere

83
Cf. Jules de Vaulx, Les Nombres, Source bibliques (Paris: Gabalda, 1972), 256–65.
84
Cf. Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 21–36, Anchor Bible, vol. 4A (New Haven: Yale,
2000), 138. For Levine’s general adherence and particular take on the Documentary Hypoth-
esis (including the addition of his poetic source “T” [as in Transjordan] in Numbers 21; 23–
24), cf. Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 1–20, Anchor Bible, vol. 4 (New York: Doubleday,
1993), 48–50.
85
Cf. Levine, Numbers 21–36, 139 to the former, and Levine, Numbers 21–36, 137 to the
latter.
86
Cf. Levine, Numbers 21–36, 138.
87
Levine, Numbers 21–36, 145.

28 Introduction
at the end of 22:7, a verse that mentions his words. Removing 22:4 as a gloss
would also leave v. 5 without an obvious subject: who is the “he” implied in
the verb חלשׁיו? Is it Moab? Such circumstances remain most implausible.
Levine regarded Num 22:21 as the original conclusion of the material pre-
ceding the donkey story, with 22:22 presenting the opening of that insertion.
In this model, the story of the donkey then concludes with 22:35. The problem
appears in the reference to the donkey in 22:21, but the lack of one in 22:35.
His model regards the story of Balaam’s donkey as having existed in some
form independently from its current context. Yet he failed to offer compelling
evidence to commend this postulation. At no point does the text of Numbers
22:21–35 identify Balaam by any other means than his name; it provides no
data about him. That is, the narrator presumes the audience’s familiarity with
this character. Following such a detailed, multifaceted introduction in Num
22:5, such a paucity of information would not be a problem, but without any
such data, the lack of Balaam’s background seems implausible within an inde-
pendent source. One particularly acute problem with Levine’s theory remains
conspicuous: the lack of an antecedent for אוה in 22:22 should one remove
22:21 from before it. In order to accommodate this transition, Levine suggested
that a redactor removed the name Balaam from 22:22 in order to afford a better
reading.
88
However, that would be completely unnecessary; a reading with Ba-
laam in 22:22 would not in any way disturb the narration, and such minor ed-
iting seems difficult to substantiate. His sole purpose was to maintain 22:22–
35 having previously existed as an independent narrative. Should one regard
the donkey’s tale as a Fortschreibung or a redactional addition, this problem
disappears entirely. The expansion of the text – and not the insertion of an
independent tradition – presents the best model for understanding the compo-
sitional embedding of the story of Balaam’s donkey. I will further develop this
matter in Chapter Three.
Levine’s suggestion that the oracles come from an independent source re-
mains problematic.
89
First and foremost, the story of Numbers 22–24* without
the oracles neither climaxes nor makes sense. Balak’s interactions with Balaam
remain without explanation or merit, and the story would thus be unable to
advance any further. At the same time, the oracles reference their narrative
surroundings. Both the oracles (Num 23:22 and 24:8) and the narrative frame-
work (Num 22:5) refer to the exodus from Egypt. The oracles presume Balak’s
(23:7 and 18) summoning Balaam (24:3 and 15) to come do his bidding. With-
out the narrative, the circumstances of these oracles remain just as unclear.
Perhaps Friedman phrased it best:
“The poetry is embroidered more intimately in its prose context than most biblical poetry
that is housed in the narrative books. Neither the narrative nor the poetry is complete without

88
Cf. Levine, Numbers 21–36, 153.
89
Cf., e.g., Levine, Numbers 21–36, 41.

1.3 Is the Story in Numbers 22–24 the Product of Multiple Sources? 29
the other. The narrative context sets the scene and creates the ironic character of the poetry:
the Moabite king has hired Balaam to curse Israel, but Balaam blesses them instead. The
poems themselves refer back to the narrative context and are referred to in turn in the course
of the narrative: Balak hears the poems and complains about them. The Balaam episode is a
splendid example of the merging of poetry and prose in the Hebrew Bible.”
90

For these reasons, the story necessitates the oracles and the oracles demand a
connection to their surrounding material. Neither makes sense without the
other and both harmonize together, presenting a generally consistent whole.
However, with these addenda, Levine’s position can be followed to a greater
degree than other systems that generally operate on Numbers with recourse to
the Documentary Hypothesis. The Balaam narrative tends to present a largely
consistent story with connections to the preceding material, as can be seen in,
e.g., Num 22:2. At a later stage, someone expanded the narrative with the tale
of the donkey and later oracles.
91
While one should disagree with some of the
specifics of his model, Levine’s tendency at least seems the most correct, es-
pecially when compared to the other proponents of the Documentary Hypoth-
esis. His focus on the general unity and independence of the narrative, while in
need of modification and a divorce from the Urkundenhypothese, presents the
most acceptable iteration of source-critical research.
1.3.10 Axel Graupner
A few years later, Axel Graupner attempted a reconstruction, his being one of
the most complicated presented here. Graupner introduced the Balaam peri-
cope thus:
“Eine Überleitung […] muß das Werk enthalten haben; denn die Bileamperikope Num 22–
24 enthält wieder sämtliche Anstöße, die bisher zu einer Quellenscheidung nötigten: den
Wechsel von Elohim und Jahwe, die Doppelung des Stoffes und die Koinzidenz beider Phä-
nomene, außerdem Widersprüche, die so massiv sind, daß sie sich mit einem traditionsge-
schichtlichen oder einem Fortschreibungsmodell kaum erklären lassen.”
92

Divine nomenclature as a problem has been sufficiently addressed in the pre-
ceding models and will return as an issue in Chapter Three. The duplications
he referred to are 22:2 with 4b, 22:3a with b, and 22:41–23:26 with 23:28–
24:19. However, his last – and most significant – parallel texts are not really
parallels. Rather, the one (23:28–24:19) builds upon and advances the logic of

90
Richard Elliott Friedman, Commentary on the Torah with a New English Translation
and the Hebrew Text, reprint, 2001 (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2003), 507. The contrast
between the embedding of poetry in prose material in the Balaam story is probably most
stark when compared to the poetic materials in Numbers 21.
91
To the addition of the final oracles, cf. Levine, Numbers 21–36, 237–38.
92
Axel Graupner, Der Elohist: Gegenwart und Wirksamkeit des transzendenten Gottes
in der Geschichte, WMANT, vol. 97 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002), 159–
60.

30 Introduction
the other (22:41–23:26).
93
Since refuting these two problems, divine monikers
and duplications, as relevant to source criticism precludes their coincidence,
Graupner remains without much evidence. Rather than immediately reference
the contradictions to which he referred (as in the other proffered evidence), he
suggested that tradition-critical and Fortschreibung models are impossible be-
cause their progenitors each determined differing amounts of Fortschreibung
and distinct dates for their reconstructed texts.
94
Yet, does the mere existence
of various opinions qualify as evidence? Have proponents of source-critical
undertakings in the Balaam passage overcome these differences? According to
the preceding (and following) survey, they have not. Graupner even admitted
this (“Allerdings wird die Aufteilung auf J und E verschieden vorgenom-
men.”
95
) without noting the irony.
Graupner followed Wellhausen in identifying tension in Num 22:36–38.
96

However, like Wellhausen, Graupner ignored the fact that without verse 36,
Balak would not be in Balaam’s presence. Such a hole in the text precludes the
division into sources in this case. Again, this time following Seebass,
97
Graup-
ner disregarded the third and fourth oracles as the natural continuation of the
first two. He based this interpretation on Seebass’ assessment that Balaam’s
introducing himself becomes superfluous in a text that had already introduced
him.
98
This introduction, particularly in the third oracle, focuses the reader’s
attention on Balaam and does not mandate an origin distinct from the preceding
oracles. Rather, a narratological transformation has taken place, setting the
third oracle apart from those that preceded it.
99
While the first two oracles
begin with Balak, the third prophetic injunction changes the perspective to Ba-
laam in its exposition.
In his reconstruction of J and E, Graupner permitted J one group of emissar-
ies,
100
but noted that there were two in the E account.
101
It remains entirely un-
clear how he could reconstruct three groups going to Balaam from Num 22–24

93
Cf. the discussion to this point in Levine, Numbers 21–36, 210–12.
94
Cf. Graupner, Elohist, 160 Fn. 17.
95
Graupner, Elohist, 160.
96
Cf. Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs, 348–49.
97
Cf., e.g., Horst Seebass, Numeri 22,2–36,13, BKAT, vol. 4.3 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu-
kirchener, 2007), 46.
98
Cf. Graupner, Elohist, 161.
99
Cf. Jacob Milgrom, Numbers = [Ba-Midbar]: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the
New JPS Translation, commentary by Jacob Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary, vol. 4
(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 467: “The poetry was composed for the
sake of the prose. Without the narrative, the poetic oracles would make no sense, and all
their allusions to personalities, nations, and events would be incomprehensible.”
100
Cf. Graupner, Elohist, 161.
101
Cf. Graupner, Elohist, 162.

1.3 Is the Story in Numbers 22–24 the Product of Multiple Sources? 31
in any extant version. Graupner’s evidence for E consists primarily of the name
Elohim and God’s appearing to Balaam.
102

Further, Graupner regarded the elements reflecting on God’s prohibiting Ba-
laam’s travel as additions (“Zusätze”) with a twofold purpose: characterizing
Balaam as an obedient prophet of Y
HWH (!) from the outset and focusing on
God’s identity presented in his name.
103
He failed to include 22:21 in any of
his sources or redactions and divided 23:1–6 pretty weakly, again based largely
on the appearance of the Tetragrammaton (while at the same time ignoring the
text-critical issues which could have supported him in this case). He identified
E in 23:1–2, 3aα, 4a and Z in 3aβbc, 4b, and 5–6.
104
He regarded 24:8a as an
addition,
105
but did not list it anywhere as such in his results,
106
where it must
be regarded as part of J.
According to Graupner’s reconstruction, R
JE
demonstrates an inconsistent
tactic in the Balaam pericope: “In anderer Hinsicht weicht der Befund jedoch
ab. Während R
JE
| üblicherweise die jahwistische Darstellung der elohistischen
vorzieht und E in J einfügt, hat er in der Bileamperikope die jahwistische Dar-
stellung nur fragmentarisch, die elohistische dagegen geschlossen erhalten.”
107

How probable is it, that a compiler or redactor would change his or her ap-
proach to the text for a single piece of a longer whole? Nevertheless, Graup-
ner’s postulated editor maintains another method in this passage that is other-
wise atypically R
JE
: “Außerdem ist der Anteil der jehowistischen Redaktion
[…] erheblich höher als gewöhnlich.”
108
The primary editor changed his fa-
vored source and increased his editorial undertaking only for this passage in
Graupner’s model. That hardly seems likely.
In sum, one can reconstruct Graupner’s as in Table 6.
109

102
Cf. Graupner, Elohist, 163.
103
Cf. Graupner, Elohist, 16.
104
Cf. Graupner, Elohist, 165–66.
105
Cf. Graupner, Elohist, 170.
106
Cf. Graupner, Elohist, 171–72.
107
Graupner, Elohist, 171–72.
108
Graupner, Elohist, 172.
109
Graupner does not clarify if the reference to Midianites are from J or not. He leaves
this open. His Z should be generally regarded as JE in the nomenclature of Ludwig Schmidt.

32 Introduction
P: 22:1b
E: 22:3a, 4b–6, 7b, 8aαb, 9–13a, 14–17, 20–21, 36, 38, 40–41; 23:1–2*, 3aα
1
, 4a,
7–10a, 13–15, 18–23a, 24–26; 24:25
J: 22:2, 3b, [4a*], 7a*, 22–34, 37, 39; 23:28; 24:1aαb, 2aαb, 3–10aαb, 11–12a,
14aβb–17 (18–19)
R: 22:1a
Z: 22:4a*, 7a*; 24:1aβb, 8a
R
JE
: 22:8aβ, 13b, 18–19, 35; 23:3aβb, 4b–6, 11–12, 16–17, 27, 29–30; 24:10bβ,
12b–14α [?]
R
JEP
: 22:1a; 24:2aβ
N: 23:10b, 23b; 24:20–24
Table 6: Axel Graupner (2002).
Beyond the two illegible sources, he proffered no fewer than five redactions
before the culmination of this story into its final edition. The problems with his
reconstruction should be evident from the preceding discussion. Presumably a
simpler reconstruction than Graupner’s can be found.
1.3.11 Ludwig Schmidt
Ludwig Schmidt presented a somewhat more complicated reconstruction than
the oldest iterations.
110
Schmidt maintained the two sources J and E. To this
end, Schmidt identified cross-references suggesting that the Balaam story con-
tains three structures that can only be explained with two sources, combined
and expanded upon by a first redaction. 1) Between the third oracle (24:3b–6a,
7–9a) and Balak’s message (22:5b–6). “Da in den Sprüchen 22,5b.6 nur in
24,8*f. vollständig berücksichtigt wird, stammen die Botschaft Balaks und der
dritte Spruch von demselben Verfasser.”
111
The relationship between these
verses makes it improbable that the currently third oracle was originally any
oracle other than the first. The preparation for this first oracle can be found in
23:28 and 24:2–3a. The connection with the oracle is also visible in the root
ןכשׁ as found in 24:2 and 5. Numbers 24:9 is related to Gen 27:29 and 12:1–3,
both of which are J texts in the Documentary Hypothesis.
112
2) The references
to God placing a word in Balaam’s mouth and Balaam doing only what God
says are related to each other and place the first two oracles in a two-fold frame-
work between 22:20b and 23:26, as well as 22:38 and 23:5*, 12, and 16. Noth-
ing could have followed Balak’s statement in 23:25 and Balaam’s answer to it

110
Cf. already Ludwig Schmidt, “Die alttestamentliche Bileamüberlieferung,” BZ 23
(1979): 234–57.
111
Ludwig Schmidt, “Bileam: Vom Seher zum Propheten Jahwes. Die literarischen
Schichten der Bileam-Perikope (Num 22–24),” in Gott und Mensch im Dialog. Festschrift
für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. Markus Witte (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 335.
112
Schmidt, “Bileam,” 335–36.

1.3 Is the Story in Numbers 22–24 the Product of Multiple Sources? 33
in 23:26. Since these passages all belong in a larger context, they must be at-
tributed to the Elohist.
113
3) The verses 23:27, 29–30; and 24:1* serve as a re-
dactional bridge between the two versions. Numbers 23:29–30 copies from
23:1–2* and demonstrates that Balaam still thought it possible to curse Israel,
which does not make sense following his second oracle (23:19–20). With 24:1*
the redactor explains why Balaam did not leave Balak on this occasion and that
he will bless Israel with this third oracle. The addition of the “edge of Israel”
in 23:13 also comes from the redactor, as it interrupts the context of 13aα and
13b. Its addition only makes sense when considered with 24:1, in which Ba-
laam sees the whole of Israel. Since these verses are redactional parentheses,
there must have been two Balaam stories.
114
The material in 22:8–19 must be
the work of a redactor because it refers to both versions. The message from J
(22:5–6) plays a role, but 8–19 also anticipate v. 20, which comes from
Schmidt’s E.
115
The passage in 22:8–19 identifies Balaam as the obedient
prophet of Y
HWH, which also connects this passage to 24:11b–13.
116

Instead of only one redactor, Schmidt suggested that there were two: the
Jehowist (JE) and the redactor of the Pentateuch (PentR, represented in the
following table with R). By increasing the number of redactors responsible for
additions to the text, he – like others before him – both increased the complex-
ity of the development of the text vis-à-vis models like Wellhausen’s and de-
creased the intelligibility of the sources. Schmidt divided the text of Numbers
22–24 as in Table 7: Ludwig Schmidt (2004).
117

P: 22:1
E: 22:2–3a, 20–21, 36*, 38, 41; 23:1–4a, 5*, 6a, 7–13aα, 13b–17aα, 18–26
J: 22:3b–7*, 22–34, 37, 39–40a; 23:28; 24:2–9. 10a, 11a*, 12a, 14*, 15–17, 25
JE: 22:8–19, 35, 40b; 23:27, 29–30; 24:1aαb, 11b, 21b–13
R: 22:4*, 5*, 7*, 36*; 23:4b, 6*, 10*, 17*, 22–23; 24:1*, 6*, 18–24
Table 7: Ludwig Schmidt (2004)
From even the first glance, it becomes clear that this process fractures the text
significantly. This fracturing decreases the plausibility of reconstructing any-
thing that could be called a “source” behind the material. Even in this splinter-
ing of the text into more redactional levels, some of the tensions in the text
remain. For example, Schmidt does not include 24:14b–17 in one of his redac-
tional levels. Rather, he ascribes it to J. The oracle’s interruption of Balaam’s
departure does not seem to bother Schmidt. Combining such issues with the

113
Schmidt, “Bileam,” 336–37.
114
Schmidt, “Bileam,” 337–38.
115
Schmidt, “Bileam,” 338–39.
116
Schmidt, “Bileam,” 338.
117
To the following, cf. his discussion in Ludwig Schmidt, Das 4. Buch Mose. Numeri,
ATD, vol. 7/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 122–44.

34 Introduction
illegibility of the remaining sources suggests that a more plausible solution
should be sought.
1.3.12 Horst Seebass
One other attempt at the beginning of the 21st century in German literature,
that of Seebass, maintained this model, with the same problems as those noted
above.
118
Still, it merits mention. Seebass’s “sources” remain just as illegible
as Schmidt’s, although Seebass has the simplifying advantage of only one re-
dactor. Nonetheless, this single redactor was responsible for significant por-
tions of the text, just as was the case in Schmidt’s model.
P: 22:1
E: 22:2–3a, 5–6, 7b–21, 36–41; 23:1–4, 5b–13aα, 13b–15, 17b–23a, 24, 28; 24:1–
7, 8b–10bα, 11–19, 25
J: 22:3b–4*, 7a*, 22–35
R: 22:4*, 7*, 35; 23:5a, 13aβ, 16–17a, 23b, 25–27, 29–30; 24:8a, 10bβ, 20–24
Table 8: Horst Seebass (2007)
1.3.13 Joel Baden
Joel Baden proffered the most recent attempt to divide the Pentateuch into
sources as postulated in the Documentary Hypothesis. Unlike many of his pre-
cursors however, Baden left Numbers 22–24 largely intact, the product of a
single hand, essentially taken from E without interpolation or redaction. Yet,
his reconstruction ultimately fares no better than previous attempts under even
modest scrutiny.
That being said and to be fair, Baden admittedly barely dealt with Numbers
22–24 in his monographs. And when he did, it was generally from the perspec-
tive of Deuteronomy. In his first monograph on the Documentary Hypothesis,
he offered the following about Balaam:
“Though the Balaam pericope is notoriously difficult to analyze source-critically, most
scholars [here, he references only Gray (see above) and Friedman, JMR]
119
see the majority,
if not all, of the pericope as deriving from E. As we have seen to this point, the author of D
tends to use the E narrative as much as possible, including stories from J only when they are

118
Cf. Seebass, Numeri III, 1–107 and his earlier articles Horst Seebass, “Einige vertrau-
enswürdige Nachrichten zu Israel Anfängen: Zu den Söhnen Hobabs, Sichon und Bileam im
Buch Numeri,” JBL 113 (1994): 577–85 and Horst Seebass, “Zur literarischen Gestalt der
Bileam-Perikope,” ZAW 107 (1995): 409–19.
119
I.e., Gray, Numbers and Richard Elliott Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed:
A New View Into the Five Books of Moses (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003).

1.3 Is the Story in Numbers 22–24 the Product of Multiple Sources? 35
found in that source alone and are necessary for his historiographical or theological argu-
ment. In this case, because the references to Ammon and Moab in Deut 23:4–5 are based on
E, it is even more likely that the references to the Balaam pericope are based on E as well.”
120

Leaving aside the qualification of two scholars as a majority, Baden failed to
discuss the theological and historical distinction between the two presentations
of Balaam in Numbers 22–24 and Deuteronomy 23. His argumentation consists
essentially of “D knows E; D knows Balaam; therefore, Balaam is E”. How-
ever, he completely disregarded the distinct portrayals of this character in
Numbers 22–24 and Deuteronomy. Never at any point does Numbers suggest
that Balaam was willing to curse Israel, as the text of Deuteronomy indicates.
Quite the opposite: the Numbers text repeatedly qualifies Balaam as presenting
only that which he was instructed (Num 22:18, 38; 24:13). Beyond this, the
connection to the Ammonites is missing in Numbers 22–24, unless one follows
Smr. Such a reference appears to be a novelty in Deuteronomy. Baden’s argu-
mentation here fails even to appreciate the overt distinctions between the wit-
nesses and thus fails to convince.
The perspective from Deuteronomy does not present the only problem with
Baden’s reconstruction, however. For example, most material on Numbers 22–
24 presents part of Baden’s discussion of Christoph Levin’s Der Jahwist.
121

Otherwise, he only really mentioned 22:1, a verse he ascribed to P, in pass-
ing.
122
Baden made one oblique reference to the Balaam narrative, ascribing it
to E: “The exclusion of Ammonites and Moabites from the community in Deu-
teronomy 23:4–5 refers explicitly to the lack of hospitality those nations
showed Israel during the wilderness wandering, that is, in E (Num 20:14–21;
22–24).”
123
Baden also identified the material about Sihon and Og immediately
preceding Numbers 22–24 as E.
124
That is, he attributed both Num 21* and 22–
24* to E, but Num 22:1 to P. The itinerary notice from P is necessary between
these texts to cover the distance from Bashan to Moab, implying that some such
notice must have been present in E as well. It is narratologically necessary in
its contemporary context. Yet, is it really likely that a compiler – particularly
as in Baden’s understanding – would delete any such notice from its extant E
context and replace it with an element from a context in P when he or she could
have just kept the E notice? The insertion of a single P element into a broadly
E narrative structure seems most improbable, making the acceptance of this
model at this point problematic. It even generally contradicts Baden’s own vi-
sion of his compiler: “Along the same lines, the compiler did not rearrange his

120
Joel S. Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, FAT (Tübingen: Mohr Sie-
beck, 2009), 184.
121
Cf. Baden, Composition, 61–62 presents the relevant discussion of Christoph Levin,
Der Jahwist, FRLANT, vol. 157 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993).
122
Cf. Baden, Composition, 147.
123
Baden, Composition, 137.
124
Cf. Baden, Redaction, 130–41 and Baden, Composition, 119.

Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:

can go and be worth a good deal. If I am, I’ll expect to be paid
handsomely.”
Mr. Atkinson turned to Mr. Osborne.
“Hear that?” he exclaimed. “That’s the way to talk. The boy can
turn the trick. Do you still object?”
“Well, I still think it’s a big risk for little pay.”
“Who’s said anything about pay?” retorted the president. “You’re
like a good many hard working men, George. You assume a fact,
and then work backwards from it. Let’s see what the boy has to say.
Roy, do you think it’s too much risk for too little pay?”
“No,” exclaimed the boy, “because I guess the company’ll do
what’s right.”
“And what’s that?” continued Mr. Atkinson, looking at Mr. Osborne
with a smile.
“Since you’ve asked,” answered Roy, “I should say it ought to buy
my outfit, about one hundred dollars; advance my carfare and
expenses—say two hundred dollars altogether—and pay me about
one hundred dollars a week while I’m at work, with a guarantee of
at least two months’ work.”
Mr. Atkinson slapped his hand on Roy’s knee.
“Reasonable enough,” he exclaimed. “Too reasonable. I had in
mind not less than five hundred dollars a month. How about it,
George?” he added, with a laugh.
Mr. Osborne was wiping his perspiring face.
“You high financiers are too much for me,” he said with an attempt
at a smile. “I see Roy wasn’t cut out to be a mechanic. I haven’t
anything more to say.”
“But I have,” said Mr. Atkinson, quickly. “Mr. Cook, of the Utah
company, offered our regular list price of five thousand dollars for
one of the No. 1 machines. I discounted it one thousand dollars.

He’s so dead set on getting some one to come out there that he’s
offered that one thousand dollars as a bonus to whomever will
come. That means Roy. And, from what I see of him, I know he
won’t take it. That means you.”
Mr. Osborne, visibly affected, shook his head.
“There you go,” broke in Mr. Atkinson. Then he whirled toward the
boy. “Your father seems to think this is charity, Roy,” he added. “He
don’t understand that corporations like this or the Utah company
have no funds set aside for charity. Will you take it?”
Roy looked at him soberly a moment.
“Mr. Atkinson,” he said at last, “Mr. Cook offered that one thousand
dollars because he was mighty anxious to get some one to do
something that was well worth the money, in his judgment. You just
put it aside till I come back. Then I’ll know whether his judgment
was right. If I think I’ve earned it, I’ll take it.”
Mr. Atkinson’s eyes snapped.
“I don’t know but you’re right,” he said, after a moment’s thought.
“What do you say, Osborne?”
“I guess there isn’t much chance but that he’ll earn it all right,” he
said. “He can go. Keep the money for him.”
Without further comment he left the office.
For a few moments the president of the aeroplane company sat in
silence. Then he turned to his desk and wrote out an order. As he
sat with it in his hand, he said:
“My boy, I understand what it means to your father. I’d never
forgive myself if anything happened to you. But I had to take
chances—so does any man who wants to go ahead of the crowd.
You can take care of yourself. So go ahead.”
“When ought I to start?” asked Roy.

“The car will leave by express to-morrow. It will be sent to
Dolores, Colorado. If you start about two days after the machine
leaves, you’ll have time to stop a day in Chicago and then reach
Dolores about the time the aeroplane does. After that, it’s up to
you.”
“I’ll have charge of the car, then, from Dolores. I’m to deliver it?”
“Yes, and in doing that, you’ll act as our agent. You’ll have to hire
teams to transport the equipment.”
Roy’s lips puckered. Mr. Atkinson smiled.
“I’ve thought of that,” he explained. “Here’s an order the cashier
will honor. You’d better draw the money at once. I’ll charge your
outfit and personal expenses to the Utah company. The cost of
delivering the car is our expense. And,” said Mr. Atkinson, as he took
the boy’s hand, “no man works well with poor tools. Get what you
need—don’t stint yourself.”
“I’ve got a good deal to thank you for, Mr. Atkinson—” began Roy.
“Thank me?” exclaimed the president. “I’m going to do all the
thanking. I’m trusting you with the first aeroplane ever sent out from
this factory to be used for a commercial purpose. Just make good for
us and the American Aeroplane Company will put the gratitude
where it belongs.”
His young head awhirl with the quick developments of the short
interview, Roy walked over to the cashier’s window and laid Mr.
Atkinson’s order on the marble counter. Instantly the busy cashier
shoved through the grating a package of bank notes. The figures on
the band startled the lad, but they did not disconcert him. With a
businesslike tone, Roy asked the cashier if he might see the order
again. One glance was enough—there it was: “Advance on account
to bearer, Mr. Roy Osborne, $500.”
He turned and entered the big assembling room again. Half way
across the noisy shop he stopped. He had just realized what had
happened. Twenty-four hours before, an idle schoolboy, he had been

lounging about this same place wondering if he could secure
employment for a few dollars a week. To-day he had five hundred
dollars in advance expense money in his pocket, a two months’ job
at four hundred dollars a month, and a possible bonus of one
thousand dollars on deposit.
This he understood. The moment he had time to think over these
things, he said to himself:
“I didn’t do this—it’s no ability or virtue of mine; and you can’t
charge it to luck. What did it?”
As he asked himself this question, he looked down the shop and
saw his father—the man who was doing things, who was working
out hard problems with his head and hands. Then he knew. The
reward hadn’t come to the father. Even now he was working as he
had for years. The reward for all those years had come to the son.
“It’s father,” said the lad thoughtfully to himself. “It all comes from
what he’s done.” Then he thought of Mr. Atkinson’s words to his
parent: “You’re the best mechanical man I ever knew, but you were
not cut out for high finance.”
A little lump rose in the boy’s throat. He struck a bench with his
fist. “He’s right,” muttered Roy stoutly. “Mr. Atkinson told the truth.
But father has brought up three boys who, maybe, will do things
that money can’t. And it’s the man over there in overalls who’ll get
the credit—if I have my way.”
Almost at the same time his father saw him and motioned him
forward.
“Get off your coat,” he ordered. “This is the car that’s going. I
want you to know every piece of it.”
Roy hesitated a moment.
“I’ll be back in a minute,” he began. “I’ll have to put this
somewhere—” He opened his coat and gave his father a secret look
at the five-hundred-dollar package of bills.

Instead of astonishment, the busy mechanic only grunted.
“Hang your coat right there,” he remarked shortly. “We ain’t sneak
thieves. Now, you’d better get down to a real job and make sure
you’ve got the hang of everything. Turn in and help put your car
together.”
When Roy and his father left the works that evening, an American
Aeroplane Company Model No. 1 had been assembled, adjusted,
tested and taken apart again. The next morning it would be crated
and dispatched on its long journey to the west labeled: “R. C. Cook,
Manager Utah Mining and Development Company, Bluff, Utah, via
Dolores, Colorado.”
If there was anything in the construction of that aeroplane that
could have been improved, it was not known to the airship skill of
that day or to George W. Osborne. A fore and aft or lateral biplane,
utilizing the highly successful flexible sustaining surfaces of the
Montgomery glider, the whole width of the air craft was 32 feet. The
front and rear planes were supported on the unique and
distinguishing feature of the draft—a three-section frame extending
fore and aft.
In the forward section, each section measuring 4 feet 7 inches in
width and 7 feet in height—the single engine was located. On a
cross shaft, fixed to the forward frame of the section, the two
propellers revolved, operated by chain gears, one of which had the
Wright reverse twist. In this section, but to the rear were the cooling
coils and the gasoline tank. From the front of this section extended a
vertical steering rudder patterned after the Wright machine.
To the rear section was attached a horizontal steering plane
copied directly after the Montgomery rudder, a semi-circular plane 9
feet 10 inches high at its greatest diameter. In the middle section
were seats for two passengers and the operator’s station. From the
saddle of the latter, flexing wires connected both the planes with
stirrups through the operation of which the equilibrium of the car
was maintained. Levers and wires controlling the rear and forward

rudders also ended here. From the section division timbers, uprights
carried wires, bracing the big lateral planes in all directions. Short
landing skids were modeled after the Wright air craft.
The motive power was a 25-horsepower watercooled Curtiss with
four cylinders and weighed 180 pounds. The propellers measured 8
1/3 feet.
“What do you think about her?” asked Roy, as he and his father
boarded the car homeward bound.
“It’s the best I can do,” was the answer. To Roy that was enough.

CHAPTER VI
OFF FOR THE WEST
The next morning Roy went to the factory with his father and saw
every piece of the aeroplane crated. As the parts would have to be
transported over nearly one hundred miles of desert, the machine
was taken entirely apart. Even the rubberized silk plane surfaces
were unlashed from the ribs. The section frames and plane strips
and ribs were numbered and made into compact bundles. On a blue-
print drawing of the Model No. 1 machine, Roy made careful notes
relating to each dismounted piece.
“One thing is certain,” said his father, when the packing was
completed, “you’ll save money on your freight bills but you’re piling
up trouble at the other end.”
“That’s where I earn my pay,” answered his son, laughing. “I
reckon there ain’t any great supply of spruce and bamboo out there
in Bluff to duplicate smashed parts.”
In his red memorandum book Roy also set down the number and
contents of each parcel and box in order that he might check up the
shipment at the end of its journey. After luncheon in the shop, Mr.
Osborne, with the approval of Mr. Atkinson, made an extra crate of
various sized pieces of spruce timber, several yards of silk plane cloth
with gum for pasting in making patches, wire, screws, bolts, reserve
engine batteries and last and most important, a small box of such
tools as would be most useful.
When the wagon of the company backed up to the shipping room
to transfer the formidable looking boxes, crates and bundles to the
express office, Roy was a lively assistant in the loading. The engine,
covered with waterproof canvas and braced in a steel-hooped box,

was the last package to be lifted into the van. Roy patted the box
and exclaimed, as he wiped his perspiring face:
“Good bye, old boy, till I see you again. Meet you at Dolores.”
The wagon rolled away, and Roy crossed the assembling room to
the corner where the painter did his work. Having been put on the
market as a commercial product, no detail was omitted that would
add to the salability of the company’s machines. In addition to the
lacquering of bolts and metal work, each bit of timber was coated
with an aluminum varnish.
This was done for a double purpose. It not only gave the machine
an attractive and finished appearance, but the nature of the varnish
provided a safeguard against accidents. After the aluminum varnish
was dry and set, any split or new defect in the wood at once
produced a break in the aluminum coat. Instead of concealing
damage to the wood, the varnish at once called attention to it.
But Roy was not investigating varnish or lacquer. When he left, a
little strip of plane-silk was drying in a corner of the paint shop. On
this in brilliant crimson letters nearly a foot high, was the word
“Parowan.”
“I don’t know that I can use it,” Roy chuckled to himself, “but if Mr.
Cook and his company don’t object and haven’t any other name for
the air-line express, it’s going to be the ‘Parowan.’”
Roy could not get away from the thought of his great uncle,
Willard Banks, and the mountain town where his mother’s family
history said the old Mormon had lived.
“Those long whiskers and that big black hat seem to belong to the
desert where I’m goin’. They bob up whenever I think of Utah.
That’s why my machine is the ‘Parowan,’” he said.
Roy was exceedingly anxious to learn more about Utah—more
about the Indians and some additional details concerning the nature
of the country. He told his father he meant to spend the remainder

of the afternoon in the Newark Public Library. On his way to the
street car, he passed the open window of President Atkinson’s office.
That gentleman chanced to look up at the moment and as Roy
lifted his hat, Mr. Atkinson called to him to come in.
“I have something that may interest you,” the president explained.
“May interest me, too, if it’s right,” he added. He had in his hand a
newspaper clipping. “Looks as if the boys of America were getting on
to a good thing right away,” he added. Mr. Atkinson handed Roy the
clipping. It had been taken from a Pensacola, Florida, paper, and
read:
THE BOY AERONAUTS’ CLUB
Six Pensacola Lads To Buy an Aeroplane
Result of Recent Salvage Case
It became known yesterday that the six juvenile members of the
Anclote Boat Club, who were recently awarded ten thousand dollars
salvage in the Honduras mahogany schooner wreck, have
determined to put a part of their treasure trove into an up-to-date
aeroplane. Thomas Allen and Robert Balfour, nineteen and eighteen
years old, and president and secretary of the club, respectively, have
been delegated to go to New York to select the airship.
It also became known at the same time that there is a decided
objection to this on the part of the parents of more than one boy.
But the youngsters seem determined, and there is a strong
probability that parental objection will be defied.
Tom Allen, president of the club, said yesterday: ‘You bet we are
going to do it. Every one of the six members of the club risked his

life to earn that money and why shouldn’t we spend it as we like?
We are going to use five thousand dollars to buy an aeroplane, one
thousand dollars to fix up our club house over on Anclote Island, and
divide the rest. The court awarded us the money, and we’re going to
beat the men of Pensacola by bringing an aeroplane down here
before they wake up.’
Then followed nearly a column story that set Roy’s nerves tingling.
It reviewed the history and adventures of the Anclote Boat Club.
This juvenile organization of boys, ranging in age from sixteen to
nineteen years, had for a couple of winters maintained a sort of
winter quarters on Anclote Island about five miles off the west
Florida coast and north of Tampa.
In the previous February the club members had, in a bad
sou’wester, been instrumental in saving a three-mast schooner
loaded with mahogany and driven out of her course on a voyage
from Honduras to Mobile. This had been done with the help of the
“Escambia,” an old lifeboat rebuilt and converted into a power boat
by the addition of a ten-horsepower motor.
The details of the salvage trial in the U. S. Court were also given
briefly, and then followed various anecdotes about the club, which
had, apparently, afforded a number of adventurous tales to the local
newspapers. When Roy finished the long story his face was aglow
with more than perspiration.
“Looks as if the American Aeroplane Company hadn’t got into
business any too soon, don’t it?” exclaimed Mr. Atkinson, good-
humoredly.
Roy handed the president the clipping with a sigh.
“Isn’t it great?” he exclaimed, shaking his head. “Reads like a
story out of a book. Camping on an island in the Gulf of Mexico;
fishing, swimming, boating and oranges and things. I suppose the
club’ll fly all over the Everglades now—when it gets its airship.”

“Well,” laughed Mr. Atkinson, “I don’t see that the club has much
advantage over you.”
“Yes, I know,” replied Roy, a little ruefully. “I wouldn’t exactly trade
with those boys, but then, you know, I’m goin’ to be all alone. I
won’t have any other boy with me.”
“I suppose that does make a difference,” added the man of
business.
“All the difference in the world,” exclaimed Roy, “if you’re lookin’
for fun.” Then his voice changed; he threw off his disappointed look
and added cheerfully: “But business is business. I’m satisfied. Only
—” and he smiled, “if I wasn’t just starting for Utah, I’ll bet I could
go down there and sell those boys an aeroplane.”
“I haven’t any doubt of it,” answered Mr. Atkinson.
It was a curious coincidence that, hardly had this account of Roy
Osborne’s remarkable adventures been written, than a story came
on its heels that found in Roy an enthusiastic reader. This was the
narrative of the adventures of the members of the Anclote Boat
Club, entitled, “The Boy Aeronauts’ Club, or Flying for Fun.”
Roy hurried to the library. Singularly enough, in addition to U. S.
Survey reports on the Grand Canyon of Colorado and the mighty
Green River chasm and an ethnological report on the Navajo and Ute
Indians, Roy—rather guiltily—asked the librarian for a map showing
the west coast of Florida.
For a time he diligently applied himself to the volumes concerning
the region he was about to visit. But, when it came time to close the
library for the day, any one looking over Roy’s shoulder would have
seen him tracing out Anclote Island, the waters of Pensacola Bay
and the wild, swampy stretches of the mysterious Everglades of
Florida.
“Anyway,” he said to himself, “even if this isn’t for me I’ve learned
a little geography. Good luck to the southern kids. It’s me for Utah
and the desert.”

Roy was determined to get his western outfit in Chicago. So there
was little to do in the few days before his departure except to visit
the library and read up on the history of the west.
Among other things, he learned that the great Navajo reservation,
on the edge of which he would undoubtedly operate, was yet a
mountain and mesa wilderness sealed against even the boldest
white men. Many who had ventured to penetrate into the Indians’
jealously guarded domain had never returned.
He learned, too, with a little shock to him, to tell the truth, that
the adjoining Ute land (along which he would have to travel in going
to Bluff) was the home of the desperadoes of the last of the red
men. “Renegade Utes” the books called them—outcasts, not even fit
to mingle with other Indians. Among them, he read, were to be
found specimens of all savage villains, Indians who made no
pretense of work or self help, cattle and horse thieves and even
murderers who were watched by the government as recognized
criminals.
But, above all others in gripping interest, was the vague story of
the hidden Indians, savages buried in the uncharted wastes of the
southwestern Utah mountains, who had as yet evaded the white
man. As Eskimos are known to dwell on the ice fields of the far
northern British America who have never seen human beings other
than of their own race, so, it was reported, a like remnant of Indians
concealed themselves between the deep canyon of the Colorado and
the terrible Death Desert to the west.
The next day was Saturday. When Mr. Osborne came home at
noon, he was the bearer of a parting gift from Mr. Atkinson, who
seemed to have taken a strong liking to Roy. The present was a thin,
open-faced gold watch and a plain leather fob.
“I noticed you didn’t have a watch,” Mr. Atkinson said, in a note,
“and since you are going to run an aeroplane express you must have
a good timepiece.”

On Sunday, Mr. Osborne’s second son, Phil, came over from
Orange, where he was employed in the Edison laboratories. A part of
the day was given up to a good-natured argument between Roy and
his mother as to whether the latter should take a trunk or a suit
case. Mrs. Osborne had enough articles laid out to have carried Roy
on a cruise around the world. But, after repeated explanations, she
surrendered. The suit case won. And in that were only a few toilet
necessities, for Roy realized that in the west he would need only
what he meant to buy in Chicago.
A little after ten o’clock Monday morning, Roy was off. At half-past
seven Tuesday morning the eager young traveler—never before so
far from home—found himself in the dingy, smoky Union Station in
Chicago. In the station dining-room he first ate a good breakfast. An
hour later he called a cab and drove to the downtown offices of the
railroad over which he planned to travel to Pueblo.
Having secured transportation and sleeping car accommodation,
he re-entered his cab, and directed the driver to one place of which
he had dreamed for days—a well-known sporting goods and
“outfitting” shop on Wabash Avenue. Here he dismissed his cab.
When Roy left this store at noon he was the happiest lad in all that
great city.
With his shopping done, he did what sight-seeing he could until
five o’clock, at which hour he was again at the store. His precious
supplies had been compactly placed in a strong box and labeled, “Mr.
Royce Osborne, Bluff, Utah, via Pueblo and Dolores.” Loading the
box into another cab, Roy saw his baggage deposited at the
Dearborn Street Station, got a check for it, tipped the baggageman a
quarter and was at last ready for his real journey.
The only change he had made in his list of things needed was to
substitute a shoulder water canteen for his ½-gallon affair.

CHAPTER VII
ON THE EDGE OF THE DESERT
At one o’clock Saturday afternoon, when the straining locomotive
at last pulled its weaving, narrow-gauge train into the far western
mountain town of Dolores, Colorado, one passenger did not require
the services of a porter to assist him to alight. Travel-worn but
jubilant, Roy Osborne sprang to the station platform.
“Dolores at last!”
He meant to say it to himself, but the words burst from him.
“Air ye sorry ye come?” exclaimed a voice near by.
Perhaps a half hundred persons were grouped about the station.
Leather belts and plainsmen’s hats distinguished nearly all. Leaning
against the platform rail were three Indians. Roy looked for the
speaker. He proved to be a man just past middle age, wearing tan
shoes, a rusty blue suit much in need of cleaning and pressing, a
dust-covered, soft black hat, a soiled white shirt with a celluloid
collar showing a glassy looking shirt stud and a thin black string
necktie. His face, widened with a smile, was gaunt, red and newly
shaven.
Roy glanced at him and smiled.
“I’ve got to get acquainted in Dolores,” he said with boyish
familiarity, “and if you don’t mind, I’ll begin with you. My name’s
Osborne, Roy Osborne, of Newark, New Jersey.”
“Do-lores, not Dol-ores,” replied the stranger with a still wider
smile. “But that’s neither hyar nor thar, as the feller says alludin’ to
the muskeeter. Glad to meet ye, Mr. Osborne. My name is Weston, A.
B. Weston—some o’ the time Colonel Weston. Permit me,” and

before Roy could stop him, Mr. Weston had taken charge of the suit
case.
“You don’t run a hotel, do you?” asked Roy, amused at his new
friend’s assurance.
The man took no offense, but pointed across the open ground
beyond the station to a block of frame buildings.
“My office is just over thar—real estate is my line. Don’t git
skeered. As a member o’ the Dolores Commercial Club, ye air
welcome to step over and git yer bearin’s.”
“I don’t know that I have time—” began Roy, thinking of all he
wanted to do at once—“although it’s very good of you.”
But in the meantime they were advancing toward Mr. Weston’s
office. Roy looked again, and was able to make out the sign: Real
Estate—A. B. Weston. Dealer in Ranches, Mines and Farms.
“Ye ain’t a drummer?” exclaimed Mr. Weston.
Roy shook his head.
“I didn’t think ye was. Out fer yer health?”
Again the boy responded in the negative.
“Assumin’ ye didn’t drop off here fur fun, I give it up,” went on the
genial agent. “I’ll bet a ten-spot ye need information. Don’t be
skeered. I got apple land fur sale all right, but I ain’t agoin’ to
chloroform ye. Come in and git started right.”
Unable longer to resist the breezy impulsiveness of the stranger,
Roy climbed the stairs and found himself in a dusty little office
scented with tobacco and littered with papers. Before he sat down
and while Mr. Weston threw off his coat and filled a smoke begrimed
cob pipe, Roy saw a large map of the county in which Dolores was
situated hanging on the wall.
He walked to it at once and, for a few moments gazed at the road
leading southwest down the mountain to Cortez. Then he saw the

same road or trail continue south toward the Ute Indian reservation.
At the northern edge of the reservation, a branch turned west and
running off the map was apparently lost in the sands of Utah.
“Got some folks out hyar, mebbe?” volunteered the affable agent.
Before Roy could speak, his eye fell on an opened envelope lying
on the disordered table. It wasn’t the address that met his gaze—on
the upper left hand corner were the words: “Return in ten days to
the Utah Mining and Development Company, Bluff, Utah.”
It was almost like a letter of introduction to the agent. Picking up
the envelope, Roy exclaimed:
“Do you know Mr. Cook, the manager of this company?”
“Done business with him fur five years or more.”
“I’ve got business with the company. I’m going to Bluff.”
Colonel Weston let his tilted chair drop to the floor.
“Ye don’t say,” he exclaimed. “Mr. Cook was in hyar last week a
pesterin’ me agin to go over thar.”
“You?” Roy asked. “Are you goin’?”
“I been a tryin’ to hold out agin it. I sorter reckoned I was through
with Injuns an’ alkali, but—” looking around the room with a sorry
grin, “I ain’t makin’ no fortune here.”
“I don’t understand. Does Mr. Cook want you to join him in
business?”
“Hardly,” the stranger answered. “But nacherly, ye don’t know me.
They call me ‘colonel’ here in town. I used to be ‘Sink Hole’ Weston
—‘Sink’ Weston fur short.”
Roy dropped into a chair in open perplexity. The agent lit his pipe
again.
“It’s only a job headin’ a gang o’ prospectors,” he volunteered
immediately. “Don’t stand to reason I keer much fur it, but—well,
mebbe I am worth more at that than selling somepin’ I don’t own.”

“You are an old timer out here, then?” suggested Roy, as he
began to understand.
“Went ‘to Texas’ in ’ninety from Louisiany,” answered ‘Colonel’
Weston. “Rustled cattle till ’ninety-five. Guided railroad gangs in the
mountains round hyar till nineteen hundred; United States Deputy
Marshal fur a spell, and then I was sheriff o’ this county a term. Five
years ago, I civilized—put on this white shirt,” he added, with a grin,
“an’ been bluffin’ ever since at business.”
“Were you what they call a plainsman?” asked Roy.
“I see what you mean,” exclaimed the man. “Well, they never did
feel comfortable. These togs air a part o’ ‘Colonel’ A. B. Weston.
‘Sink’ Weston’s outfit is over home—I git into it sometimes when I
want to feel free and easy like.”
“Are you familiar with the Indians?” asked Roy, already much
interested in his new found friend.
“Familiar?” repeated the agent. “If you mean hev I seen much uv
’em, I kin say I’ve seen enough uv ’em so’s I kin cut out their society
without cryin’.”
“Well, I’m sure, Mr. Weston, that it was good of you to pick me out
and bring me here. I haven’t any doubt but what you can give me
good advice. I’ve got to go to Bluff, and I’ve got a wagon load of
stuff to take with me. I don’t know anything about the country, or
how to get there. I’m goin’ to ask you to tell me.”
“Say,” said the real estate agent suddenly. “If your business is
none o’ mine, keep it to yourself; but I got a reason fur askin’ ye
what it is.”
“No secret,” answered Roy. “You’ve heard of aeroplanes?”
“Flyin’ machines?”
Roy nodded his head.
“I’ve got an aeroplane over at the express office, or should have,
and about two hundred gallons of gasoline. I’m under contract to

deliver the aeroplane and gasoline to Mr. Cook, in Bluff. After that,
I’m going to work for the company communicating with its
prospectin’ parties. I want to know the best way to get there.”
“They ain’t no best way—fur a team.”
“But I must find a way.”
Colonel Weston had grown strangely sober, and seemed lost in
thought.
“I see the route leads along the Ute reservation,” continued Roy.
“Is it safe to go that way?”
“It’s as safe goin’ as comin’. Either way ’tain’t what ye might call
no Lovers’ Lane fur peace and quiet.”
“Do you know a good guide?” continued Roy, a little surprised. He
had rather imagined that Indian apprehension existed mainly in the
east.
“Yes,” said Colonel Weston suddenly. He was about to say more
when his sober face took on a smile. Stepping to a desk, he
searched in the mess of odds and ends until he found a reasonably
clean sheet of paper. On this he printed something and then stepped
into the hall and attached the sheet to the outside of the door.
This done, he picked up Roy’s suit case and exclaimed:
“Ye ain’t had no dinner, hev ye?”
The lad remembered that he had not, and that he was suddenly
ravenously hungry.
“I got a wife,” added Colonel Weston; “’tain’t fur. We’ll go home
an’ git some chuck.”
As they stepped into the hall, Roy looked at the sign on the door.
It read:
“Back when I git here. Address Sink Weston, Bluff, Utah.”
Roy whirled about in sudden amazement.

“I’m tired o’ town,” the agent exclaimed, “an’ sick o’ things I don’t
know nothin’ about—an’ these,” he added with a laugh, pointing to
his tan shoes and town clothes. “I’ll take ye to Bluff myself.”
This was Roy’s introduction to the new life he was just entering.
Over his protest, Colonel Weston, now “Sink” Weston once more, at
least temporarily, insisted that the boy should go to his home for
dinner.
Mr. Weston’s explanation to his wife that business called him to
Bluff was received with no great joy, Roy could see, but Mrs. Weston
was probably used to her husband’s lapses into his old life.
“I don’t know how I’m goin’ to thank you folks for takin’ me in this
way and helpin’ me,” said Roy, as he sat down to fresh biscuits, fried
ham, potatoes, warmed-over baked beans, and a pot of fresh coffee.
“Don’t take on about that,” answered Mr. Weston. “All we ask is ye
don’t offer to pay nuthin’.”
That night Roy wrote a letter to his mother. Ten days later, from
Mrs. Osborne came to Mrs. Weston a fashionable shopping bag of
tanned sealskin. For years to come it will be the pride of Mrs.
Weston’s heart.
It had already been agreed that the start for Bluff was to be made
at five o’clock the next morning. Mr. Weston, despite his long face in
recounting his town experience, in reality owned a freight teaming
business. He maintained a sort of livery stable and sent a freight
wagon each day to Cortez, twelve miles down the mountain.
While Roy went to the express office at the railway station, his
new friend and host began making arrangements for a wagon and
horses. When the boy reached the depot and made modest inquiry
for his freight, the agent looked at him open mouthed.
“Is all that plunder yourn?” he began.
“Do you want me to identify myself?” asked Roy with a laugh.
“Colonel Weston knows me.”

“I reckon it’s all right who ye air, but why in the name uv all that’s
good and holy, didn’t ye send it by freight?”
“It’s all here, is it?” Roy asked anxiously.
“All here? I should say not.”
The boy’s heart sank.
“It’s nigh all over town. That gasoline is over thar by the water
tank—an’ by express, too,” the agent repeated, looking at Roy as if
he were a Rockefeller. “An’ the big boxes is over in the freight house.
Some o’ the bundles is in the baggage room.”
“Well,” said Roy laughing and greatly relieved, “I had this left out
of the express money,” and he handed the agent a two-dollar bill.
“Say, kid,” the agent said, a little embarrassed, “where do you
want that stuff took?”
When the boy explained that, at present, he only meant to check
it up, the mollified official offered his assistance with alacrity. Within
an hour Roy was joined by Colonel Weston, who had a look at the
freight he was to transport.
“Fine,” he exclaimed, “all but the gasoline. But we’ll make it on
one wagon. Old Dan Doolin is goin’ to drive fur us.”
About five o’clock the big, canvas-covered freight wagon was
drawn over to the depot that the crates, boxes and gasoline cans
might be loaded that night. The teamster, Colonel Weston, Roy and
the depot agent were not long in doing this.
Roy looked at the big, crowded wagon and wrinkled his brows:
“Goin’ to be a kind of close fit for us, isn’t it?” he remarked to Mr.
Weston.
“How’s that?” asked the ex-sheriff.
“All three of us on that wobbly seat for nearly a hundred miles.”
Colonel Weston exploded with laughter.

“You don’t reckon I’m goin’ to ride on the wagon?”
Roy looked at him, mystified. Then suddenly he understood.
“Of course,” he answered, “you’ll ride horseback.”
“Naturally,” remarked his companion. “And I’m goin’ to give you a
cow pony thet’s about as slick a piece o’ horse flesh as they is in
these parts.”
Roy stopped. That was a dream of his life.
“Colonel Weston,” he almost shouted, “you’re a brick.”

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.
More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge
connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.
Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and
personal growth every day!
ebookbell.com

Balaam In Text And Tradition Jonathan Miles Robker

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Tags

Categories

Download

Quick Actions

Statistics

Related Slideshows

Balaam In Text And Tradition Jonathan Miles Robker

About This Presentation

Slide Content

Slide 1

Slide 2

Slide 3

Slide 6

Slide 8

Slide 9

Slide 10

Slide 11

Slide 12

Slide 13

Slide 14

Slide 15

Slide 16

Slide 17

Slide 18

Slide 19

Slide 20

Slide 21

Slide 22

Slide 23

Slide 24

Slide 25

Slide 26

Slide 27

Slide 28

Slide 29

Slide 30

Slide 31

Slide 32

Slide 33

Slide 34

Slide 35

Slide 36

Slide 37

Slide 38

Slide 39

Slide 40

Slide 41

Slide 42

Slide 43

Slide 44

Slide 45

Slide 46

Slide 47

Slide 48

Slide 49

Slide 50

Slide 51

Slide 52

Slide 53

Slide 54

Slide 55

Slide 56

Slide 57

Slide 58

Slide 59

Slide 60

Slide 61

Slide 62

Slide 63

Slide 64

Slide 65

Slide 66

Slide 67

Slide 68

Slide 69

Slide 70

Slide 71

Slide 72

Slide 73

Slide 74

Slide 75

Slide 76

Slide 77

Tags

Categories

Download