Transitive Analogies and the Meaning of Balaam’s Origin: A Literary Analysis

Abstract

A set of parallels between the Balaam pericope and the encounter with Edom in Num. 20.14-21 form a literary allusion to the latter, which also draws on elements in the Jacob cycle – especially in Genesis 27. I suggest that these parallels encourage us to associate Balaam with Edom – as do Gen. 36.31-32 and other previously discovered evidence. A key to understanding these literary connections is the sword motif in Num. 20.14-21 and Num. 22.21-35, which points back to “you shall live by your sword” in Gen. 27.40. The allusion seems to present Esau’s sword blessing and Balaam’s intended curse as futile against the divine will. Another layer of meaning of the Balaam-Edom connection becomes clear when we consider the biblical motif of Edom as a symbol of the “nations” (Israel’s enemies), as well as Frisch’s recent proposal that Balaam’s jenny is a symbol of Israel.

Keywords

Balaam Numbers 22-24 Allusion Num. 20.14-21 Genesis 27 Edom

H. Rouillard’s 1985 treatment of the Balaam pericope was the first of several works that acknowledged multiple connections between Numbers 22-24 and other parts of the Pentateuch – namely Genesis 2-3; 22; 49 and Exodus 1-4; 10.¹ Most apparent is the set of parallels with the binding of Isaac, which also involves the hero waking up early, saddling his ass, and going on a mission “and two of his servants with him,” the idea of his killing a close, loyal being with a slashing instrument and his action being stopped by an angel. Safren argued for an intentional allusion by the author of the tale of the Jenny (Num. 22.21-35) to Isaac’s binding, meant to denigrate Balaam. Conversely, Rouillard’s purported analogy, which includes textual elements from outside Num. 22.21-35 and Gen. 22.1-19, is supposed to present Balaam as an obedient “second Abraham.”²

Savran discussed several characteristics shared by Numbers 22-24 and Genesis 2-3. Both texts exhibit intense preoccupation with blessings and curses, (dis)obedience, and the knowledge of the divine. Both share the unique motif of a speaking animal, and in both, a human interlocutor is no match for the beast’s shrewdness and superior understanding of the divine.³ Savran also noted the clear Eden imagery in Numbers 24.5-7, to which it may be added that כאהלים נטע יהוה‎ in Num. 24.6 is a wordplay on ויטע יהוה אלהים‎ in Gen. 2.8a.

It is also worth mentioning that Pseudo-Philo’s account of the Balaam-Balak story is rife with explicit references to the patriarchal narratives.⁴ Fisk rightly points out that this repeated appeal “is rooted in the canonical Balaam cycle itself . . . references to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob . . . arise naturally out of the cluster of allusions to the patriarchal blessing already ‘clinging to the storyline’ of Numbers 22-24.”⁵

Besides the allusions to Genesis, scholars have noticed that Numbers 22-24 contains an abundance of linguistic material reminiscent of the enslavement and exodus narratives. Traditionally this was taken as evidence relevant to the tracing of E or J in the Balaam pericope, but lately, Embry, Hepner, and others have noticed more intricate patterns.⁶

The present essay seeks to further explore the extensive referencing system employed in Numbers 22-24. My point of departure from previous scholarship is a set of links pertaining to the encounter with Edom (Num. 20.14-21). I argue that this allusion is inspired by the taking of Esau’s blessings in Genesis 27. The two literary connections share a surprising conceptual nexus – the dependence of the fulfillment of Isaac’s blessings to Jacob and Esau on divine will. This network of literary allusions reveals the basic motivations of the literary unit of Numbers 22-24, sheds light on its structure, and offers a solution to the famous question of Balaam’s origin.

The matters discussed here may also have some bearing on diachronic reconstructions of the formation of Numbers 22-24. While I will not discuss this complex issue directly, a few general remarks are in order. There is still relative agreement with the impression of Wellhausen and other nineteenth-century scholars that despite clear incongruities in Num. 22.20-22 and Num. 22.35, the Balaam pericope displays a high degree of linguistic, stylistic, and thematic cohesion.⁷ A common view sees this corpus as a basic unity, excluding the tale of the jenny, some of the oracular material in Num. 24.14-25, and a few minor editorial insertions.⁸ Significant neo-documentarian trials were also undertaken in the last two decades.⁹ Other scholars, following Gross and Rouillard, argued for the existence of a basic literary kernel with several additions.¹⁰ The methodological approach applied in this study is practically, but not principally, synchronic. My conclusions seem to oppose certain diachronic exclusions and divisions, supporting a unifying stance.¹¹ I shall comment on some of these potential implications in passing, as the occasion demands; however, it is not my goal here to determine the exact relationship between the intertextual findings and current theories about the formation of the text.

Allusion and Transitive Analogy – A Brief Methodology

Literary allusion can be roughly defined as an author’s intentional and implicit reference to another text, conveyed through textual resemblance.¹² The current endeavor will follow the lead of Sommer and others in implementing Ben-Porat’s poetics of allusion, with an emphasis on the concept of textual markers.¹³ In employing allusion, authors intentionally use distinct words, phrases, and themes from another known passage to evoke the reader’s recollection of that passage and to invite them to regard the passages as meaningfully linked. The hidden meaning of that link may present itself overtly, but often the marker is a call to investigate further. In such cases, other, perhaps subtler, similarities and contrasts can be found. The aim of the whole complex is to lead the reader to a certain impression, shedding light on the situation or the characters.¹⁴

Not every case of similarity between biblical texts can be attributed to allusion. The main diagnostic concern is random similarity,¹⁵ but affinities can also stem from a common type-scene, a common author exercising characteristic themes and style of composition, late harmonization processes, a trivial or unmindful echo, a common source of generic traditions, or joint reliance on a third text. A sine qua non for the elimination of these alternative explanations is the presence of unique shared terms and motifs. Other relevant factors include a similar order of appearance of joint themes in the texts, the transparency of a presumed exegetical relationship, the alluding author’s proven tendency to use allusion, and the cultural significance of the alluded text (as evidenced by the frequency of other allusions to it throughout the Hebrew Bible).

The latter three criteria also bear witness to the direction of influence. The presence of syntactic or literary peculiarities provides another helpful clue to determine which text is the alluding text. These may indicate adaptations of integrated material that were necessary to signal the reference in the alluding text.¹⁶

A core concept in this study is transitive analogy.¹⁷ A transitive analogy occurs when the same character partakes in two comparable scenes and assumes new attributes or undergoes new experiences in the second scene, which are associated with another character in the first scene.¹⁸ The following schema describes a transitive analogy. A, B, and C denote literary characters in two comparable scenes (B being the transitive character). X is an attribute or experience:

A (is X or experiences X in relation to B) — B (first scene)

B (is X or experiences X in relation to C) — C (second scene)

This basic literary mechanism also underlies the biblical principle of measure for measure. In many cases of this sort, an offender assumes the mental experience of the person who suffered the offense. Consider this example from Judg. 1.1-7:

Seventy subjugated kings (get their toes amputated by) Adonibezek

Adonibezek (gets his toes amputated by) The Israelites

This common type of transitive analogy will prove relevant as we proceed.

One aspect of transitive analogy that should be clarified is the notion of sameness of the transitive character. In human culture broadly, and in the Bible specifically, sameness does not necessarily encompass one distinct individual. To take a relevant example, the seed of Jacob is in a sense an extension of Jacob himself. For this reason, God can tell Jacob, “Do not fear to go down to Egypt, for I shall make a great nation of you there. I shall go down to Egypt with you and I shall bring you up again and Joseph shall lay his hands over your eyes,” (Gen. 46.3-4) though Jacob ultimately dies in Egypt. The statement “I shall bring you up” probably refers to God’s involvement in the exodus of Israel.¹⁹ This notion is common in the Hebrew Bible and is found, among other passages,²⁰ in Num. 20.14, in Num. 22.2-4, and in Num. 24.9 when read in light of Gen. 29.27. The very fact of biblical eponymy joins identity-related synecdoches in the Bible to demonstrate the flexibility of the biblical idea of personal sameness. Finally, here are two examples of transitive analogies in which the sameness criterion is not strict: a) David made the requisite preparations (והכינותי‎) for the building of the temple (1 Chron. 28.2), while God firmly establishes (והכינותי‎) the rule of his son Solomon (1 Chron. 28.6-7);²¹ b) Rahab’s kindness toward the spies results in kindness towards her father’s household (Jos. 2.12, 6.17).

Numbers 22-24 and Num. 20.14-21

Num. 20.14-21 presents a version of the Israelites’ attempt to pass through Edomite territory as a shortcut to Canaan. Moses’ messengers evoke the ancestral brotherhood motif and recount Israel’s plight in Egypt to the king of Edom (20.14-17). This appeal to kinship and empathy colors Israelite attitude to Edom as peaceful and well-disposed, an impression further emphasized in the Israelites’ entreaty in 20.19. The Edomites, on the other hand, are portrayed as unreasonably hostile. This account presupposes Edom’s ancient grudge against Israel for the taking of the blessing (Genesis 27), which is also reflected in Am. 1.11.

The story shares vocabulary and themes with Numbers 22:

1) Edom refuses to let (וימאן…נתן‎) Israel advance to their destination (Num. 20.21). God refuses to let (מאן… לתתי‎) Balaam advance to his destination. (Num. 22.13). The verbal construct מאן + נתן‎ occurs four times in the Hebrew Bible. Only in these two instances is a נתן‎ infinitive syntactically completed by infinitives – עבר‎ and להלך‎ – which also share a close meaning.

2) The Israelites intend to stick to the path (דרך‎) and not leave it, and an enemy goes out toward them with a sword and a “strong hand” (… וביד חזקה בחרב אצא לקראתך‎ … ויצא אדום לקראתו‎), blocking them (Num. 20.18-20). Balaam tries to stick to the path and not leave it, and the angel goes out (יצאתי‎) toward him (לקראתי‎) with a sword in his hand (וחרבו… בידו‎), blocking his path (דרך‎).

3) In their dialogue with Edom, the Israelite messengers promise that as they cross the Edomite land, they shall not go through field or vineyard (בשדה ובכרם‎) but will walk the path (דרך המלך נלך‎) without straying to the right or left (לא נטה ימין ושמאול‎) (Num. 22.17). In Num. 22.21-35, the jenny strays from the path, walking in the field (ותט… מן הדרך ותלך בשדה‎); Balaam tries to turn her back to the path להטתה הדרך‎)), the angel blocks her at a vineyard (משעול הכרמים‎) and then again somewhere where there is no room to stray to the right or left (אין דרך לנטות ימין ושמאול‎). One can hardly exaggerate the significance of the dense cluster of occurrences of דרך‎, שדה‎, כרם‎ and the expression ימין ושמאול‎ as verbal complements of נטה‎ and הלך‎ in the same semantic context. Some have viewed the presence of שדה‎ and משעול כרמים‎ as an oddity since such topographical features hardly fit the arid desert Balaam presumably crossed on his way to Moab.²² However, we can readily explain them as a literary device meant to strengthen an allusion marker.

4) The phrase קצה גבול‎ occurs three times in the Bible. One instance is in Num. 20.16, and another can be found in Num. 22.36, where the phrase ויצא לקראתו‎ may be connected to בחרב אצא לקראתך … ויצא אדום לקראתו‎. Given these links, it is also reasonable that Num. 22.38 “lo, I am come unto you now” was deliberately designed to fit Num. 20.16 “lo, we are in Kadesh, the city in the uttermost of your border.”²³ Both passages feature a rare theme: a newcomer announces his arrival to the local landlord on his border, concluding his tedious adventures. Also noteworthy is the use of הנה‎ at the beginning of both sentences as well as their general grammatical similarity.

The idea that the author was deliberately molding an allusion is supported by the multiplicity of shared language and themes, including some rare items. It also explains the use of כרם‎ and שדה‎ in a desert scene. This last point strongly suggests that the author of Numbers 22 is referring to Num. 20.14-21 and not vice versa, as fields and vineyards fit well within the context of Israel’s promise not to use Edomite resources in Num. 20.17. Moreover, the tendency of the Balaam narrative to employ allusions as a literary device supports the idea that in this case too it is the alluding text.

Things become more complicated when one tries to make sense of the literary patterns of the allusion. For instance, the analogical relationship between the characters is not entirely congruent.²⁴ The correlations between Num. 20.21 and Num. 22.13 compare the roles of Edom and the divine being, both of whom deny advancement, and the roles of Israel and Balaam, both of whose advancements are denied. A similar coupling of roles is grammatically anchored in the verbal correlates to בחרב אצא לקראתך‎ and ויצא אדום לקראתו… וביד חזקה‎ (Num. 20.18-20) throughout Num. 22.22-34. However, the cluster of terms דרך‎, שדה‎, כרם‎, and ימין ושמאול‎, governed by the verbs נטה‎ and הלך‎, grammatically refers to Israel in Num. 20.14-21 and to the jenny – not Balaam – in Num. 22.21-35.

I argue that there is a satisfactory explanation for this incongruence. While the physical interaction is between the angel and the jenny, the angel is clearly aiming to block the rider, Balaam, not his mount: “and Yahweh’s angel stood in the way to oppose him” (Num. 22.22) . . . “I would have killed you and spared her” (Num. 22.33) . . . “and Balaam said: . . . I did not know that you stand against me” (Num. 22.34). The literary shaping of the jenny as a significant character assigns her crucial symbolic functions,²⁵ but these are not necessarily relevant to the basic structure of the allusion to Num. 20.14-21. At first glance, the jenny looks like a third wheel in a literary analogy of two to two. Indeed, in and of itself, this mount is no more important in the broader story than is Abraham’s donkey in Isaac’s binding. In the Bible, such mounts are simply part of the riding hero’s paraphernalia. They are synecdochically “absorbed” into the rider figure and only mentioned – if at all – for distinct literary purposes.²⁶ The present anomaly consists in the fact that the mount knows more than its master and therefore acts against his will for his own sake. Even so, the biblical pair of rider and mount together represents the rider. Thus, it is right to consider the straying of this appendage of Balaam as a divine lesson for Balaam that God is entirely in control of him, especially his tongue and speech – just as God is in control of his jenny.

Reading the scene of the angel blocking Balaam as analogous to Edom blocking Israel raises certain questions. The scene in Num. 20.14-21 is simple in terms of character appraisal: Israel is turning to Edom as a brother in a peaceful manner, whereas Edom is cold-hearted and hostile.²⁷ Many see Balaam as a positive character in Numbers 22-24 and may readily accept his equation with Israel.²⁸ However, if this were the case, Edom’s counterpart in Num. 22.21-35 would be a positive figure – the angel. Another problem is that scholars commonly see Num. 22.21-35 as an interpolation by a scribe hostile to Balaam.²⁹ While the existence of alluding elements both within and outside of Num. 22.21-35 speaks against the interpolation theory itself, the negative characterization of Balaam in Num. 22.21-35 is indeed clear and cannot be reconciled with equating Balaam to Israel. Therefore, this analogy demands a different interpretation.

I suggest that the literary device on display is, in fact, a transitive analogy. Edom blocked Israel’s way, threatening the Israelites with the sword. Edom’s representative, Balaam, now suffers some sort of divine retribution in the same form.

An exegetical solution along this line also makes sense a priori because, as we shall see, transitive analogies play a central role in the literary molding of the pericope. This design is also employed with the same pattern, in which Balaam’s character is transitive. But first we need to explore the evidence. Is there indeed evidence in support of the notion that Balaam represents Edom in this passage?

Balaam the Edomite

The claim that Balaam was perceived as Edomite, at least in some periods or circles, has been voiced by prominent scholars throughout the past two centuries.³⁰ This theory leans on the striking similarity between the names בלעם בן בעור‎ and בלע בן בעור‎ – the first king of Edom according to Gen. 36.31-32 – suggesting the identification of the two. Additionally, scholars have argued for the wisdom-related ethos³¹ and Yahwistic religious affiliation of Edom in early periods. These characteristics suit Balaam’s figure as a great Yahwistic seer in Numbers 22-24.

Unlike the notion that Edom was a culture related to wisdom literature, its affiliation with Yahwism is well-founded.³² The Bible frequently refers to Kemosh, Ba’al, Milkom, and other deities of neighboring peoples as vain abominations, while never denouncing Edomite worship. In fact, no Edomite deity is ever mentioned by name.³³ At the same time, an inscription from Kuntillet Ajrud, dating to the 8^th or 9^th century BCE, reads: *ל[י]הוה[.]תימנ.ולאשרת[ה]‎ (“to Yahweh of Teman and his Asherah”). This suits the biblical depictions of God’s glorious revelation linked to other Edomite territories – Se’ir, Teman, field of Edom, Batzra, and Paran (Deut. 33.3; Judg. 5.4; Hab. 3.3).³⁴ The toponym t˒˒ š˒˒św yhw˒˒w found in Egyptian Late Bronze Age inscriptions further supports Yahweh’s presence in the south, as Edom seems related to the Shasu tribes. Finally, the book of Job, with its standard Yahwistic theology, takes place in the Edomite land of Uz, and Job and some of his comrades are commonly considered Edomite by origin.³⁵ Although none of this proves a fixed and enduring Israelite perception regarding Balaam being an Edomite, such identification, in certain circles and times, is probable.

However, there is also an alternative. The allusions in Numbers 22-24 reveal the author’s preoccupation with the patriarchal narratives, including elements from the Jacob cycle, as we shall see. Considering Gen. 36.31-32, one might assume that the author would associate Balaam with the first Edomite king, בלע בן בעור‎, as an exegetical inference. Both Gen. 36.31-32 and Num. 20.14-21 refer to an Edomite king, and indeed the author alludes to Num. 20.14-21 in a way that entertains the equation of Balaam with Edom and its king. This could indicate either that both authors presupposed this identification or that the author of the Balaam narrative created it independently, based on his reading of Gen. 36.31-32.

Not only would an Edomite identity explain Balaam’s association with Yahwism, it would also add significantly to our understanding of Num. 24.15-19. This series of prophecies is structurally bracketed by the recurring formula וישא משלו‎. The first prophecy among these refers to the grim future of Moab and Edom. Whereas a reference to Moab is natural after Num. 24.14, a prophecy concerning Edom seems out of place. Scholars have noted the irony and satirical air present in the Balaam pericope, especially in the tale of the jenny.³⁶ One feature that creates this atmosphere in Numbers 23-24 is the fact that the words God puts in Balaam’s mouth seem also to address Balaam himself, who clearly modifies his behavior because of them.³⁷ If Balaam represents Edom, it is only natural that the first and longest prophecy in this series relates to Moab and Edom, the primary antagonists. Another feature that amplifies Edom’s prominence in this series is a remarkable link partaking in the known allusion to Genesis 22. ירשה שעיר איביו‎ in Num. 24.18 bears a striking morphological resemblance to Gen. 22.17 וירש זרעך את שער איביו‎. The double use of ירשה‎, a noun found only here, as well as the awkward and seemingly unnecessary איביו‎, strengthens the impression of an intentional molding. The double use stands out as a literary aid meant to conjure this intertextual link.

Notably, these intertextual observations may also contribute to the diachronic debate about the origin of Num. 24.15-19. The observations’ close connection to the general scheme of the pericope seems to attest to organic unity. Others may well interpret it as evidence of great editorial sophistication.

Bearing this Edomite connection in mind, we now return to the meaning of the allusion to Num. 20.14-21, following a lead to its possible roots in the story of the conflict between Jacob and Esau.

Balaam, Edom, and the Blessing of Esau

As Milgrom noted, the sword Balaam lacks in his hand in Num. 22.29 stands in contrast to the one with which he is threatened, held by the angel. This is a lesson to Balaam that the power to kill is not in his hand but in God’s.³⁸ It also fits the main message of Num. 22.21-35: As God may grant the power of speech even to a jenny, he may take it away even from a world-class prophet. Another possible expression of the prominence of the sword motif is its recurring use in Num. 31.8 and Josh. 13.22. There, the odd emphasis בחרב‎, “by the sword,” distinguishes Balaam’s killing from that of the Midianite princes.³⁹

Certain themes and elements that appear in major blessing scenes in the patriarchal narratives are known to reappear in other biblical narratives.⁴⁰ This fact is particularly salient in Numbers 22-24. In addition to the similarities between Num. 22.6 and Gen. 12.3, there are clear connections to the patriarchal blessings in Num. 24.9a (to Gen. 49.9) and in Num. 24.9b, an instance of Seidel’s law in relation to Gen. 27.29b. The sword motif also appears in the blessings of Genesis 27. In Gen. 27.40, Isaac blesses Esau, telling him, “You shall live by your sword,” in the context of his relationship with his brother. In the “reunion” of the brothers as nations after the exodus, Edom threatens Israel with the sword. Indeed, an intriguing rabbinical homily in Exodus Rabbah 21.1 ties Num. 20.14-21 to Genesis 27:

Isaac left his two sons two legacies. To Jacob he left the voice, for so it says: the voice is the voice of Jacob. But to Esau he bequeathed the hands, as it says, but the hands are the hands of Esau. Esau was very proud of his legacy, as it says: And Edom said unto him: you shalt not pass through me, lest I come out with the sword against thee.⁴¹

The homilist presupposes that in Gen. 27.22, ‘the voice is the voice of Jacob and the hands are the hands of Esau’ bears a symbolic meaning: the voice stands for the power of speech, whereas the hands represent violent force. This implies a latent reference to Gen. 27.40, “you shall live by your sword.” Although this citation of Num. 20.18 could simply relate to the notion of aggression, the explicit mention of the sword comes here alongside reference to the “will” of Isaac, which is less likely to be an inference based on Gen. 27.22 alone. In any case, the homilist sees an atavistic element in Israel and Edom’s behavior on their first encounter since parting ways in the form of Jacob and Esau. By itself, this is hardly an obvious literary rendering of Num. 20.14-21, but it is a reasonable one.

More overt in its reference to the sword motif is the link made between Genesis 27 and Num. 22.21-35 in Midrash Tanhuma (Balak 22.8):

And the jenny saw the angel of the lord standing on the way, with his sword drawn in his hand. Could the angel not blow upon him and take out his very spirit without drawing his sword?… yet he told him thus: The mouth was granted to Jacob, as it says: The voice is the voice of Jacob… and the hands to Esau, as it says: you shall live by your sword… And all the nations live by the sword – but you switch your skill and set upon them with theirs? I also shall set upon you with yours.⁴²

The homilist has a clear normative view on the proper division of skills. To him, Gen. 27.22 and Gen. 27.40 indicate that speech (“voice,” “mouth”) was given to Jacob/Israel and that arms (“hand,” “sword”) were given to Balaam/Edom. Thus, the homilist denounces Balaam not merely for his act of aggression – like Edom in Exodus Rabbah – but also for trying to use the force that is not rightfully his against its proper owner. Of course, this is only partially true: Balaam does not forsake his “hands of Esau” entirely. He beats his jenny severely, wishing he had a sword to kill it. I shall return to this matter later. For now, it is enough to point out that Aggadic intuition ties both Num. 20.14-21 and Num. 22.21-35 to Gen. 27 in a similar fashion, whereas the notion that Gen. 27.22 carries a symbolic meaning finds support in the biblical text. Such duality of cunning (the force of speech) versus aggression (hand, sword) would place the redundancy of Gen. 27.22b in the context of the brothers’ contrasting personalities and fit the words “you shall live by your sword.”

Gen. 27.40 provides evidence for a plain sense literary connection between Num. 22.21-35 and Genesis 27. Against על חרבך תחיה‎ now comes “were there a sword in my hand, I would have killed you now… and he saw the angel of Yahweh… his sword drawn in his hand… and he said unto him… surely now I would have killed you and spared (החייתי‎) her” (Num. 22.29-33). Considering this parallel to be meaningful in and of itself would surely qualify as a case of what J. Kugel called “omnisignificance” – the exaggerated attribution of importance and authorial intention to the tiniest, most trivial details of scripture. However, as noted above, this detail joins illustrious references to the Genesis 27 blessings specifically, and the patriarchal blessings generally, in Numbers 22-24. Carmichael has recently noted other links to the Jacob materials, including Genesis 27,⁴³ and others exist as well.⁴⁴

Does this parallel possess any significant meaning? Milgrom’s insight about the literary role of the sword in Num. 22.21-35 indicates this may be the case. A comparison of the passages uncovers a clear underlying idea. Isaac’s sword blessing to Esau emphatically fails in the case of the “Edomite representative” Balaam. In Num. 20.14-21, Edom turned to the sword, its promised source of life (Gen. 27.40), against Israel. Num. 22.29-33 makes it clear that Isaac’s sword blessing is futile against the divine will. God’s angel is the one wielding Balaam’s sought-after sword – and he, the angel, would have killed Balaam with it.

The Contingency of the Mantic Uttering

The idea that Isaac’s blessing is conditional and could potentially even be reversed by God requires some elaboration. First, this notion is compatible with a certain biblical perception of the futility of human endeavor when it collides with divine will (e.g., Ps. 127.1). Second, scholars rightly identified Judg. 17.2, 1 Kgs. 2.44-45, and Ps. 109.28 as evidence that the effects of human blessing and curse were deemed contingent and revocable.⁴⁵ This is also the rationale behind prophetic assertions that uphold the effectiveness and irrevocability of divine curses and blessings.⁴⁶ Why were these needed if all such utterances – even human ones – were obviously effective? Importantly, Num. 22.6b addresses this point exactly. Balak’s unmindful challenge of the divine promise in Gen. 12.2-3 is a statement of trust in the extraordinary – that flesh and blood, Balaam, shall utter irrevocable imprecations.

Although the notion that curses and blessings are conditional may be generally accepted, applying it to Gen. 22.40 seems counterintuitive. After all, the Balaam pericope reflects sheer enthusiasm in ratifying the patriarchal promises in Genesis.⁴⁷ Why should Isaac’s blessing of Esau be any different?

This objection is resolved if we consider Genesis 27 against the background of the Jacob cycle as a whole. Jacob’s adventures with Esau and Laban in Genesis 27 and 29-32 teach that Isaac’s blessings in Gen. 27.28-29 actually engendered the opposite of their expected outcome. Jacob was blessed to have peoples serving him (יעבדוך‎) and his brothers (אחיך‎) bowing down (ישתחוו‎) to him as their master; he then serves Laban – his אח‎ (Gen. 29.15) – for twenty long years,⁴⁸ described consistently using the root עבד‎. He bows down (וישתחו‎) seven times to his brother Esau, calling Esau his master and himself “your servant” (עבדך‎) (Gen. 33.3-14).⁴⁹ Jacob’s blessing is “of the dew of the skies and the fat of the earth, abundance of grain and wine,” but immediately after Isaac blesses him, he goes into exile and is landless for twenty years, suffering in the night frost and the desert heat (Gen. 31.40). Exegetes rightly saw this as a latent portrayal of divine punishment for taking the blessing, as Jacob, who deceived by “putting the young before the elder,” is himself being deceived so by his “brother” Laban (Gen. 29.26).⁵⁰

If Isaac’s blessing to Jacob in Gen. 27.28-29 backfires as a result of divine punishment, why must Isaac’s blessing of Esau be unconditionally fulfilled? Indeed, Esau did not acquire his blessing deceptively and therefore should not be punished. But there is another relevant factor underlying the situation of both twins. Genesis 27 reflects a misguided belief in the automatic power of human blessing. Rebecca, Jacob, and Esau seek the patriarch’s blessing by whatever means necessary. They trust its power – as does Isaac himself. Although he begins his blessing with “may God give you…,” he then expresses complete faith that his blessing is potent and irreversible: “I have blessed him and blessed he shall be’ (Gen. 27.33).⁵¹ This idea was clearly seen by the author of the allusion as pivotal to Genesis 27 because the reversal of the mantic effect feared by Jacob in Gen. 27.12 also happens to Balak and Balaam in Numbers 22-24, and Gen. 27.29b is obviously paraphrased in Num. 24.9b. The belief that a specially endowed human being may utter an independently effective mantic uttering is also the main idea the pericope challenges. This target is set at the beginning, with Balak proclaiming “knowledge” of the absolute effectiveness of Balaam’s utterances.

“Upon the rest of the nations and upon entire Edom” (Ezek. 36.5): The Conundrum of Balaam’s Homeland

The interpretation I suggest above relies heavily on the assumption that the allusion presupposes an Edomite origin of Balaam. Does this attribution fit Num. 22.5 and 23.7?

The pericope is notoriously ambiguous about Balaam’s homeland. פתורה אשר על הנהר‎ seems to indicate a Mesopotamian origin, though פתורה‎ as a genuine locative raises questions.⁵² Prima facie, “the river” is likely the Euphrates. Such indefinite use of נהר‎ fits a great and famous river. A Mesopotamian background also fits the literary character of Balaam as an exceptionally skilled diviner because Mesopotamia is well-known for its divination centers. The word פתורה‎ also functions to this end. Even if it is grammatically a locative, the mantic meaning of the root פתר‎ (Gen. 40.8; 41.13) is probably not incidental. It serves as a means to stress Balaam’s divination skills.⁵³

On the other hand, ארם‎ in Num. 23.7 points to an Aramaic origin and cannot be amended to *אדם‎. The form ארם‎ must be genuine in Deut. 23.5 due to נהרים‎. Even if this is an interpretation of Num. 22.5, it is rather old and validates the Masoretic version of Num. 22.5.⁵⁴ Furthermore, Moyer has recently shown the significant number of Aramaic features in the language of the pericope, justly viewing it as deliberate “style switching” meant to infuse the text with a foreign air.⁵⁵ Admittedly, these findings suit yet another option – a trans-Jordanian origin of Balaam, specifically in Ammon.⁵⁶ The odd phrase ארץ בני עמו‎ in 22.5 is rendered as “the land of the Ammonites” in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Peshitta, the Vulgate, and several Hebrew manuscripts. Some claim that the authenticity of this version is supported by the familiarity of the Deir ‘Alla plaster inscription with Balaam. A trans-Jordanian origin is viable if פתורה‎ is an Aramaic adjective form with a definite article, meaning “the diviner,” as in the Vulgate (ariolus) and Pseudo-Philo (interpretem somniorum). According to this view, “the river” is the Jabbok. Furthermore, according to some scholars, ‘the elders of Midian” in Num. 22.4 and 22.7 and Balaam’s death in Midian in Num. 31.8 are evidence of Midianite attribution in priestly circles.⁵⁷

In light of this variety, many see here a mixture of traditions.⁵⁸ While this option cannot be discounted, we do find one other example of a similar conflation of peoples in the Hebrew Bible: Edom as a symbol of “the nations” – Israel’s enemies. This phenomenon has been justly recognized in Isaiah 34 and 63.1-6, Obadiah, Ezek. 36.1-15, Amos 9.11-12, Lam. 4.20-22, and Mal. 1.2-5.⁵⁹ Several other passages arguably demonstrate the primacy of Edom among the enemies of Israel: Amos 1-2, Ps. 60.1-2, 10-14, and Ps. 83.3-9. Some challenged the concept of Edom as a symbol in biblical times,⁶⁰ and indeed not all the verses usually discussed in this context are relevant. However, dismissing a longitudinal pattern by using ad hoc, case-by-case explanations is methodologically questionable.

I suggest that Balaam’s initially ambiguous origin enabled the author – following Gen. 36.32 – to present him as an Edomite and, thus, as an archetypal enemy of Israel. That would surely fit the evidence for an Edomite origin that some traditions ascribe to Balaam, his seeming prominence as a world-class diviner and the conflicting clues vis-à-vis other nationalities. Importantly, the link to Isaac’s binding in Num. 24.18 identifies Edom as the enemy of Abraham’s seed. The oracles, which address both Balak and Balaam himself, repeatedly refer to “nations” (גוים‎) with hostility: “a people shall dwell alone, not reckoned among the nations” (Num. 23.9), “He shall eat the nations, his enemies, chew upon their bones” (Num. 24.8), “Amalek, first amongst nations, his latter shall be to perish” (Num. 24.20). The last verse strikingly displays Amalek, Edom’s grandson, using this same symbolism.⁶¹ Such imagery is reminiscent of Gen. 25.23, wherein Jacob and Esau are said to be two גיים‎ destined to struggle. Perhaps it was not in vain that the Tanhuma homilist refers to Balaam, who “switches his skill” through this exact theological lens, as “all the nations.”

An ambiguous national identity for Balaam also fits Num. 22.5. The awkward ארץ בני עמו‎ is a necessary specification, attesting that Balaam’s homeland was doubtful and had to be determined. However, the text only vaguely locates it in a place the reader would associate with the occult (פתורה‎ evokes the root פתר‎), whereas פתור‎ may have been otherwise unknown. But ארץ בני עמו‎ also testifies that more allegiances were imaginable. Balaam was clearly famous as a mercenary of international repute who had dealings with many peoples and, thus, would not have remained in his motherland. This is why the ancient Hebrew reader could accept that he came from Aram or was killed in Midian, and later scribes were able to accept that עמו‎ originally stood for Ammon, despite glaring incongruities. Nevertheless, following Gen. 36.32, an association with (a probably Yahwistic) Edom was logical – first of all, to explain Balaam’s legendary ability as a diviner by ascribing it to a connection with the God of Israel and, second, to anchor Balaam’s international identity in the concrete – through the idea of Edom as the head of the nations.

Frisch, the Jenny as Israel and International Ungratefulness

Scrutiny of the literary role of the jenny provides additional support of and underlying logic to the view that Balaam was presented as an Edomite representative of the nations. Frisch saw the resemblance in straying right and left in Numbers 20 and 22 as a literary device whose purpose was to display the jenny as a symbolic incarnation of Israel. In his view, the immediate literary goal was to stress that the relationship between Balaam and the jenny in Num. 22.21-35 resembles the relationship between Balaam and Israel in the enveloping story.⁶² As we have seen, Num. 20.14-21 and Num. 22.21-35 are indeed related. The need to support this symbolic function explains the imperfection of the analogy, created by the attribution of straying not to Balaam but to his jenny. Moreover, the known allusion to Isaac’s binding makes the jenny equivalent to Isaac, “the seed of Abraham.”⁶³ There is also proof of Frisch’s claim that the jenny’s words “for you have beaten me” (Num. 22.28) resonate with the original plan for which Balak summoned Balaam: “perhaps I may beat him and drive him off the land” (Num. 22.6) – a covert reprimand for the wrong Balaam is about to do.⁶⁴ This claim interacts with a literary connection between the crouching jenny that Balaam is unable to bring back to her feet and the crouching lion that “who shall raise?” (Num. 24.9). The lion enacts the triumphant Israel. His tortured predecessor, representing downtrodden Israel, lays the initial literary ground for a typical lifting up of the oppressed – a known biblical motif (1 Sam. 2.4-9; Ps. 18.28; Ezek. 17.24). This addition to Frisch’s idea is crucial, as it reconfigures his scheme as another transitive analogy in which Balaam plays a central role (see second scene-coupling in the table below).

Samet has shown that the basic literary design of the pericope is founded on a transitive analogy.⁶⁵ His core insight was that in the tale of the jenny, Balaam is misjudging and pressing. Later on, Balak misjudges and presses him (see third scene-coupling in the tables below). Samet portrays this in convincing detail:

In both relationships the loyal “medium,” who is leading his “operator” to achieve his goal, strays from the way… three times … This makes the “operator” more and more angry, bringing the process to an end after the third time… The operator does not understand why his loyal servant is acting against his usual manner and against their common interest… the reason in both places is similar: The lord’s angel or the word of the lord forces the servant… to act… against his operator’s will… The angel of the lord or his word is revealed to the servant but not to the operator, so he mistakenly ascribes the deviation to malicious intent on behalf of the servant, who is in truth not to blame… The servant does not understand what is happening to him/her. He/she serves as a mere instrument in the hands of the angel or the word of the lord. Thus, the jenny sees the angel, but does not comprehend what she sees and tries to bypass the angel… Balaam too fails to grasp the full meaning of the lord’s word forcibly put in his mouth and tries again and again to bypass it and bring Balak to his goal… The third literary organ of each repetitive pattern presents the vehement desire of the master to hurt the servant, hindered by external circumstances.

While certain nuances in Samet’s analysis can be debated, the basic outline is solid. Samet’s transitive analogy, Frisch’s complemented transitive analogy, and the allusion to Num. 20.14-21 I have suggested above, work together in harmony, demonstrating a distinct authorial inclination behind this sort of structural molding.

The following is a general sketch of the transitive patterns in the Balaam pericope (B/E stands for Balaam/Edom. The actual figure in each scene is marked in bold):

Initial action	Transitive action(s)
Edom encounter (Num. 20.14-21)	Pericope introduction (Num. 22.2-20)	Tale of the jenny (Num. 22.21-35)
B/E blocks Israel (Num. 20.20-21)	God blocks B/E (Num. 22.13)	The angel blocks B/E (Num. 22.21-34)
Pericope introduction (Num. 22.2-20)	Balaam oracles (Num. 23-24)
Israel about to be “beaten” by B/E (Num. 22.6 within context)	B/E about to be “beaten” by Israel (Num. 24.18-20)
Tale of the jenny (Num. 22.21-35)	Balaam oracles (Num. 23-24)
B/E pressing the jenny hard (Num. 22.25-29)	Balak pressing B/E hard (Num. 23-24)
Tale of the jenny (Num. 22.21-35)
B/E would have killed the jenny by the sword (Num. 22.29)	The angel would have killed B/E by the sword (Num. 22.33)

Balaam/Edom is present in each of the scenes in the tables and has a major transitive role in each scene-coupling (unlike Balak, the angel, or God). Evidently, much literary work was invested in emphasizing the transitive role of this figure. But for what purpose? The failing of Isaac’s blessing of Esau does not bind all these elements together and cannot be the main point of this literary array. A hint lies in the fact that each of the scene-couplings entails some level of retributive justice in the form of measure for measure. The actions of Balaam in Numbers 22 and Edom in Num. 20.14-21 do not sufficiently explain why the text is so preoccupied with punishing B/E, and they look like part of a bigger picture. Indeed, the notion of Edom’s impending doom in 24.18-20 is refined and endowed with meaning as we examine the relationship between the jenny as a symbol of Israel and Balaam as an Edomite representative of the nations.

Frisch rightly points out that if the jenny symbolizes Israel, then there may be some special significance in her conscientious cry “am I not your jenny, upon which you have ridden all your life to this day?” (Num. 22.30). On the symbolic level, this strange proclamation raises the question, is there a sense in which Balaam could have “ridden” on Israel all his life? In addressing this question, Frisch turns to the clear reference to Gen. 12.3 in Num. 22.6. According to Gen. 12.3, God summoned Abraham to become “a blessing to all the peoples of the earth.” In another relevant passage, Isaac’s binding, God promises Abraham that “all the nations of the land (גויי הארץ‎) shall be blessed through your seed” (Gen. 22.18), a theme that is indeed prevalent in the patriarchal narratives. Frisch persuasively argues that Num. 22.6 calls the reader to view the summoning of Balaam to curse Israel in light of the summoning of Abraham to be a blessing.⁶⁶ This implies ungratefulness, as Balaam is about to curse Israel, while “given the link to the Abraham cycle… not only that Israel is blessed… it is also a source of blessing for others, potentially even for Balaam.”⁶⁷ The fact that Balaam has ridden on the jenny all his life implies that somehow he benefitted all his life from the blessing that God conferred through the Israelites. But in what sense?

It is difficult to conceive that Balaam, as a single person, would be reckoned a significant beneficiary of the blessing passed through Abraham’s seed. Nor could we fathom why this mere freelancer ought to see the Israelites as a threat to himself, like the Moabites. Frisch is aware of this, as he carefully mentions Shemesh’s insight that if Balaam is an Ammonite representative, the representation of Moab and Ammon together may allude to Abraham having saved their ancestor, Lot, in Genesis 19.⁶⁸ However, if Balaam is indeed a representative of the nations (גוים‎), these issues fall into place without much need for conjecture. This forms yet another transitive analogy – one that holds the conceptual key for the understanding of all the others in Numbers 22-24:

Initial action	Transitive action
Promises to the patriarchs (Gen. 12.3, 22.18, 26.4)	Attempts to curse Israel (Num. 22-24)
The patriarchs’ seed is meant to bring a (positive) mantic effect upon the nations	The nations (B/E) try to bring a (negative) mantic effect upon the patriarchs’ seed

Importantly, this is the only transitive analogy implied in the pericope that does not suggest retribution. It features an act of mute ingratitude. The patriarchal promises speak of the nations – regularly using the term גוים‎ – as beneficiaries of the blessing that the seed of Abraham brings. The nations (גוים‎) take Israel to be a threat and try to undo the blessing whose fruits they have enjoyed. This virulent allegation has the required scope and gravity to explain the keen interest in the nations’ punishment in Num. 22-24; its form – a transitive analogy – explains why transitive analogies were chosen as the primary literary framework to describe the woeful experiences of Balaam in Numbers 22-24.

Conclusions

I have suggested that the shared elements in Num. 20.14-21 and Num. 22-24 constitute an allusion in the latter to the former. Besides intra-textual evidence, the validity and direction of this allusion are supported by other allusions to material from the Pentateuch in Numbers 22-24, indicating the tendency of the author to use allusion as a literary device. Likewise, the fact that a transitive analogy serves as the basis of this allusion fits an apparent inclination to use such constructs in both the general literary design of the pericope and its complex reference system.

The first step in deciphering the meaning of the allusion is to note that the literary identification of Balaam with Edom and its king fits the similarity of the names בלעם בן בעור‎ and בלע בן בעור‎, the Edomite king. Some implications arise as we follow a theme that binds Num. 22-24 and Num. 20.14-21 together – the sword motif, which is rooted in Esau’s blessing in Gen. 27.40. Clear and consistent references to the promises made to the patriarchs, including the blessings of Genesis 27, support the idea that this link is intentional. The inability of both Edom and Balaam to use the sword, Esau’s promised source of life, against Israel, embodies the general message of the pericope that the source of all power, including that of an endowed person’s mantic uttering, is God alone; neither blessing nor curse has any effect against the divine will.

This leaves one problem. Can the perception of Balaam as an Edomite be reconciled with Num. 22.5 and 23.7? The usual solution, assigning differing indications of origin to different sources or traditions, is theoretically possible. However, I pointed out the importance of two prior scholarly observations on this matter. The first is the biblical symbol of Edom as representative of the “nations” (Israel’s enemies). Beside the international air of Balaam’s figure, Num. 23.9, 24.8, 24.18, and 24.20 support the relevance of this concept. Second is Frisch’ proposal that the Jenny symbolizes Israel. Prior and current findings strengthen his proposal which, in turn, complements the nations’ representation thesis. Frisch rightly notes that some of the atavistic elements in the pericope imply ingratitude and foolishness on the part of Israel’s enemies, who owe their existence to Abraham and the blessing conveyed through his seed, Israel – yet still conspire against the Israelites. Frisch demonstrates that this criticism targets Balaam; in fact, this idea can only be fully embraced if Balaam represents the enemies of Israel.

The allusions discussed in this essay provide more evidence to consider when assessing the potential development of these texts and traditions from a diachronic perspective. Their presence suggest that the main bulk of the Balaam pericope was composed no earlier than Genesis 27 and Numbers 20.14-21. Moreover, the existence of referential elements outside and within Num. 22.21-35 and in Num. 24.15-19 should be considered in future discussions about the formation of Numbers 22-24.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Oren Gelblum

1.

Rouillard, 1985; Safren, 1988; Novick, 2007; Kil, 1997: 44-51; Savran, 1994; Embry, 2010; Hepner, 2011; Sailhamer, 1992: 405-409.

2.

Rouillard, 1985: 166. Others attribute the parallels to common authorship: Van Seters, 1994: 414-430; Friedman, 2005: 280-283; Achenbach, 2003: 396. Levin thinks that Safren’s evidence is insufficient to establish a case of allusion (Levin, 2000: 153-154). However, in light of Rouillard’s and Kil’s contributions, this objection can safely be rejected.

3.

Savran, 1992.

4.

Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 18. See text in Jacobson, 1996: 24-26.

5.

Fisk, 2000: 483-492.

6.

See footnote 2.

7.

Bührer, 2016: 602-603; Wellhausen, 1963: 110-111; Dillmann, 1886: 136.

8.

Rofé, 1979; Van Seters, 1994: 413-428; Milgrom, 1990: 467-469.

9.

For example, see Seebass, 1995; Schmidt, 2004: 117-144.

10.

Gross, 1974; Rouillard, 1985; Robker, 2019.

11.

For instance, Friedman, 2003: 280-287; Kratz, 2005: 287; Blum, 1984: 116-117.

12.

This excludes links formed in the mind of the reader alone and explicit quotations. Compare Lange and Weigold, 2011: 26. The boom in the study of biblical allusion in recent decades continues unabated, as is seen in countless recent publications. See e.g., Zevit, 2017.

13.

Ben-Porat, 1976; Helbig 1996: 18-138; Sommer, 1998: 11-12; Hutton, 2007: 275-301; Rosenberg, 2020: 702.

14.

Zakovitch, 1985: 165-166.

15.

See e.g. Leonard, 2008: 246; Berger, 2009: 254-255.

16.

E.g., Helbig, 1996: 64-65; Hakham, 1988: 22; for some theoretical discussions and examples, see Kilchör, 2013; Kelly, 2013.

17.

Simple analogy often refers to meaningful patterns of similarity between characters or situations. It serves as the basic mechanism of allusion. See e.g., Garsiel, 1983: 17.

18.

Moyer, 2012: 168-169 applies the concept of role reversal in some contexts that I discuss here. This term seems exact when it refers to literary situations in which the two same actors partake in both scenes and switch roles between them (A — B; B — A). This is but a special case of transitive analogy. Some of the cases I discuss below indeed qualify as role reversals, but I adhere to the more general term for the sake of simplicity.

19.

For instance, Westermann, 2004: 305.

20.

See Deut. 5.2-3, 11.21, 2 Kgs 22.13, Mal. 3.7, Ps. 85.2, Ezek. 37.25 and Est. 2.5, 3.1 in the context of the latent struggle against Amalek in Esther. Also consider the institution of collective punishment.

21.

Jacobs, 2006: 25.

22.

Milgrom, 1990: 468; Sturdy, 1976: 166.

23.

These lexical items characterize Edom references in other places – Gen. 32.7; 33.4; Obad. 7; Mal. 1.4 – as previously noticed (Anderson, 2012: 42-44). The lexemes גבול‎ and לקראת‎ and the verb נטה‎ (e.g., Ezek. 35.3) are each by themselves too common to support an allusion or even to indicate an unintended echo.

24.

Consistency in a literary analogy between characters is largely accepted as a criterion of validity after Noble, 2002: 219-252. For important reservations, see Grossman, 2009: 394-414; Biddle, 2002; Berger, 2009: 254-264.

25.

Most conspicuous is a contrast with the stupidity and inability of Balaam – Milgrom, 1990: 469; Marcus, 1995: 29-41; Way, 2009: 48-49. Another function is discussed below.

26.

Singular verbs are used to describe the rider in Gen. 22.3; Exod. 4.20; Josh. 15.18; Judg. 8.12, 21; 1 Sam. 25.9-20, 36; 1 Kgs 11.13-14. Mounts are also often mentioned as property to denote status, as in Gen. 24.10; Judg. 5.10; Es. 6.8-11.

27.

Orian, 2019: 113-114; Anderson, 2012: 42-44; Oswald, 2000. Also see Am. 1.11.

28.

E.g. Barré, 1997.

29.

See Coats, 1985; Milgrom, 1990: 468-471; Levin, 2000: 154-159. Exceptions include Seebass, 1995: 410-411 and Moyer, 2012: 174. They see Num. 22.21-35 as a bearable digression that resembles other divine tests of great prophets.

30.

For example, Holzinger, 1903: 105-106; Albright, 1915; Mowinckel, 1930: 237-238; Levin, 2000: 146-147.

31.

The Edomite wisdom hypothesis is primarily based on Ob. 8 and Jer. 49.7. See Pffeifer, 1926: 13-14; Baentsch, 1903: 592.

32.

Judg. 5.29, Isa. 19.11, 29.14 and Ezek. 27.8-9 show Ob. 8 and Jer. 49.7 to be common references to the wise ones of any nation. Also see Crowell, 2008: 405-409.

33.

This gave rise to the theory that the chief Edomite god, Qaus, known from extra-biblical sources, was perceived to be identical to Yahweh or that Yahweh was worshipped in Edom before the introduction of Qaus. See Rose, 1977: 28-29; Assis, 2016: 11; Dicou, 1994: 177-180; Kelley, 2009; Zalcman, 2005.

34.

Also note Isa. 63.1; Assis, 2016: 11; Levin, 2020: 9.

35.

Assis, 2016: 13-14. Hakham, 1988: 16-18 is more skeptical. However, “the land of Uz” in Lam. 4.21 and the origin of Eliphaz of Teman seem significant; other identifications are indeed dubious.

36.

Sharp: 2009: 134-151; Marcus, 1995: 29-41. The satirical belittling of Balaam in Num. 22.21-35 is almost ubiquitously accepted in critical commentaries since Rofé’s Book of Balaam. Compare Levin, 2000: 207.

37.

Balaam stops “going towards divinations” (Num. 21.1) after Num. 23.23. Moyer, 2012: 171-173 acknowledged the change in wording in Balaam’s proclamations after the tale of the Jenny. While God’s order in Num. 22.20 referred to what Balaam will do, in Num. 22.35, the angel tells him that he shall only speak what he will speak to him (Num. 22.35). Following this, Balaam is referring twice to speaking – not doing – in his proclamations (Num. 22.38b; 23.12).

38.

Milgrom, 1990: 191.

39.

See Frisch, 2015: 108; Safren, 1988: 112.

40.

See Exod. 11.10 against Gen. 12.17-20; Deut. 1.8-11; Hos. 12.5; Jer. 33.22; Neh. 9.23; Job 1.3 as against Gen. 26.13-14.

41.

Translation follows Freedman and Simon (eds.), 1939: 260.

42.

See Buber (ed.), 1885: 137-138 (my translation).

43.

Carmichael, 2012: 129-134.

44.

For example, Gen. 27.43-45 vis-à-vis Num. 24.11, both in terms of context and language, and the shared use of the rare morpheme לקחתיך‎, describing Balak’s deed in Num. 23.11. I discuss this and other parallels in a forthcoming article.

45.

Frankel, 1996: 31-32; Scharbert, 1958: 21-23; Cassuto, 1954: 356-357; For a discussion of this issue in the context of Genesis 27 see Fretheim, 2000: 287-290. For the general matter see Thiselton, 1974: 290-296, with abundant references.

46.

E.g., Deut. 15.6; Josh. 23; Isa. 55.11; Lam. 2.17. Divine curse seems to be equivalent in status to the irrevocable Mesopotamian arrat lā naspuri.

47.

This is most obvious in the Num. 24.9 references to Gen. 27.29b and Gen. 49.9b, but the validation of Gen. 12.3 in the face of Num. 22.6 also seems like a general concern of the author.

48.

If the uncommon לאמים‎ for “nations” alludes to Gen. 25.23, it too may have Esau in mind.

49.

Dicou, 1994: 125, 129-130; : 203.

50.

See Genesis Rabbah 70.19 – Freedman and Simon (eds.), 1939: 650; Buber, 1964: 291; Alter, 1996: 154.

51.

Fretheim thinks Isaac could not revoke the blessing ‘because no convention was available for its revocation’, or he chose not to make use of an existing convention – Fretheim, 2000: 288. The text does belatedly stress the importance of procedure in the eyes of the blessing utterer, just like in Numbers 23-24, but there is no hint of a possible choice that Isaac thinks he has.

52.

Görg, 1976; Ashley, 1993: 445; Milgrom, 1990: 186. The common identification of פתורה‎ as Pitru, a city mentioned in the annals of Shalmaneser III, is difficult. Theoretically, the transliteration of Pitru ought to have resulted in a Hebrew segolate. Also see Gray, 1903: 326; Layton, 1992: 35-36. I take פתורה‎ as a literary locative, hinting at Balaam’s reputation through the use of the root פתר‎.

53.

Compare Noort, 2008: 22; Nahmanides on Num. 22.5.

54.

Gray, 1903: 326. Rouillard, 1985: 26 and Milgrom, 1990: 186 point out that during the 10^th century BCE and up until mid-9^th century BCE the city of Pitru was under Aramaic control. However, the relevance of this to the meaning of such a generally phrased poetic stich is questionable.

55.

Rouillard, 1985: 43-46; Moyer, 2009: 14-189.

56.

See Layton, 1992; Lust, 1978; Delcor, 1981: 71-73.

57.

Luria, 1986: 4. Ordinarily these are taken as the result of priestly harmonizing procedures. Compare Gray, 1903: 323.

58.

A typical assessment is found in Levin, 2000: 145-146.

59.

Most elaborate is Dicou, 1994: 21-114.

60.

Assis, 2016: 74-162 wholly rejects the relevance of this idea in biblical times. See also Hoffman, 1972.

61.

See Gen. 36.12, 16. Like Edom in Numbers 20, the Amalekites are the first to engage Israel after the exodus (Exod. 17.8), with inexplicable animosity.

65.

Samet, 2004: 237-241. For a different suggestion in this direction, see Moyer, 2012: 174-175. See also Sharp, 2009: 138-139.

66.

Frisch, 2015: 110-111.

67.

Frisch, 2015: 111.

68.

Frisch, 2015: 111.

Notes

References

Achenbach

(2003) Die Vollendung der Tora: Studien zur Redactionsgeschichte des Numeribuches im Kontext von Hexateuch und Pentateuch. BZABR 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Albright

(1915) The Home of Balaam. Journal of the American Oriental Society 35: 386-390.

Alter

(1996) Genesis. New York – London: Norton.

Anderson

(2012) Edom in the Book of Numbers: Some Literary Reflections. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 124: 38–51.

Ashley

(1993) The Book of Numbers. NICOT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Assis

(2016) Identity in Conflict: The Struggle between Esau and Jacob, Edom and Israel. Siphrut: LTHS 19. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Baentsch

(1903) Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers. HKAT 1/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Barré

(1997) The Portrait of Balaam in Numbers 22–24. Interpretation 51: 254–266.

Ben-Porat

(1976) The Poetics of Literary Allusion. PTL-A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature 1: 105–128.

10.

Berger

(2009) Ruth and Inner-Biblical Allusion: The Case of 1 Samuel 25. Journal of Biblical Literature 128: 253–272.

11.

Biddle

(2002) Ancestral Motifs in 1 Samuel 25: Intertextuality and Characterization. Journal of Biblical Literature 121: 617–638.

12.

Blum

(1984) Die Komposition der Vatergeschichte. WMANT 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirschener Verlag.

13.

Buber

(1964) The Way of Scripture. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik (in Hebrew).

14.

Buber

(ed.) (1913) Midrash Tanhuma. Vilna: Rom (in Hebrew).

15.

Bührer

(2016) Die Zweifache Nachgeschichte Bileams. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 128: 594–611.

16.

Carmichael

(2012) The Book of Numbers: A Critique of Genesis. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

17.

Cassuto

(1954) ‘ברכה‎’. In: Cassuto

(ed.) Biblical Encyclopedia 2. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, pp. 356–357 (in Hebrew).

18.

Coats

(1985) Balaam: Sinner or Saint? In: Coats

(ed.) Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable: Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature. JSOTSup 35. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, pp. 21–29.

19.

Crowell

(2008) A Reevaluation of the Edomite Wisdom Hypothesis. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 120: 404–416.

20.

Delcor

(1981) Le Texte de Deir ‘Alla et les Oracles Bibliques de Bala‘am. In Emerton

(ed.) Congress Volume Vienne 1980. VTSup 32. Leiden: Brill, pp. 52–73.

21.

Dicou

(1994) Edom, Israel’s Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story. JSOTSup 169. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

22.

Dillmann

(1886) Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua. KEHAT; Leipzig: Hirzel.

23.

Embry

(2010) The Endangerment of Moses: Towards a New Reading of Exodus 4: 24–26. Vetus Testamentum 60: 177–196.

24.

Hakham

(1988) Job. Da’at Mikra; Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook (in Hebrew).

25.

Helbig

(1996) Intertextualität und Markierung: Untersuchungen. zur Systematik und Funktion der Signalisierung von Intertextualität. BNL 141; Heidelberg: Winter.

26.

Hoffman

(1972) Edom as a Symbol of Evil in Prophetic Writings. In: Uffenheimer

(ed.) The Bible and Jewish History: Studies in Bible and Jewish History, Dedicated to the Memory of Jacob Liver. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, pp. 76–89 (in Hebrew).

27.

Holzinger

(1903) Numeri Erklärt. KHAT 4; Tübingen – Leipzig: Mohr.

28.

Hutton

(2007) Isaiah 51:9–11 and the Rhetorical Appropriation and Subversion of Hostile Theologies. Journal of Biblical Literature 126: 272–303.

29.

Garsiel

(1983) A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies and Parallels. Ramat-Gan: Revivim.

30.

Görg

(1976) Die ‘Heimat Bileams.‘ Biblische Nötizen 1: 24–28.

31.

Gray

(1903) A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers. ICC 4. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

32.

Gross

(1974) Bileam: Literar- und Formkritische Untersuchung der Prosa in Num. 22–24. SANT 38; Munich: Kösel.

33.

Grossman

(2009) Dynamic Analogies in the Book of Esther. Vetus Testamentum 59: 394–414.

34.

Fisk

(2000) Offering Isaac Again and Again: Pseudo-Philo’s Use of the Aqedah as Intertext. Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62: 481–507.

35.

Frankel

(1996) The Deuteronomic Portrayal of Balaam. Vetus Testamentum 46: 30–42.

36.

Freedman

Simon

(eds.) (1939) Midrash Rabbah Exodus. Trans. Freedman

; London: Soncino Press.

37.

Freedman

Simon

(eds.) (1939) Midrash Rabbah Genesis II. Trans. Freedman

; London: Soncino Press.

38.

Fretheim

(2000) Which Blessing Does Isaac Give Jacob? In: Bellis

Kaminsky

(eds.) Jews, Christians and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures. SBL Symposium Series 8; Atlanta: The Society of Biblical Literature, pp. 279–291.

39.

Friedman

(2005) The Bible with Sources Revealed. A New View into the Five Books of Moses. New York: HarperOne.

40.

Frisch

(2015) The Story of Balaam’s She-ass (Numbers 22:21–35): A New Literary Insight. Hebrew Studies 56: 103–113.

41.

Hepner

(2011) The Mockery of Kings and Prophets: The Balaam Narrative Contains an Implied Critique of Moses. Revue Biblique 118: 100–105.

42.

Jacobs

(2006) Measure for Measure in the Biblical Narrative. Elon Shvut: Tvunot (in Hebrew).

43.

Jacobson

(1996) A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum with Latin Text and English Translation. 2 vols. AGAJU 31; Leiden: Brill.

44.

Kelley

(2009) Toward a New Synthesis of the God of Edom and Yahweh. Antiguo Oriente 7: 255–280.

45.

Kelly

(2013) Joel, Jonah, and the YHWH Creed: Determining the Trajectory of the Literary Influence. Journal of Biblical Literature 132: 805–826.

46.

Kil

(1997) Genesis I. Da’at Mikra. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook (in Hebrew).

47.

Kilchör

(2013) The Direction of Dependence between the Laws of the Pentateuch. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 89: 1–14.

48.

Kratz

(2005) The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament. London – New York: T&T Clark.

49.

Lange

Weigold

(2011) Biblical Quotations and Allusions in Second Temple Literature. Göttingen – Connecticut: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

50.

Layton

(1992) Whence Comes Balaam? Numbers 22.5 Revisited. Biblica 73: 32–61.

51.

Leonard

(2008) Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Test Case. Journal of Biblical Literature 127: 241–265.

52.

Levin

(2000) Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 4A. New York: Doubleday.

53.

Levin

(2020) The Religion of Idumea and its Relationship to Early Judaism. Religions 11: 1–27.

54.

Luria

B-Z

(1986) Who is Bil’am ben Beor? Bet Mikra 31: 1–5 (in Hebrew).

55.

Lust

(1978) Balaam, an Ammonite. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 54: 60–61.

56.

Marcus

(1995) From Balaam to Jonah: Anti-prophetic Satire in the Hebrew Bible. BJS 301; Atlanta: Scholar’s Press.

57.

Milgrom

(1990) Numbers. JPS 4; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.

58.

Moyer

(2009) Literary and Linguistic Studies in Sefer Bil’am. Ph.D. Dissertation; New York: Cornell University Press.

59.

Moyer

(2012) Who is the Prophet, and Who the Ass? Role-Reversing Interludes and the Unity of the Balaam Narrative (Numbers 22–24). Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 37: 167–183.

60.

Mowinckel

(1930) Der Ursprung der Bileamsage. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 48: 233–271.

61.

Noble

(2002) Esau, Tamar, and Joseph: Criteria for Inner-Biblical Allusions. Vetus Testamentum 52: 219–252.

62.

Noort

(2008) Balaam the Villain: The History of Reception of the Balaam Narrative in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets. In: van Kooten

van Ruiten

(eds.) The Prestige of the Pagan Prophet Balaam in Judaism, early Christianity and Islam. TBN 11; Leiden – Boston: Brill, pp. 3–24.

63.

Novick

(2007) Abraham and Balaam: A Biblical Contrast. JBQ 35: 28–33.

64.

Orian

(2019) Numbers 20: 14–21 as a Reply to Deuteronomy 23: 4–9. Vetus Testamentum 69: 109–116.

65.

Oswald

(2000) Die Revision des Edombildes in Numeri XX 14–21. Vetus Testamentum 50: 218–232.

66.

Pffeifer

(1926) Edomite Wisdom. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 44: 13–25.

67.

Robker

(2019) Balaam in Text and Tradition. FAT 131; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

68.

Rofé

(1979) The Book of Balaam (Numbers 22:2–24:25). A Study in Methods of Criticism and History of Biblical Literature and Religion. JBS 1; Jerusalem: Simor (in Hebrew).

69.

Rouillard

(1985) La Péricope de Balaam (Nombres 22–24): La Prose et les Oracles. Paris: Gabalda.

70.

Rose

(1977) Yahweh in Israel - Qaus in Edom? Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 2: 28–34.

71.

Rosenberg

(2020) כעת חיה‎: An Allusion Connecting Genesis 18: 10, 14 and 2 Kings 4: 16–17. Journal of Biblical Literature 139: 701–720.

72.

Safren

(1988) Balaam and Abraham. Vetus Testamentum 38: 105–13.

73.

Sailhamer

(1992) The Pentateuch as Narrative. A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

74.

Samet

(2004) Studies in the Weekly Portion, 2nd series. Ma’ale Adumim: Yediot Sefarim (in Hebrew).

75.

Sarna

(1989) Genesis. JPS; Philadelphia – New York – Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society.

76.

Savran

(1994) Beastly Speech: Intertextuality, Balaam’s Ass and The Garden of Eden. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 64: 33–55.

77.

Scharbert

(1958) «Fluchen» und «Segnen» im Alten Testament. Biblica 39: 1–26.

78.

Schmidt

(2004) Das vierte Buch Mose Numeri: Kapitel 10, 11–36, 13. ATD 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

79.

Seebass

(1995) Zur Literarischen Gestalt der Bileam-Perikope. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 107: 409–419.

80.

Sharp

(2009) Irony and Meaning in the Hebrew Bible. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

81.

Sommer

(1998) A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–62. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

82.

Sturdy

(1976) Numbers. NEB; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

83.

Thiselton

(1974) The Supposed Power of Words in Biblical Writings. Journal of Theological Studies 25: 283–299.

84.

Van Seters

(1994) The Life of Moses. The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press.

85.

Way

(2009) Animals in the Prophetic World: Literary Reflections on Numbers 22 and 1 Kings 13. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 34: 47–62.

86.

Wellhausen

(1963) Die Composition des Hexateuchs. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

87.

Westermann

(2004) Genesis. Trans. Green

; London and New York: T&T Clark International.

88.

Zakovitch

(1985) Reflection Story – Another Dimension to the Valuation of Characters in Biblical Narrative. Tarbiz 54: 165–176 (in Hebrew).

89.

Zalcman

(2005) Shield of Abraham, Fear of Isaac, Dread of Esau. Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 117: 405–410.

90.

Zevit

(ed.) (2017) Subtle Citation, Allusion, and Translation in the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing.