CANDLER SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY EMORY UNIVERSITY

“THE WORD GOD PUTS IN MY MOUTH, THAT IS WHAT I MUST SAY”:

THE EPISODE OF THE DONKEY IN NUMBERS 22.22-35 AS A LITERARY

PROGRESSION IN THE BALAAM NARRATIVE

SUBMITTED TO DR. JACOB L. WRIGHT IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

BL 611R: THE BOOK OF NUMBERS

BY MATTHEW A. LEE

DECEMBER 15, 2014

ii

CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... .................... iii

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ ..................... 1

BALAAM SON OF BEOR .......................................................................... ..................... 3

In the Deir ʿAlla Tradition 3

Additional References in the Hebrew Bible 4

BALAAM, THE DONKEY, AND THE MESSENGER OF THE LORD ......................... 6

The Donkey as Protagonist 7

22.22 7

22.23-30 10

Thematic Structure and Balaam’s Donkey 14

The First Role Reversal 14

The Second Role Reversal 15

The Messenger as Protagonist 17

22.31-35 17

Thematic Structure and Balaam’s Donkey 20

THE EPISODE OF THE DONKEY AND ITS FUNCTION ........................................... 21

Summary 23

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 24

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 26

iii

ABBREVIATIONS

AB Anchor Bible B.C.E. Before Common Era BDB Brown, F., S. Driver, and C. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs

Hebrew and English Lexicon. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1906. Repr., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2008.

BJS Brown Judaic Studies Chr 1-2 Chronicles D Deuteronomist Deut Deuteronomy Dtr Deuteronomistic Historian DtrH Deuteronomistic History EBib Etudes bibliques ErIsr Eretz-Israel Exod Exodus HACL History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant HB Hebrew Bible Heb Hebrew HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs J Yahwist source JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature Josh Joshua JPS Jewish Publication Society JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series KTU Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit LXX Septuagint Mic Micah Neh Nehemiah NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIV New International Version NRSV New Revised Standard Version Num Numbers OTL Old Testament Library P Priestly source Prov Proverbs PTMS Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series RB Revue biblique SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Series WANE Writings from the Ancient Near East Zech Zechariah

1

INTRODUCTION

“I have come to you now, but do I have the power to say just anything? The word God puts in my mouth, that is what I must say.”

Num 22.381

Balaam, son of Beor, is undoubtedly one of the most perplexing figures of the biblical tradition.

His origins are uncertain and the reasons for his prominence in the book of Numbers are vague.

Much attention has been devoted to the Balaam pericope in Num 22-24 and even more so to the

episode of the donkey in Num 22.22-35. Source critics have proposed a wide range of

hypotheses; redaction critics have mulled over the location of the episode within the narrative;

and yet the episode remains contentious in biblical scholarship.

Set between the departure from Sinai and conquest of the Transjordan, the Balaam

narrative as a whole draws on a particular theme: the instance that Balaam utters only the words

that the Lord gives him underlines the inspiration and authority of Balaam’s visions of Israel’s

future. This same point runs throughout the cryptic story of Balaam, the donkey, and the

messenger of the Lord.2 Furthermore, with respect to the location of the episode of the donkey,

the words of Balaam, as quoted above, can be understood as somewhat of a driving force behind

the Balaam narrative. In other words, the function of the Num 22.22-35, as I will argue, is to set

forth the exclusivity of the word of the Lord. When analyzing the text, it will be important to

examine how the episode functions within, as this will allow one to recognize its significance

and portrayal of Balaam; but also, it will be necessary to make note of reference to Balaam

1 All scripture references are taken from the NRSV. 2 Gordon J. Wenham, Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Pentateuch (vol. 1 of Exploring the Old

Testament; ed. Gordon McConville; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 114-115. Wenham gives a good, concise diagram of the structure in Num 22-24.

2

outside of the Balaam pericope, whether similar or different. While scholarly consensus on the

dating of verses 22-35 is indefinite at best, the episode can be best understood, I contend, as

corresponding to the narrative preceding and following.

Thus, in the course of this paper, I will demonstrate that Num 22.22-35 is situated

perfectly within the narrative to function as a literary progression of Balaam’s character. In doing

so, I will discuss the significance of the Balaam tradition and the Transjordanian Deir ʿAlla

inscription, and references to Balaam elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Num 31.8, 16; Deut 23.4-

5; Josh 13.22; 24.9-10; Mic 6.5; and Neh 13.2). Furthermore, when engaging the episode of the

donkey, I will suggest breaking apart the text, rather than exhausting verses 22-35 collectively,

which will allow the reader to appreciate the biblical humor, thematic structure, and the role

reversals between Balaam and his donkey, which can be linked to other ancient Near Eastern

texts.

In breaking apart the text, one will see how the episode progresses from the story from

the verses prior, and how later biblical contributors redacted verse 22 to capitalize on their

attempt of viewing Balaam in a negative light, as do most other later biblical references.

Moreover, while Balaam is depicted as the protagonist in the preceding narrative, the episode of

the donkey replaces Balaam as the protagonist with, first, the donkey and, second, the messenger

of the Lord. This reversal in literary function will serve to portray Balaam as being utilized by

the Lord just prior to his oracles, but even more so, prior to the verse quoted above: “I have come

to you now, but do I have the power to say just anything? The word God puts in my mouth, that

is what I must say.”

3

BALAAM SON OF BEOR

In the Deir ʿAlla Tradition

Hendricus Jacobus Franken’s discovery and excavation of the Deir ʿAlla inscription in 1967 in

the Jordan Valley has been a significant supplement to the study of Num 22-24.3 The inscription

has been dated to the eighth-century B.C.E. and clearly is written in a Northwest Semitic

language: whether the Transjordanian dialect is more closely related to Aramaic or a

Hebrew/Canaanite dialect remains up for debate. Regardless, the text relates the story of Balaam,

son of Beor, a “seer of the gods,” who received a prophecy from the gods telling of their

discontent with human events. But it is uncertain whether this Transjordanian Balaam can be

directly linked with the Balaam found in Num 22-24. I contend, however, there is enough

evidence to place the episode of the donkey earlier with the preceding narrative, rather than later.

Not only does Balaam identify himself with the šadday (Num 24.4, 16), but also there are

remarkable literary parallels between Num 22-24 and the Deir ʿAlla text.

In his third and fourth oracles (Num 24), which are generally considered older than the

first two, Balaam refers to himself as the one who “sees the vision of the Almighty,” which is the

traditional interpretation of šadday (ׁשדי). In line 5 of the Deir ʿAlla text, Balaam responds to the

people’s inquiry: “Sit down! I will tell you what the šadda[yyin have done.] Now, come, see the

words of the gods!”4 Because the references to Balaam in Num 22-24 account for his association

3 Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient

Near East (3d ed.; New York: Paulist Press, 2006), 131. For other translations and commentaries on the Deir ʿAlla inscription, see Jo Ann Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAllā (HSM 31; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980); Martti Nissinen Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (vol. 12 of Writing from the Ancient Near East; ed. Peter Machinist; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003); Kenneth C. Way, Donkeys in the Biblical World: Ceremony and Symbol (HACL 2; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011); Baruch A. Levine, “Review Article: The Deir ʿAlla Inscriptions,” JAOS 101 (1981): 195-205; Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 21-36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 4A; New York: Doubleday, 2000).

4 Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAllā, 29.

4

with the šadday and depict him in a similar manner to that of the Deir ʿAlla text, it is certainly

plausible that common traditions regarding Balaam were shared between the two. Likewise,

since there are nearly no introductions to Balaam in the biblical text, it appears this foreign seer

was well known to the people to whom the Deir ʿAlla inscription was addressed and had a

tradition of long standing amongst the ancient Near East.5

The similarities between the Balaam narrative and, especially, the episode of the donkey

further show the agreement between the two traditions. Depictions of a “role reversal” and

donkeys arise in both the Deir ʿAlla text and the episode of the donkey (discussed on pp. 14-16).

Many scholars draw attention to the motif in the Deir ʿAlla text of “the world upside down” with

reference to animal activity, especially the weaker animal threatening the stronger, for example:

“the swallow reproaches the eagle” (lines 7-8).6 In a similar manner, both the Deir ʿAlla text and

Num 22-24 contain donkeys and unusual animal activity. While a wide range of ancient Near

Eastern texts contained these phenomena, the talking animals in the Balaam traditions are unique

because they provide the only specific example of this phenomenon in the category of prophetic

texts.7

Additional References in the Hebrew Bible

Aside from the Balaam narrative in Num 22-24, the Hebrew Bible contains one other favorable

view of Balaam, which is found in Mic 6.5. If one is to accept that (the majority of) chapters 1-3

are authentic, this puts the reference to Balaam as a later addition to the book. But how much

later? Gary A. Rendsburg, in presenting his list of sources and dates of Israelian Hebrew, places

5 Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAllā, 125. 6 Way, Donkeys in the Biblical World, 61. See also Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAllā, 46-47, 75. 7 Way, Donkeys in the Biblical World, 66.

5

Mic 6-7 in the middle monarchic period (ca. 860-720 B.C.E.).8 If one agrees with Rendsburg, the

episode of the donkey must not necessarily be a later addition to the text—indeed it may also

date to around the same time of the Deir ʿAlla text. However, scholarly consensuses, if any, over

the dating of the book are loose; redaction critics have put forth an astonishing number of

hypotheses regarding this matter. Thus, it is uncertain as to why one reads the favorable view of

Balaam in Micah, but I do not believe any implications can be drawn from this reference with

regards to the narrative in Numbers.

The remaining references to Balaam are generally regarded as negative. In Deuteronomy,

Balaam is presented as being ignored by God, who turns the curse into a blessing (Deut 23.4-5).

Following Deuteronomy comes the references in Joshua. In Josh 13.22, Balaam the diviner is

killed with the sword, and later in 24.9-10, the references continue the depiction in

Deuteronomy.9 Similarly, Neh 13.2 again reminds the reader of Balaam being hired to curse the

Israelites and the cursing turning into a blessing. And the last references to Balaam are found

within Numbers, in 31.8, 16, in which Balaam is the one responsible for the defection of the

Israelites vis-à-vis their affair with the Midianite women.

Such negative references call to attention the dating of these works, which assists in

determining why Balaam is presented in a favorable light in Num 22-24. In chapters 1-3, the

prologue in Deuteronomy, Balaam is not once mentioned. One would think that if Deut 23.4-5

belonged to the D compilation used by Dtr, then mention of Balaam in the prologue would most

8 Gary A. Rendsburg, “Northern Hebrew through Time: From the Song of Deborah to the Mishnah,” in

Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew (ed. Cynthia Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit; vol. 8 of Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic, ed. Cynthia Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 339-359.

9 John Van Seters, “From Faithful Prophet to Villain: Observations on the Tradition History of the Balaam Story,” in A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content: Essays in Honor of George W. Coats (ed. Eugene E. Carpenter; JSOTSup 240; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 126-132. Seters argues that Josh 13.22 is a P text and that 24.9-10 is from the hand of J, which, for him, is in full connection with the story in Num 22-24 (other than 22.22-35) as J’s work, but he places J later than DtrH.

6

likely occur, which points to a later date than perhaps expected—on this matter, John Van

Seeters suggests, “This is confirmed by its clear reference to the Second Temple situation

dealing with foreign participation in Israel’s worship. This is how the law is used in Neh 13.2

where it is quoted verbatim. Both references clearly belong to this late Persian context.”10 By

utilizing the vocabulary of Deuteronomy, the material in Joshua further expands the negative

view of Balaam by stating that God did not even listen to Balaam. And finally, reference to

Balaam in Num 31 and the war with the Midianites is regarded by most to be entirely a Priestly

account, most likely being exilic. Moreover, it appears all other negative references to Balaam in

the Hebrew Bible can be regarded as later than the Balaam narrative in Num 22-24, which, as I

have discussed, holds similarities with the Deir ʿAlla inscription’s account of the well known

Balaam of the eighth-century B.C.E.

BALAAM, THE DONKEY, AND THE MESSENGER OF THE LORD

Full of ambiguity and obscurity yet irony and humor, the episode of the donkey is most generally

regarded as a single unit; that is, many commentators exhaust verses 22-35 collectively. Rather,

when dealing with this passage, it is important to understand how the narrative functions within

itself, as this will allow for a better understanding of why this passage stands in its present

context. Therefore, to assist in highlighting the purpose of the overall unit of the text, the passage

will be discussed in separate sections: verse 22; verses 23-30, which comprise the narrative’s

presentation of the personified donkey as protagonist and Balaam as antagonist; and verses 31-

35, which present the messenger of the Lord as protagonist and Balaam, still, as the antagonist,

10 Van Seeters, “From Faithful Prophet to Villain,” 129.

7

but reimagines the Balaam’s character. Furthermore, I will discuss the recurring thematic

structure in each of the sections and precisely how the role of Balaam’s donkey serves its

purpose in the narrative, as this will inform one’s understanding of the purpose of the episode of

the donkey within the narrative of Numbers.

The Donkey as Protagonist

22.22

The episode in which Balaam is ridiculed begins with a rather involved verse (v. 22), one that is

troublesome and complicates one’s reading of the Balaam narrative. Two verses prior, one reads

that God came to Balaam with instructions: “If the men have come to summon you, get up and

go with them; but do only what I tell you to do” (v. 20). However, this episode begins by

informing the reader that God was angry because he (Balaam) was going. It is generally agreed

that the episode of the donkey begins with verse 22, as opposed to verse 21: “So Balaam got up

in the morning, saddled his donkey, and went with the officials of Moab.” As suggested by

Hedwige Rouillard, an analysis of composition as well as vocabulary favors this view that the

postscript in verse 21 concludes the previous section; the postscript is worded similarly to

postscripts elsewhere in the story of Balaam (ויקם בלעם).11

The way in which verse 21 concludes prior to the episode of the donkey anticipates

perhaps a “positive” view of Balaam. As noted by several scholars, the choice of language is

striking and very similar to the language used when Abraham is told by God to sacrifice his son

11 Hedwige Rouillard, La Péricope de Balaam (EBib 4; Paris: Lecoffre, 1985), 115-121. See also Levine,

Numbers 21-36, 153. It is interesting that other translations separate these two sections: cf. JPS, NIV, and several others. For similar postscripts, see Num 24.25 and 22.35b: וילך בלעם.

8

Isaac:12 “So Abraham rose early in the next morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his

young men (נעריו) with him…” In Probing the Frontiers of Biblical Studies, Rev. Dr. Anthony

Petrotta makes note of Hasidic interpreters and the distinction they made given the similarity in

language between the stories of Abraham and Balaam: “Whereas God did not permit Abraham to

carry out his act even though Abraham was instructed to do so, how much less would God be

willing to allow Balaam to succeed when Balaam is opposing God’s will?”13 However, whether

or not Balaam is opposing God is never explicitly made clear in the narrative.

But the reader is still left wondering why verse 22 sharply contradicts verse 20. One may

notice the use of the pronoun “he” in verse 22, rather than again using Balaam’s name:

ויחר־אף אלהים כי־הולך הוא“God’s anger was kindled because he was going.”

On this matter, Baruch Levine suggests that, by replacing the proper name with the pronoun “he”

the redactor(s) (responsible for one of the possible two sources in the preceding narrative) ,(הוא)

made Balaam in verse 21 the antecedent of “he” in verse 22,14 which, for the redactor, would

allow for a better transition within the narrative. Thus, it may be said that verse 22a is a

secondary addition to the episode and, particularly, to verse 22. This addition would further serve

the redactors’ intent in casting a negative light onto Balaam, even before the interaction begins

with the donkey and the messenger. Furthermore, verse 22b begins with a verb in the hitpaʿel

stem (ויתיצב), which is the reflexive-reciprocal counterpart of the piʿel stem, and often expresses

result. With this in mind, it would seem that “the messenger of the Lord took his stand in the

12 J. Harold Ellens and John T. Greene, eds., Probing the Frontiers of Biblical Studies (PTMS 111;

Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2009), 290. David Marcus, From Balaam to Jonah: Anti-prophetic Satire in the Hebrew Bible (BJS 301; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995), 37-39.

13 Ellens and Greene, Probing the Frontiers of Biblical Studies, 290. 14 Levine, Numbers 21-36, 153.

9

road as his adversary”15 as a result of Balaam saddling his donkey and going, which would

certainly allow for a smooth insertion of the text. This view would additionally propose a

solution as to why the divine name in verse 22a is not “Yahweh,” such as elsewhere in the

episode of the donkey.

Continuing with the opening verse, one reads: “He [Balaam] was riding on the donkey,

and his two servants were with him.” That one reads previously in verse 21 of Balaam saddling

his donkey makes this part of the verse seem repetitive and out of the ordinary, since the reader

was already made aware of this detail previously. It appears the rest of verse 22 (above) may

have also been added solely to suggest that Balaam was riding with his “servants.” Earlier in the

chapter, one reads that Balak sent “messengers” (מלאכים) to Balaam (v. 5); that the “elders of

Moab and the elders of Midian” (זקני מואב וזקני מדין) departed (v. 7); that Balaam spoke to the

“princes” (ׂשרי) of Balak (v. 13); and that the “princes of Moab” (ׂשרי מואב) rose and went to

Balak (v. 14). Despite the variety in terminology, the redactor(s) made it a point to replace these

designations with “servants” (נעריו) in verse 22c. And to jointly connect with the narrative, the

detail of Balaam riding on his donkey is repeated. Thus, these messengers, which are given

different titles yet are clearly more prestigious, are replaced here by mere servants.16

What remains in verse 22 is the description of the messenger of the Lord standing in

Balaam’s way, which, as I mentioned above, employs a hitpaʿel verb. The episode beginning in

this manner will account for the overall purpose of the episode of the donkey being in its present

context. Moreover, the central part of the verse (22b) is most important and is, as I contend,

original to the episode, and it informs the reader of the opening detail in the story: that the

15 Because of the scene depicted in the narrative, I prefer “messenger” rather than “angel” as the translation

of מלאך, as it makes the character of Yahweh (the messenger of Yahweh) seem more pragmatic and gives him more of a central role in the narrative. For more on מלאך, see BDB 521.

16 Peggy L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven: śāṭān in the Hebrew Bible (HSM 43; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1988.

10

messenger of the Lord takes his stand in the road as his adversary (לׂשטן). This is the only

occurrence in the Hebrew Bible where the messenger of the Lord is designated as an adversary in

this sense. However, it is critical to note that the noun has no definite article nor is it used as a

proper noun; rather, it is used as a functional concept to describe the one who intercedes on

behalf of the Lord.17 The messenger of the Lord is thus one who will play a significant role in

this episode.

But it is unclear why the messenger has taken a stand in the road. After the addition onto

the verse, the reader is informed that God became angry because of Balaam going, but the text

never explicitly says whether Balaam is going to assist Balak or do only as the deity says.

Balaam is instructed to do only as the Lord instructs him to do, but the next verse (v. 21) is

unclear as to why Balaam was going and, subsequently, why God becomes angry.18 Thus, the

textual interpolations are misguiding as to the purpose of the situated episode.

22.23-30

Verse 23 immediately begins by somewhat moderating Balaam’s mission, in that it is not

Balaam the “seer” but the donkey who sees the messenger standing in the road.19 Further, the

episode depicts the donkey as the protagonist and Balaam as the antagonist. The language

employed in this verse (נצב בדרך) immediately reminds the reader of verse 22 when the

messenger takes his stand in the road (ויתיצב…בדרך). Interestingly, the messenger is depicted as a

17 Cf. Job 1.6-9, 12; 2.1-4, 6-7; Zech 3.1-2; 1 Chr 21.1. For an in-depth overview of these occurrences of

.see Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 45-145 ,ׂשטן18 Timothy R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers, (NICOT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993), translates

verse 22: “As (כי) he was going…” arguing that something the reader is unaware of occurred during the journey, not prior to it. See also Ellens and Greene, Probing the Frontiers of Biblical Studies, 280-300.

19 Robert Alter discusses the verb ראה (“to see”) as the Leitwort, which holds that the meaning of particular words refers directly to the theme as well. See Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 95.

11

warrior-type figure, described as having a drawn sword in hand.20 Being the first role reversal in

the episode, after seeing the messenger in the road, the donkey turns off the road, which causes

Balaam to strike the donkey.

After being struck by Balaam in order to return to the road, the messenger of the Lord

repositions himself in order to stand in the way again, only now in a narrow path between the

vineyards with walls on either side. Because of the narrower space, the donkey scrapes (ותלחץ)

against the wall and scrapes Balaam’s foot against the wall. This is known as an action-result

sequence in Hebrew, in which the same root (לחץ) is employed twice but with different stems:

the first in the nipʿal stem (ַוִּתָּלֵחץ “she scraped herself”), and the second in the qal stem (ַוִּתְלַחץ

“she scraped [Balaam’s foot]”).21 And after she is struck for the second time, the donkey

encounters the messenger a third time in an even narrower place, which causes Balaam to strike

the donkey yet again for the third time.

What is being depicted here is a progression from unconfined to a more confined space,

from the road, to a narrow path between the vineyards, and finally to a narrow place with no

room to turn. Essentially, Balaam is being led into a trap, to a point where a confrontation was

inevitable.22 And before the confrontation takes place, the donkey sees the messenger of the Lord

and lies down (ותרבץ) under Balaam. The donkey does so not because she has little room to

move, nor is it in response to Balaam’s third striking, but because she sees the messenger of the

Lord standing before her. The use of the verb רבץ allows one to interpret the donkey’s act of

20 Levine acknowledges a significant parallel in Josh 5.13 where the man standing before Joshua also has a

sword drawn in hand (וחרבו ׁשלופה בידו), and he argues this parallel might suggest a late pre-exilic or early post-exilic date for this episode; see Levine, Numbers 21-36, 156.

21 Marcus, From Balaam to Jonah, 40. For an in-depth overview of action-result sequences, see Moshe Held, “The Action-Result (Factitive-Passive) Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic,” JBL 84 (1965): 272-282, in which he asserts the reasons for employing action-result sequences: 1) such sequences are stylistic and are used for emphasis, and 2) mostly in poetry (but not Akkadian), perhaps the most important characteristic is thought parallelism.

22 Levine, Numbers 21-36, 157.

12

lying down as a form of prostration before the messenger.23 Here, in verse 27, one reads that

Balaam’s anger also was kindled, recalling the addition to verse 22 in which God’s anger was

kindled.

ויחר־אף אלהים :22.22 ויחר־אף בלעם :22.27

Thus, as the text stands, verse 27 forms an inclusio for the first section in which Balaam is

antagonist.24

Following Balaam’s third strike, the Lord opens the mouth of the donkey who asks,

“What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” After reading verses 23-

27, one might think the messenger might reappear in the scene. But here is where the second role

reversal occurs in the episode. Rather, the donkey questions Balaam (v. 28) in order to call

attention to her loyalty as his donkey, which he has ridden all his life (v. 30). Immediately

following the third time she has been struck, the reader is informed that the Lord “opened the

mouth of the donkey.” Speech comes naturally to humans, of course, but not to animals, so

Balaam’s donkey given the ability to speak is significant; there is an amplified connotation of the

verb (ויפתח), which enables the donkey’s speech.25 Interestingly, in asking Balaam this question,

the donkey recalls the three times that Balaam has stuck her, which reinforces the narrative’s

emphasis on the number three. As Levine notes, the idiom of “three times” (ׁשלׁש רגלים) is rare in

23 Levine, Numbers 21-36, 156; Levine also adds that the Heb רבץ typically connotes a restful activity for

animals while they are grazing or after they have been rounded up. See BDB, 918. 24 For further discussion on this, see Way, Donkeys in the Biblical World, 184-185. Perhaps the addition of

“God’s anger” was to form this literary device. But for the redactor(s), its purpose most likely would have been to cast a negative light on Balaam.

25 Levine, Numbers 21-36, 157.

13

biblical Hebrew and the preceding demonstrative particle “these” (זה) serves to emphasize the

weight of the question.26

In response to the donkey’s plea, Balaam insists that the donkey has made a fool of him

and that if there were a sword in his hand, Balaam would kill her. At first 27(כי התעללת בי)

reading, this may be an appropriate response for Balaam, since his journey has been adjusted due

to the donkey changing course three times prior when seeing the messenger (which Balaam has

not yet seen). However, it seems ridiculous that a donkey could make a fool out of a human.

Additionally, one might assume Balaam would travel with his sword close by, since the king of

Moab is sending him away on a mission.

Then, in verse 30, the donkey says to Balaam: “Am I not your donkey, which you have

ridden all your life to this day? Have I been in the habit of treating you this way?” The donkey’s

question in verse 28 takes on an important purpose: she is recalling her loyalty to Balaam, which

should call his violence toward her into question. Balaam, who still does not find the donkey’s

ability of speech strange, is being questioned as to his lack of faithfulness to his donkey. And in

response to the donkey’s rhetorical questions, Balaam simply answers, “No.” Not only is he

clearly presented as the antagonist, but also Balaam’s prominence in the story is being

minimized. The donkey asks these questions to emphasize that, indeed, she has been Balaam’s

donkey for his entire life and that she has not been in habit of treating of him this way.

Moreover, the questions are rhetorical, which of course need no answer.

26 Levine, Numbers 21-36, 157-158. Levine also suggests that the repeated use of the idiom, which occurs

elsewhere only in the context of annual pilgrimage festivals, must not be a coincidence here in the episode of the donkey. Furthermore, it may be said that this verse in the narrative alludes to Balaam’s mission being that of a divine command, since later, in verse 32, the messenger explains that he has taken a stand in Balaam’s way as part of the “mission.”

27 Marcus notes that the verb עלל—which in the hitpaʿel generally connotes physical abuse—occurs in another HB satire in Exod 10.2.

14

In this role reversal, a double-rhetorical question is employed:28 each question use the

interrogative particle (ֲהלֹוא and ֲה) but expects a different answer. With its use of ֲהלֹוא, the first

question requires a positive answer.29 Though the answer is unnecessary: “Am I not your

donkey, which you have ridden all your life to this day?” [“Yes”]. Subsequently, the use of ֲה in

the following question is to imply the answer opposite from the first, which Balaam indeed

gives, though an answer is, yet again, unnecessary. Moreover, Balaam’s character is belittled in

that he provides a negative answer to the donkey’s double-rhetorical questions and, further, he

does so after the donkey has been given the ability to speak first, rather than Balaam.

Thematic Structure and Balaam’s Donkey

The First Role Reversal

As Martin Noth quite fittingly suggests, this episode is without doubt a “masterpiece of ancient

Israelite narrative art,”30 and is the first of two distinct sections, which constitute the episode of

the donkey. Furthermore, while the number three serves to organize the overall episode, this first

role reversal in verses 23-27 is built off of the number three: 1) the messenger of the Lord takes a

stand in the Balaam’s path three times; 2) the donkey sees the messenger and changes her course

three times;31 and, 3) Balaam responds by striking the donkey three times.32

Not only do verses 23-27 of the episode of the donkey reverse Balaam’s ability to see

with the donkey, but they also alter the symbol of the donkey. The characterization of Balaam’s

28 Marcus, From Balaam to Jonah, 40. 29 Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.:

Eisenbrauns, 1990), 684, n. 48. Moshe Held, “Rhetorical Questions in Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew,” ErIsr 9 (1969): 71-79.

30 Martin Noth. Numbers (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 178. 31 Note that all three times the phrase is worded exactly the same: ַוֵּתֶרא ָהָאתֹון ֶאת־ַמְלַא! יְהָוה, “The donkey

saw the messenger of Yahweh.” 32 Marcus, From Balaam to Jonah, 39-40. See also Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 104-107.

15

donkey does not quite match the more general characterization found in many other ancient Near

Eastern texts, such as in a number of Egyptian, Aramaic, Hittite, and Sumerian texts. In this wide

range of texts, the donkey is characterized as stubborn and lazy. For example, in the 106th line of

the “Proverbs of Ahiqar”—a collection of Aramaic texts discovered among the ruins of

Elephantine dating to about the fifth-century B.C.E.—the donkey is depicted as being stubborn

towards its rider:

[…]m ḥd lʿrdh [ʾrkb] ʿlyk wʾn[h] ʾsblnk | [ʿnh ʿrdʾ wʾmr lk yhw]y sbwlyk wkstk wʾnh rkbyk lʾ ʾḥzh. “[A man said] one [da]y to the onager, [‘Let me ride] on you, and I will provide for you.’ [The onager replied, ‘Keep] your care and your fodder; I want nothing to do with your riding!’”33

In the selected Aramaic text, as a whole, the donkey is depicted as being stubborn and as being

an animal unwilling to obey instructions. It may be said, then, that perhaps Balaam’s donkey is

also depicted as being “stubborn,” since she turns off the road and goes into the field (v. 23).

On the contrary, however, Balaam’s donkey does not seem to be depicted as “lazy” as

one might expect. In various other ancient Near Eastern texts as well as elsewhere in the Hebrew

Bible, the donkey is characterized as a “beast of burden” and slow animal.34 But in these verses

of the episode, Balaam’s donkey first turns off the road, then scrapes against the wall, and finally

lays down under Balaam. Here, the descriptions of the donkey’s movements are presented as

being more intentional and strategic, which seems to illustrate the forethought of the episode.

Thus, the characterization of the donkey in Num 22.23-27, in some measure, stands in contrast

with the more general characterization throughout the ancient world. Moreover, in an attempt to

33 Cf. Prov 26.3. Way, Donkeys in the Biblical World, 69-70. See also James M. Lindenberger, The

Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983), 203. Other ancient Near Eastern texts depicting the donkey as stubborn and/or lazy are as follows: “Satire of the Trades,” “Instruction of Any,” and “The Instruction of ʿOnchsheshonqy” (Egyptian); “Crossing of the Taurus” (Hittite); and for the other texts (Sumerian), see Bendt Alster, Proverbs of Ancient Sumer: The World’s Earliest Proverb Collections (2 vols.; Bethesda: CDL Press, 1997).

34 See Way, Donkeys in the Biblical World, 97-98, 170.

16

portray the donkey as protagonist and being utilized by the Lord, the author reimagines the

symbol and role of donkey in order to amplify her literary function.

The Second Role Reversal

The rather short second role reversal of the dialogue between Balaam and his donkey again

incorporates the motif of the number three. Following the messenger’s three attempts at standing

in Balaam’s way, the three times that the donkey sees the messenger, the three times the donkey

reacts to the messenger standing in her way, and the three times Balaam beats the donkey, the

conversation between Balaam and the donkey reiterates the numerical structure. Although

Balaam only responds twice, the donkey asks a triad of questions, one a simple interrogative and

two rhetorical.35 In contrast with the first role reversal in which the narrative describes the

journey, the dialogue is what drives the second.

Following the third striking, the reader is informed of the donkey’s mouth being opened

by the Lord, as previously mentioned. It now becomes obvious that the donkey is depicted as

being utilized by the Lord in that she is the first to speak. The narrative radically portrays the

donkey as being in control, and Balaam as the one who is being questioned and must respond.

And again, as previously discussed, it is clear that Balaam does not find the donkey’s ability to

speak strange; Balaam simply responds to the donkey, as if it were natural for animals to speak.

Because he responds in this way, it appears that Balaam perhaps was already aware of his

donkey’s ability to speak. While other forms of divination were prohibited in ancient Israel,

donkeys were widely associated with divination practices and dream omens in the ancient Near

35 Marcus, From Balaam to Jonah, 40.

17

East, as evident in several Sumerian, Egyptian, Ugaritic, and Akkadian texts.36 If it were true that

Balaam already knew of the donkey’s ability to speak, the biblical authors may have

incorporated this story to encapsulate what was necessary in order to ensure Balaam, a foreigner,

would limn attributes of one who would speak only the words of the Lord.

The Messenger as Protagonist

22.31-35

The reader is now informed that the Lord opens the eyes of Balaam,37 since up until this point in

the narrative he could not see the messenger of the Lord. However, one notices a different word

used here for “open” than was used previously. Whereas the donkey’s mouth is opened (ויפתח) in

verse 28, now Balaam’s eyes are opened (ויגל). But the sense here with the usage of גלה suggests,

“uncovering” or “revealing.”38 Thus, immediately the second section in the episode employs a

new theme and new protagonist, for the donkey no longer interacts with Balaam. And

interestingly, this occurrence of גלה in verse 31 is the only occurrence in the Hebrew Bible in

which the subject (the Lord) of the verb (גלה) opens the eyes of another; and here, Balaam’s eyes

are uncovered so that he will see the messenger of the Lord standing before him.

Upon having his eyes uncovered and seeing the messenger, Balaam bows down and falls

to his face. This description is a remarkable way of now presenting the seer as acquiescent.

Balaam then hears from the messenger, who asks, “Why have you struck your donkey these

three times?” In the Masoretic Text, one notices the preposition על just before the interrogative

36 For examples, see Way, Donkeys in the Biblical World, 99. 37 Note the LXX use of a contrastive δέ to indicate the intervention of “God,” rather than “the Lord,”

which is an attempt by the translator to minimize the role of Israel’s God in the story by use of the general ὁ θεός. John William Wevers, LXX: Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers (SBLSCS 46; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1998), 372, 377.

38 Cf. Num 24.4, 16. See BDB, 162-163. Cf. LXX, v. 28: ἢνοιξεν, from ἀνοίγω, “I open”; v. 31: ἀπεκάλυψεν, from ἀποκαλύπτω, “I reveal, make manifest.”

18

pronoun מה. According to Naʿama Pat-el, this specific occurrence of על is known as the

“common causal” preposition and is a indication of Classic Biblical Hebrew, a linguistic phase

from around the eighth- to sixth-century B.C.E.39

Balaam does not respond to the initial question, and the messenger hereby continues by

saying, “I have come out as an adversary because your way is perverse before me.” At first

reading, the messenger’s statement seems obvious and appropriate, being that the purpose of the

narrative prior to this section was to diminish Balaam’s role. But at closer look, this verse seems

to be an attempt by the narrative to reimagine Balaam, the antagonist, and his character.

As discussed by Rouillard, the second-half of the verse (אנכי יצאתי לׂשטן כי־ירט הדרך לנגדי

was difficult for translators in antiquity and it remains difficult today.40 The first difficulty (הנה

comes with the verb ירט, which means, “to be precipitate, to precipitate,”41 though there has been

debate concerning the root of the verb. Second, it is important to note that the Masoretic Text has

your“) דרכך whereas the Samaritan Pentateuch, LXX, and Latin Vulgate have ,(”the way“) הדרך

way”). And finally, as Peggy Day states, לנגדי can also mean “before me” in the sense of “in my

evaluation” or even “in my judgment,”42 which allows for a new interpretation of verse 32. Thus,

the second-half of the verse can read as follows: “I have come out as an adversary because the

journey is precipitate in my judgment.”43 The importance of this section now begins to come

clear: the narrative is stressing the importance of being fully aware of the divine presence, even

if in the form of a divine messenger.

39 Naʿama Pat-el, “Syntactic Aramaisms as a Tool,” in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew (ed. Cynthia Miller-

Naudé and Ziony Zevit; vol. 8 of Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic, ed. Cynthia Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 245-263.

40 Hedwige Rouillard, “L’ânesse de Balaam,” RB 87 (1980): 5-37. 41 BDB, 437. 42 BDB, 617. Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 65-66. 43 As Day translates: “I have come forth as a śāṭān because the journey was hasty in my judgment.” See

Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 66.

19

Next, the messenger informs Balaam that, indeed, if the donkey had not turned away

“these three times,” he surely would have killed Balaam and let the donkey live (v. 33). To

respond to this assertion, Balaam’s character immediately shifts as he responds to the messenger

by saying, “I have sinned, for I did not know that you were standing in the road to oppose me”

(v. 34). Before he realized the messenger of the Lord was standing before the donkey, Balaam

was rather quick to anger; but now, Balaam is being depicted as deferential before the Lord,

though this was not the case when Balaam was unable to see the messenger of the Lord.

It is worth mentioning that the Septuagint translation here decides to render מלאך יהוה as

τῷ ἀγγέλῳ κυρίου (“the angel/messenger of the Lord”) rather than its typical ἄγγελος τοῦ θεοῦ

(messenger/angel of God), as noted above. Why this sudden change in vocabulary occurs in

unclear, and again, in the following verse, the phrase ἄγγελος τοῦ θεοῦ is used. However, John

Wevers suggests, with which I also agree, the reason for the single occurrence of this phrase is

because of the narrative’s emphasis on Balaam’s confession of sin properly directed to Israel’s

God, Yahweh.44

Finally, in verse 35, after Balaam has asserted that he will return home if it is displeasing

to the Lord, the messenger of the Lord speaks again to Balaam and says, “Go with the men, but

speak only what I tell you to speak.” Whereas he was instructed to go and do (עׂשה) only as he

was told in verse 20, here Balaam is told to speak (דבר) only what he is told to speak. And after

this instruction, the reader is informed that Balaam went on with the officials of Balak. Many

commentators treat this part of the verse simply as a scribal addition to connect the episode of

the donkey back in with the rest of the narrative. While I cannot disagree with this observation,

verse 35b does in fact serve a greater purpose. By stating that Balaam went on with the officials

44 Wevers, LXX, 379.

20

of Balak, the concluding verse forms an inclusio to situate the episode within the narrative.45 In

situating the episode within the narrative, a parallel phrase (ׂשרי בלק) is employed, which reminds

the reader of verse 21 (ׂשרי מואב), the verse before the sudden shift;46 only now it is the officials

of Balak, not simply Moab, which transitions well into the next verse.

Thematic Structure and Balaam’s Donkey

Having a different theme and overall purpose, the third section in which Balaam is again

depicted as antagonist serves to essentially summarize the journey and Balaam’s violence

towards his donkey so that the messenger can confront him. Here, the reader twice encounters

the phrase “these three times” (cf. v. 28). The messenger of the Lord addresses Balaam striking

his donkey three times and the donkey turning away to avoid the messenger three times so that

he can emphasize that he could have killed Balaam and not the donkey. The messenger saying

this calls attention not only to his literary role as protagonist but also his divine task by standing

in the way three times prior to the encounter. And furthermore, this statement also allows for the

portrayal of Balaam as recognizing his faults, as he responds by saying that he has sinned.

As for the donkey, the reader may notice her absence in the scene depicted here between

Balaam and the messenger of the Lord. The donkey no longer interacts with Balaam, for now the

messenger has taken up the role to engage Balaam. But it is interesting that the donkey has an

implicit portrayal, that of being impervious to death. This portrayal only further characterizes the

donkey as one who is utilized by the Lord. The messenger stating that he would have let the

donkey live perhaps sheds light on the donkey’s role in the story. First, she can see. Next, she

can speak. And finally, if the messenger had acted on his threat, the donkey would have lived

45 Marcus, From Balaam to Jonah, 39. 46 Marcus, From Balaam to Jonah, 39.

21

and thus, in the story, is not associated with death, whereas this association between donkeys and

death was common in ancient Near Eastern literature. In the selected Ugaritic text KTU 1.119,

for example, the donkey is closely linked to death by necessary means, being described as an

element of sacrifice:

u urm . u šnpt . l ydbḥ mlk . bt il . npš . l iš[ḫry]

npš . l bʿl xx[ ] w ʿr . l x[ ] “Both a flame-sacrifice and a presentation-offering the king must sacrifice at the temple of ʾIlu: a neck for Baʿlu[… ] and a donkey for[… ]”47

In this text, along with several others, the donkey is closely associated with death and was

commonly offered as a sacrifice. However, Balaam’s donkey is spared from death and it is

Balaam who is threatened with the possibility of being killed. Thus, this different

characterization of the donkey in the narrative further serves to highlight her implicit role in the

second section.

THE EPISODE OF THE DONKEY AND ITS FUNCTION

Before Balaam’s donkey is introduced, the narrative informs the reader of King Balak’s fear and

that he wishes to seek out Balaam, son of Beor, to curse the Israelites. After he relates his

message, Balak sends the elders of Moab and Midian for the first time to give this message to

Balaam (v. 7). Balaam responds to the men and tells them that he will bring word, just as the

Lord speaks to him. Immediately following is Balaam’s first encounter with the deity (vv. 9-12);

47 Way, Donkeys in the Biblical World, 46-47. See also Dennis Pardee, Ritual and Cult at Ugarit (Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002) and Patrick D. Miller, “Prayer and Sacrifice in Ugarit and Israel,” in Israelite Religion and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 84-100.

22

God asks: “Who are these men with you?” Balaam responds to God by repeating the information

and message he was given. Following the encounter with the deity, Balaam is given divine

instructions for the first time: “You shall not go with them; you shall not curse the people, for

they are blessed” (v. 12). And after the officials of Balak receive Balaam’s word, the king then

receives the word.

Again, Balak sends his officials out to return to Balaam, only this time they are greater in

number and more distinguished (v. 15). Once he receives Balak’s message for a second time,

Balaam again tells the men he “could not go beyond the command of the Lord,” but also tells

them to remain where they are so that Balaam can learn of the deity’s words. Then, one reads of

Balaam’s second encounter with the deity; however, this time it is only God who speaks and the

encounter consists of the instructions for Balaam: “If the men have come to summon you, get up

and go with them; but do only what I tell you to do” (v. 20).

What the reader may notice is the three-fold repetition of events thus far in chapter 22:

first, Balak sends for Balaam; second, Balaam has an encounter with the Lord; and third, Balaam

is given instructions, at first not to go but then to do only what he is told to do. Now, however,

the pattern of events is interrupted by the oddity of verse 22 because of two reasons: first, the

reader suddenly learns that God is angry with Balaam, and second, Balak never receives word

from his officials. The former, which I have discussed, can be regarded as a later addition to the

verse and not original to the episode. The latter, however, may be the reason why the episode of

the donkey was inserted at this point in the narrative. While this detail may seem trivial, I

contend that the author(s) responsible for the development of Balaam’s character (vv. 22-35) had

this in mind when the episode was placed in its present context. Thus, the next sequence of

23

events begins with Balaam’s third encounter with the deity, only now it is a messenger of the

Lord.

The third encounter between Balaam and the messenger, as a separate episode but placed

here within the narrative, is the portrayal of the foreign seer being utilized by the Lord in the

wilderness. But first, it is his donkey at work, stepping off the road to avoid the messenger; and

as a result, Balaam gets angry and beats her three times. Whereas Balaam is perhaps presented

strictly in more of a positive light and certainly as the protagonist in the narrative preceding the

episode (and after), here in the third encounter, it is almost as if the story begins by showing

others “testing” the foreigner, the antagonist. But in the end, Balaam admits his wrongdoing and

his sin, after which the story informs readers that he is to go, now, but only speak what he is told

to speak by the Lord. While the following narrative (vv. 36-40) does seem to directly connect

with the end of verse 21, the episode of the donkey in its present context concludes just before

Balaam’s oracles and his utterance to Balak: “I have come to you now, but do I have power to

say just anything? The word God puts in my mouth, that is what I must say.”

Summary

To summarize, in contrast to the assertion that Num 22.22-35 is a later addition to the narrative, I

maintain that it is more convincing and harmonious to view the episode as a continuation of the

preceding narrative. If one is to regard verses 22a and 22c as scribal insertions (perhaps around

the time of the later references to Balaam elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible?) then one can read the

story as a progression for a certain purpose; that is, the narrative replaces Balaam as the

protagonist with, first, his donkey and, second, the messenger of the Lord. Because he is a

foreigner, however, the purpose of the episode in its present context is to present his journey with

24

the officials of Balak as a progression up until the very point Balaam is to speak the divinely

given words and bless Israel.

The narrative’s depiction of the donkey as the protagonist is nothing but humor and

irony, in order to advance to the next protagonist, the messenger of the Lord. But the messenger

actually seems to be, in some sense, the Lord, who challenges Balaam and threatens his journey.

Now, at the culmination of the progression, Balaam is to speak only what the Lord tells him, not

simply do, as in the verses leading up to the episode. Moreover, with regards to the narration,

preliminary to his third encounter with Balak and his oracles blessing Israel, Balaam is portrayed

first as simply the son of Beor at Pethor, then as one instructed to do only as instructed by the

Lord, and finally as one who is manipulated by the Lord in order to ensure that Balaam speaks

only what instructed by the Lord. Thus, the episode of the donkey is ideally situated within

chapter 22 and the overall Balaam pericope in chapters 22-24.48

CONCLUSION

In this paper, my intention has been to analyze the episode of the donkey in Num 22.22-35 and

demonstrate its literary connection to the surrounding narrative. In doing so, I have discussed the

Balaam tradition with regards to the Deir ʿAlla inscription; the references to Balaam and their

later date outside of Num 22-24 and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible; and have given an in-depth

analysis of the text in the episode of the donkey in order to stress the thematic structure, role of

Balaam’s donkey, and draw attention to the function of the episode in the overall Balaam

narrative. The Balaam of the Deir ʿAlla tradition is the Transjordanian “seer of the gods” who

48 Way, Donkeys in the Biblical World, 187, who also shares this view.

25

relates a vision from the šadday and was most likely a well known figure of his time in the

ancient Near East. Aside from the reference to Balaam in Mic 6.5, which probably dates long

before the rest, the general view towards Balaam outside of Num 22-24 is negative: Num 31.8,

16; Deut 23.4-5; Josh 13.22; 24.9-10; and Neh 13.2. After discussing the dating and context of

these references, it appears the Balaam narrative comes much earlier, perhaps around the eighth-

century B.C.E.

In discussing the episode of the donkey in Num 22.22-35, I suggest breaking apart the

text, rather than exhausting verses 22-35 collectively, allows for a better understanding of the

episode’s present context. Further, this enables one to appreciate the biblical humor, thematic

structure not only within the episode but also within chapter 22, and the role of the donkey,

especially in the role reversals, which closely correlates with other ancient Near Eastern texts as

well as the Deir ʿAlla text. With regards to solely the episode of the donkey, I have maintained

for its literary dependence on the surrounding narrative, as it is presenting a progression of

Balaam’s character. Additionally, I have argued for the original part of verse 22, being that 22a

and 22c are later insertions to capitalize on the lesser view of Balaam in the episode. As for this

lesser view, I have suggested that the episode replaces Balaam as the protagonist with, first, his

donkey and, second, the messenger of the Lord, while Balaam is depicted as the antagonist. This

reversal in literary function serves to portray Balaam as being utilized by the Lord prior to his

assertion that he must speak the words divinely put in his mouth.

And lastly, I have called attention to the function of the episode of the donkey. Balaam

meets with Balak and experiences a divine encounter twice; only the third divine encounter

occurs before his third meeting with Balak, and it the third encounter with the messenger of the

Lord that sets forth the purpose of the episode. The word of the Lord, and the Lord alone, is to be

26

spoken. Thus, verses 22-35 are situated within chapter 22 perfectly, in that the progression of

Balaam’s character is depicted ideally before he insists to Balak that he will only speak the

words God puts in his mouth. Balaam, the foreigner and “seer of the gods,” is reimagined as

protagonist in the story to connect beautifully with the narrative encompassing the episode of the

donkey.

27

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alster, Bendt. Proverbs of Ancient Sumer: The World’s Earliest Proverb Collections. 2 vols. Bethesda: CDL Press, 1997.

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Ashley, Timothy R. The Book of Numbers. New International Commentary on the Old

Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993. Brown, F., S. Driver, and C. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon.

Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1906. Repr., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2008.

Day, Peggy L. An Adversary in Heaven: śāṭān in the Hebrew Bible. Harvard Semitic

Monographs 43. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1988. Ellens, J. Harold and John T. Greene, eds. Probing the Frontiers of Biblical Studies. Pittsburgh

Theological Monograph Series 111. Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2009. Hackett, Jo Ann. The Balaam Text from Deir ʿAlla. Harvard Semitic Monographs 31. Chico,

Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980. Held, Moshe. “Rhetorical Questions in Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew.” Eretz-Israel 9 (1969): 71-

79. Held, Moshe. “The Action-Result (Factitive-Passive) Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical

Hebrew and Ugaritic.” Journal of Biblical Literature 84 (1965): 272-282. Levine, Baruch A. Numbers 21-36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.

Anchor Bible 4A. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Levine, Baruch A. “Review Article: The Deir ʿAlla Inscriptions.” Journal of the American

Oriental Society 101 (1981): 195-205. Lindenberger, James M. The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University

Press, 1983. Marcus, David. From Balaam to Jonah: Anti-prophetic Satire in the Hebrew Bible. Brown

Judaic Studies 301. Atlanta. Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995.

28

Matthews, Victor H. and Don C. Benjamin. Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East. 3d ed. New York: Paulist Press, 2006.

Miller, Patrick D. “Prayer and Sacrifice in Ugarit and Israel.” Pages 84-100 in Israelite Religion

and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Nissinen, Martti. Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. Vol. 12 of Writings from the

Ancient Near East 12. Edited by Peter Machinist. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.

Noth, Martin. Numbers. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968. Pardee, Dennis. Ritual and Cult at Ugarit. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002. Pat-el, Naʿama. “Syntactic Aramaisms as a Tool.” Pages 245-263 in Diachrony in Biblical

Hebrew. Edited by Cynthia Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit. Vol. 8 of Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic. Edited by Cynthia Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2012.

Rendsburg, Gary A. “Northern Hebrew through Time: From the Song of Deborah to the

Mishnah.” Pages 339-359 in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Cynthia Miller-Naudé and Ziony Zevit. Vol. 8 of Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic. Edited by Cynthia Miller-Naudé and Jacobus A. Naudé. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2012.

Rouillard, Hedwige. “Lʾânesse de Balaam.” Revue biblique 87 (1980): 5-37. Rouillard, Hedwige. La Péricope de Balaam. Etudes bibliques 4. Paris: Lecoffre, 1985. Seters, John Van. “From Faithful Prophet to Villain: Observations on the Tradition History of the

Balaam Story.” Pages 126-132 in A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content: Essays in Honor of George W. Coats. Edited by Eugene E. Carpenter. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 240. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.

Waltke, Bruce K. and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake,

Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Way, Kenneth C. Donkeys in the Biblical World: Ceremony and Symbol. History, Archaeology,

and Culture of the Levant 2. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011. Wenham, Gordon J. Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Pentateuch. Vol. 1 of

Exploring the Old Testament. Edited by Gordon McConville. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Wevers, John Williams. LXX: Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers. Society of Biblical Literature

Septuagine and Cognate Series 46. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1998.