So many questions about Balaam

In Numbers 22-24 we first meet Balaam (or Bil'am, בלעם) son of Beor, a prophet hired by Balak king of Moab, to curse Israel. 

Amazingly, we know Balaam son of Beor also from extra-biblical material; the Deir 'Alla Plaster Inscriptions (Context of Scripture 2.27, Baruch A. Levine) writes about and translates the reconstructed fragments of an inscribed plaster wall from the 9th-8th century BC, slightly north of Moab in Ammonite territory. 

In those inscriptions he is a prophet who receives messages from the gods, providing a remarkable parallel to the biblical story. 

Balaam gets mentioned quite a lot in the Bible, which is surprising for a bit-player. His name comes up 60 times in the OT and a further three times in the NT. However, 51 of those 63 times are in Numbers 22-24, which is some impressive name repetition! He is mentioned again in Numbers 31, Deuteronomy 23, Joshua 13 and 24, Nehemiah 13 and Micah 6. The emphasis in the OT seems to be varied. 

He is also mentioned in the New Testament as an archetypal incitement to greed, in 2 Peter 2:15, Jude 11 and Revelation 2:14. 

In Deuteronomy 23, Joshua 24, Nehemiah 13 and Micah 6, God's determination to bless Israel despite human attempts to curse them. However in Joshua 13 the problem is his sinning through divination and being put to death as a cleansing of the land. 

Later on within Numbers (31) the Balaam/Balak saga is conflated with what becomes known as the Peor incident, in Numbers 25. In Numbers 31:15-18 Moses is upset that women who are not virgins, as well as boys, have been allowed to live in an attack on Midian. The reasoning is that the women who are not virgins are those who followed Balaam's advice to seduce Israelite men, which occurs in Numbers 25 but is not linked to Balaam in that place. 

That said, there are a few issues in Numbers 25 which are not clear, such as a plague which is stopped but is never explicitly said to begin (although 25:3a, "Yhwh's anger burned against Israel", may be an elliptical reference to the plague beginning). All this is to say the lack of a reference to Balaam is perhaps not that unexpected.

I do have some questions about Balaam, which are about 1) his location and 2) his patronym. 

Balaam of Pethor 

Numers 22:5, Balaam is at Pethor, his native land (NIV), that is the land of the children of his people (ASV), which is by "the river", i.e. the Euphrates. This description is filled out in Deuteronomy 23, as Pethor is further explained as in Aram Naharaim, or Aramea by the (two) rivers, which is identified as north-west Mesopotamia. You can see it right up the top of this map in red (made in Accordance Bible), while Beth Peor and Bezer are the names in red down the bottom, which are part of Moab, also in red below those towns. I've overlaid modern borders for some scale.

It doesn't take long to work out why people have problems with Pethor as Balaam's base and hometown. The plains of Moab, opposite Jericho either side of the Jordan River, are almost 600km away from each other as the crow flies, which is a long long way away. One might even suggest prohibitively far away to make sense in the story. If the details are correct, that Balak sent his messengers 600km to ask, and then they returned unsuccessful, and then they were sent back, whereupon he was willing to come with them (the talking donkey notwithstanding), then they have walked upwards of 2,500km in order to gain some support. The distances are staggering. 

Added to this is when Balak meets Balaam, he asks why he didn't come immediately in response to his "urgent summons" (22:37), which is laughable - the amount of time it would have taken to make two return trips of that distance would make haste or delay essentially negligible. 

It is of course possible that The River is a different river. The Nile could justifiably also be called The River, and the Jordan, for those in that area, could similarly be their The River. Further to this, it is always possible that Aram is Adam, a place attested to elsewhere in the Scriptures (such as in Josh 3:16, as well as a suggestion elsewhere in place of Aram), due to the easily confused pair of letters, the Hebrew daleth and resh, ד/ר. 

If Balaam was indeed from Adam, not Aram, and The River was the Jordan and not the Euphrates, then Balaam is slightly less exotic and the story becomes much less confusing, from that aspect at least. That would also fit more with the archaeological evidence discussed above. 

Balaam son of Beor or Bezer

The other issue I want to try to understand is why, in 2 Peter 2:15, Balaam is called the son of Bezer and not of Beor, as he is throughout the OT. Where has Peter got this from?

The patronymic, Beor, is written both plene and defectively within the same passage; that is, both בעור and בער. 

There were two things I immediately noticed upon hearing the name Beor. First off, there is a nice assonance between the three names in the passage: Beor, Balaam, Balak. This is nice, and a lovely coincidence (if it is that). Second, Beor sounds a lot like Peor, and apart from the B/P exchange, Peor is spelled the same as Beor (the plene spelling). 

I don't know what to make of that. Peor is clearly a real place in the Transjordan, known elsewhere as Beth Peor (not to be confused with another Peor within Canaan). 

If I had to guess, I would say Beor is how you spell Peor if you want it to rhyme with Balak and Balaam, so that Beor, rather than being a patronym, is a toponym. 

If this were the case, it could mean that 2 Peter preserves the name of Balaam's father, Bezer, so he is Balaam son of Bezer of Peor. 

However, it's not that easy. Bezer rhymes just as easily as does Beor, and you don't have to change anything. And Bezer is also a place, near to the plains of Moab (Deut 4:43; Josh 20:8; 21:36; 1 Chr 6:78; 8:78). 

So which place is his place? Is it Peor, Pethor, or Bezer? 

I think it's safest to go with what the OT has to say, rather than imagining that Peter has access to something that has escaped everyone else's notice for a millennium. This still doesn't explain how the patronym Bezer turns up in 2 Peter. 

The Greek behind it is Bosor, which is how the LXX consistently translates Bezer. However, it seems some scribes had some issues with that, as Vaticanus has Beor, and the original hand of Sinaiaticus combines Beor and Bosor into the horrific portmanteau Beorsor, which I take it is Beor + Bosor. UBS5 gives Bosor an A rating, suggesting that this is the most likely reading and that Siniaticus represents an attempt to correct the text.

There has been much work on 2 Peter and Jude's sources (very little of which I'm across), but I'm unaware of where the Bezer (Bosor) source may have come from, or why Peter didn't go with Beor (unless Sinaiaticus alone preserves the original text). 

Edit/update - I checked Norman Hillyer's UBC (1,2 Pet; Jude) and he suggests Βοσορ (Bezer) is a play on בשר (flesh); Peter then thinks Balaam is then a son of the flesh rather than being confused about who is father is. Why confuse us with the nearby town Bosor/Bezer I'm not sure. That said, the Greek has του, the genitive article, so it broadly means "belonging to", either as the son, or another type of belonging, as Hillyer suggests. 

Conclusion

All in all, there are a whole bunch of riddles associated with Balaam, son of Beor, of Pether. I don't know if I solved any of them, but I hope I have at least scratched the surface and edged towards some possible resolutions. 

'supdate

if you've been grieving my blogospheric absence, let me fill you in on where i've been:

nowhere really – just busy!

i stepped in at the last minute to do a sermon on prayer, a great time - though not long enough - to think through whether i really do value prayer or not.

essay on Isaiah 26 was great fun, but took waaaaay too long - i spent 2 and a half weeks working on the Hebrew, and only a couple of days looking at the theological issues surrounding it.

next on the list was exam fun and games - philosophy was first, and then Church History (European Reformation).

the mayhem was broken up with a weekend camp for SWAC youth, where i had the honour of talking through 2 Peter with them.

i arrived back in time for my New Testament exam, translating and exegeting 2 passages from John 7:29-31 and John 1:11-13. it was good fun, but there was a little too much winging-it, not quite enough knowing-what-on-earth-i'm-talking-about.

i arrived back yesterday from speaking at a vision valley snow camp on the two sons in Luke 15. it was a great couple of days, very tiring, but an awesome opportunity to share the reckless love of our heavenly father with some young people who may not have heard of it ever before.

anyway, i'm off to Gradcon in a couple of days, i just need to knock this essay on the head before then!

anyway, that's where i've been. i hope you've been well too, dear reader.

speak soon,
D5

kauf die zeit aus

'make the most use of your time', or better, 'buy up the time', 'kauf die Zeit aus', or 'τὸν καιρὸν ἐξαγοραζόμενοι'

at the moment this seems like a hard thing to do. i don't actually feel like i have any time to make the most of, even though i finished my last exam yesterday (yay!).
i'm booked out for most of the holidays, all with good things, but on top of it all, i must attend a jury preselection trial on monday, for a potential 12 week trial, clearly impossible for me to do. this is my third jury duty call up, the first was during Orientation Week at uni, the key time in the uni-ministry year. the second was during Mid-Year-Conference, ditto. so kind people wrote letters for both of these and i didn't have to attend. but i was told i must attend and try my luck.

i spend all my spare time thinking about how nice it would be to have spare time, but also that i'm really enjoying how much i am doing. but what i really should be doing is as above; Colossians 4:5.
(i also need to remember what i preached on the weekend, that (2 Peter 3:9,15) God's patience means salvation, we have what time we do for a purpose.

my good friend Michael Morrow has written a good song on this, 'let us tell of his great love, he will come, for his patience means salvation'. buy it here. you can also hear another good friend's band, garage hymnal, have a crack here. the song, btw, is 'we belong to the day'. good stuff.

walk-up lines

just back from a week of mission.
among other things, this involved lots of door-knocking and walk-up evangelism.
doing this sort of thing at a university campus, you start getting an idea of what works and what doesn't, but in a diverse suburb like Kingsford there never seemed to be a clear tack to take.
one that we started using was:

Hi. We're not Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons; we're just going around asking people about Jesus.

this seemed to get us a little further into the conversation than otherwise, particularly with one Greek Orthodox lady - who about 5 minutes in, and after said introduction, asked whether we were JW's!
another line we tried was hi, we're giving away FREE Bibles, which worked for one person.
for some overseas students, they had actually never even heard the name of Jesus. which drives home the need to continue talking about him to people from all nations. and reminds us to give thanks for his patience:

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. (2 Peter 3:9)

have you got a good line for talking to strangers about Jesus?

smiting or giving over?

we had a talk tonight at Wild Street, entitled "Hotter than Hell - God and Global Warming", which drew upon Genesis 1:26-31, for our mandate to care for creation, as well as 2 Peter 3, reminding us of the Christian expectation, and the way we are to live in the meanwhilst.

my question, particularly regarding global warming, is whether this is a smiting-thing, or a giving-over-thing?

Romans 2:18-32 has the logic of God letting us go, when it comes to sinfulness. that is, he says, "if that's the way you want to live, go for it. see what life looks like without me," the result being death and destruction.

there is of course the examples of God striking down sinful individuals, couples, cities and even the world, which isn't a direct cause-and-effect thing, but a punishment.

so what is global warming? simply the result of our sinfulness? or is there also an element of God smiting us because of our failure to care for his creation?

sun-work does not equal son-work

my continuing thinking through of eschatology has brought me back to the frustrating area of teleology.
for the uninitiated, eschatos = the end, telos = the end. eschatos being the point in time, telos being the goal, the aim, the purpose.
as i have previously considered here, it may well be that the end of man (telos) is indeed the end (finish) of man. a look at the world today, especially at the doomsday clock can but confirm this.

thankfully, however, this is not my task.
i am still trying to figure out how to make sense of the seeming futility of today, with nothing new under the sun, and all that we do is simply trying to grasp the wind; whilst knowing that there is indeed purpose in our lives, there is a goal, that being to seek God and his glory.

yet, despite all this, we are still hopelessly impotent in our striving, as byron's blog so well states, that all is new only in the son. but, whilst being in the son, we still are under the sun.

i believe that is what peter is trying to make clear as he holds up the two truths of being subject to the emperor, whilst retaining their true identity as the very building blocks of Christ's church, the oikos.


one of the problems i see is this pedestal some climb upon, maintaining their particular work, under the sun, has some kind of überwert, super-spiritualising their own work in and of itself. that includes summing up ecclesiastes 1:12-2:26 as "work done using worldly wisdom bad, Godly good." rather than the way the author sums up, that all work is vanity and a striving after wind.

we are headed for the same goal. the reality of the eschaton means all our sun-work is vain.

2Peter3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

that is to say, even our sun-work will be exposed for what it is. and it will be in no way different to the sun-work of those not under the son.

in conclusion, sun-work is not our goal. bearing in mind peter's correction, we need to remember why we are to keep-on keeping on.


for those now thorougly depressed, this is not to say there is no work of worth, that is simply not current focus.

apologies to byron for use of his bookends.

ooooooh. ghosts!!!

fatima asked an interesting question about ghosts. well, that was basically the extent of the question, posed in response to my first (and yes, still only) review of Enoch. coincidentally, at the same time i was pondering what the bible has to say on the topic, i happened upon a talk on 2 Peter, which, as does Jude, refers implicitly (Jude explicitly), to Enoch.
this section in particular was telling:

2 Peter 2:10-15 Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones, whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord. But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction, suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, they feast with you. They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children! Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray.

the point the speaker was making, was those who go on about the supernatural, described as "angelic ramblings", are perhaps those who are possibly not the best examples of Christian leadership.

that in mind (!), on to ghosts.

as far as i can tell, there are 3 words translated "ghost" in the good book:
obe (ghost, spirit of a dead one), as found in Isaiah 29:4,

And you will be brought low; from the earth you shall speak,
and from the dust your speech will be bowed down;
your voice shall come from the ground like the voice of a ghost,
and from the dust your speech shall whisper.

fantasma (apparition, apparition, spectre), seen in Matthew 14:26 (c/f Mark 6:49),

But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” and they cried out in fear.

pneuma (spirit), found twice in Luke 24:36-43,

As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit (ghost). And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit (ghost) does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate before them.

now i'm sorry, but all this says is that people were, just as today, aware of ghosts. i mean heck, even i "know" that ghosts have neither flesh nor bones. just as i "know" leprechauns wear green and have little beards and fairies have wings and wands.

all this proves nothing (nor disproves, i might add).
what i'm still not sure of is what the saul/samuel narrative (1 Sam 28), nor the transfiguration with jesus chatting with moses and elijah (Mark 9:2vv) adds to this question. can God retrieve people from sheol? why not! and they were all highly symbolic appearances, God obviously appropriating them for good cause.

so i don't know. did you think i would? the bible is silent, and how am i to dispute people's own experiences? i can imagine the conversation now:

i saw a ghost once
no you didn't
oh. but-
-no, you didn't
...oh. ok.