A reflection on Ruth 2

 Naomi left the house of bread for the fields of Moab

but the fields of Moab meant only death

So she left full but returned empty (1:21)

and worse than empty - burdened by her foreign daughter-in-law

but 1:22 they've come back to the house of bread at the beginning of the barley harvest

Ruth suggests a way to not be a burden, which is to gather leftovers in accordance with the Levitical laws

Note how she is described by Boaz in 2:11

And Boaz answered

and he said to her

"It has been fully declared to me all that you have done for your mother-in-law

after the death of your husband

and you forsook your father and your mother and the land of your birth

and you walked to a people whom you did not know until this time."

What is interesting here is the language is very similar to Genesis 12:1

Yhwh said to Abram,

“Go from your land and from the land of your birth and from the house of your father

to the land which I will show you."

Like Abraham, Ruth leaves everything, entrusting herself to Naomi and Naomi's people and Naomi's land and Naomi's God

Like Abraham, Ruth didn't know what would lie ahead,

but in God's providence, she found herself in the land of bread at the time of harvest and under the protection of a kind man of standing.

Fast forward to the end of the first day and it's meal time (2:14):

And Boaz said to her at eating time

"Come here and eat from the bread

and dip your piece in the vinegar"

And she sat on the side of the harvesters

and he held out to her roasted grain

and she ate

and she was satisfied

and there remained extra

From full to empty to full

and again, when she gets back to Naomi that night (2:18):

18 And she carried

and she came to the city

and her mother-in-law saw what she gleaned

and she brought out

and she gave to her what remained from what satisfied her

From lack to abundance

and although there is more to come

even from the eating we can see that God is the God of the nations

that God is the God of abundance

that God gives to overflowing

and this points us, of course, to the banquets Jesus set out for thousands who came to hear him (Mark 8:19–20):

“When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?”   “Twelve,” they replied.

“And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?” They answered, “Seven.””

12 is enough for the Jews - like Naomi

and 7 is enough for the Gentiles - like Ruth

God is the provider for all who place their trust him.

A reflection on Ruth 1

We can easily get swept away with the story of Ruth; we just want Ruth and Boaz to get together already! But it's important to slow down and notice the details along the way.

v1 a man walked, from the house of bread, to sojourn in the fields of Moab.

A man walked. Already we're told to slow down.

He walked - he didn't run, he didn't journey, he didn't ride. He walked.

The next line tells us who with, and the line after that tells us their names.

But for now it's just a man, and he's walking from Bethlehem - or literally, the house of bread in Judah -

God's people in God's place, the place where God provides daily bread for his people.

And they're leaving for the fields of Moab.

It could have just said Moab,

but it's the fields - the fields in a foreign land with foreign gods, in order to plant grain in their fields.

And they walked.

How many times did they pause along the way, where they might have reconsidered their actions - it would have taken a long time before they were even half way - why not return? why not wait on God's favour to return to his house of bread?

If you look at this phrase, "a man walked",

5 times you will find it exactly

and each time it's fleeing, scattering, people who have lost trust in God and in his plans (Judg. 7:7; 9:55; 20:8; 1 Sam. 8:22; 1 Kg 1:49; 13:12; Jer. 11:8; 16:12; 51:9; Mic. 4:5; Psa. 39:6; Prov. 6:28).

so too this man

with his wife and his two sons.

Well the next time we hear the word walked, it's "they" walked

but it's a different group

this time it's Naomi and her daughters in law,

with her husband and two sons having died.

Is it any wonder she demands her name be changed to Mara - bitter?

v7, they walked in the road to return to the land of Judah.

and she says to them,

walk! return! each of you to your mother's home.

they walked in order to return to her home

and she ordered them to walk in order to return - but to their mothers' homes.

In v9 there is a kiss, then their voices are raised, then they weep.

they say to her v10, we shall return - with you! to your people!

but Naomi, thankful as she is, says v11, return, my daughters - why walk with me?!

and v12, return my daughters, walk.

we can see these two words, walk and return, are easily reversed,

they are Naomi's instructions for them to turn back

but they are their reassurances that the only walking and returning they will do is with her, to her people.

as with v9, in v14 again there is a kiss, raised voices, and weeping,

although it is a different order.

The kiss is held off until the end, and it is Orpah; a kiss goodbye,

But where Orpah walks and returns, Ruth clings.

So Naomi speaks again,

v15 Look, your sister-in-law has returned to her people and to her gods

return after your sister-in-law

She has listened; why won't you?

Ruth: v16 Stop pleading with me to forsake you, to return away from after you

Because to wherever you walk, I will walk

Orpah can do what she wants,

I however am with you.

The only returning and the only walking I will do is with you.

Your God is my God; death alone will separate us.

What does Naomi see, 18?

That Ruth was determined to walk with her

so she ceased - the Hebrew is a bit harsher here - she ceased to speak to her.

Ruth is as stubborn in her clinging

as Elimelek was in his walking away from Judah.

The story more or less concludes with a reversal of the beginning,

look there in v 19

And they walked, the two of them, until they came to the house of bread

So that where a man walked out, a woman and two sons in tow,

now a woman returns, with only her Moabite daughter-in-law clinging to her.

As she says, she went out full, but Yhwh has returned her empty.

And here is the story formally ends,

not with walking,

but with returning.

v22 Thus Naomi returned, and Ruth of Moab her daughter-in-law was with her,

returned from the fields of Moab.

Walking out full,

returning empty

leaving for a foreign field

and returning to the barley harvest

walking out with sons and a husband

returning with a foreign daughter-in-law

It was a long way to get home

but now they are where God wants them, when God wants them,

in the state of mind where it is not a husband and sons which fills her,

but it is the surprising mercy and overflowing grace of the Almighty that will fill her up.

A lot of us have been walking more in lockdown

usually in loops - walking out and returning home.

As we reflect on the walking and returning in this first chapter of Ruth

let's remember that God has his plans

and they often come through hardship

through going in circles

and at a completely different to what we might like

but they are wiser and far more beautiful than anything we might imagine.

Review of Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs

GEORGE ATHAS, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2020) pp 400. Hardcover. $45.23.

 

 

With Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, George Athas provides his own contribution to the Story of God Bible Commentary series. Unique to this commentary is situating both Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs in the Greek era; the introductions explain why he believes Ecclesiastes was written under the hopelessness of the Ptolemaic occupation in the 220s BCE, and Song of Songs under the pressures of Hellenisation in the final days of the Seleucid occupation in the 160s BCE. The second part in each section, “Explain the Story”, both tackles important exegetical questions but also shows how the historical context shapes the text and our interpretation of it. 

Athas uses the introduction of Ecclesiastes as well as the “Listen to the Story” sections to spell out his suggestion of a Davidic descendant writing in the 220s under Ptolemaic rule in the context of the chief priest Onias II’s misjudged leveraging of the Seleucid kingdom and the devastating impacts that had on the Jewish people. Athas does not suggest an identity for Qohelet beyond a Davidic descendant, but suggests they were still aware of their royal blood and, while they were not a king, were things to have run differently they might well have been. They write as one who would be king according to God’s promise, yet with no hope of being king because of circumstance. This enables them to evaluate the foreign rulers and local leaders such as Onias and Joseph Tobias and to point out their many failures. The book’s hebel motto thus outweighs any provisional carpe diem statements as God has shown himself unwilling to intervene and help his people. 

The background to Song of Songs are the actions of Jason and Menelaus, along with Antiochus’s response in removing the special religious status of the Jews. The Solomon character represents pressures of Hellenisation, the shepherd boy Yhwh, and the woman Israel who desires to be loyal to Yhwh but is fighting a losing battle against Hellenisation. This historical specificity makes for an engaging reading of the Song as a story, situating it in a time and place of extreme pressures, and also explains the need for oblique allusions to refer to people, places and God. While not all interpreters will agree with this reading, Athas has set a new standard in suggesting and demonstrating the viability of quite a precise dating. 

When it comes to structure, I was disappointed that none of the recent advances in Ecclesiastes studies made any impression on this book (on this, see my own Seeing what Qohelet Saw). He makes brief mention of the frame, which Athas believes to be late, but in agreement with Qohelet. Otherwise he has essentially broken the book up into preaching units, suggesting instead that “[t]here is no clear literary seam between these stages. The whole movement gives a sense of uncontrolled, heavy descent into darkness and oblivion, capturing perfectly Qohelet’s sense of the fate of humanity and, more particularly, the Jewish nation.” (41) In Song of Songs he made a strong case for the different speakers throughout, but this didn’t noticeably impact the structure; the focus remained on the story. 

Evidently however, structure was not his concern; where this commentary breaks new ground is its consistent application of the historical specificity. Dating Ecclesiastes to the Ptolemaic era was foreshadowed in his 2019 Biblica article on 4:13–16, building on Barbour’s 2012 monograph, as well as Schunck’s 1959 article which suggested that it would be natural for details of the era to be hidden within the book. Athas demonstrates how an understanding of the key movers of the second half of the third century BC brings much more clarity to the otherwise ambiguous declarations and descriptions. To approach the book with such specificity is not one taken by any major commentary series I have yet come across, as most take the author and date to be unknowable beyond someone some vague time period within the second temple period, and this will be where future interaction to this book should come in response. What is unclear is whether the jury, who have essentially decided the date cannot be known, will be swayed to reconsider their agnosticism. That is, while this approach to dating seems plausible, the ambiguities and lack of any explicit referents in the text makes it doubtful whether this will be taken up beyond being referred to as a fascinating conjecture.

When it came to the “Live the Story” sections of Ecclesiastes, a dichotomy was drawn between “Qohelet liv[ing] in a ‘BC’ world” (162), and us who “live in an ‘AD’ world” (193). Now, of course this is true, but the way it was emphasised does raise some important canonical questions of what it means to read Scripture on its own terms. Again, this is not to say Christians cannot or should not read the Old Testament through the lens of Jesus, but to draw a distinction in the way Athas has diminishes the testimony of Ecclesiastes on its own. According to this pessimistic reading, Qohelet affirms that life truly is meaningless, but Jesus tells him he is wrong. The way Athas squares this circle is to insist that Qohelet views the world under the sun, whereas Jesus views the world under the heavens (under the heavens being the viewpoint only available to God); Qohelet’s view is provisional, Jesus’ is complete. If we met Qohelet today, “we might wish to point [him] to Jesus” (193). All that being said, this book is unashamedly a Christian reading of Scripture, and demonstrates one way to do so for those (probably the majority) who do read Ecclesiastes pessimistically. 

This new commentary is essential reading for anyone studying Ecclesiastes or Song of Songs as it presents and shows in practice what it looks like to read these books as from a specific time and place; Athas’s wonderful storytelling throughout reveals both Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs to be telling consistent and coherent stories. Reading this book should be an encouragement to all readers to open up Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs again and with fresh eyes.  

Rejoice, Yhwh Reigns - Psalm 97

Continuing my stroll through Book IV of the Psalter, Psalm 97 is a fun one. There's lots of interesting imagery, and also lots of repeated vocab and/or synonyms.

The imagery of the heavens and earth is particularly invigorating, as we think about the earth and coastlands rejoicing, about cloud and darkness surrounding Yhwh, about creation being lit up by his lightning, and the earth in response writhing and mountains melting.

The pantheon of gods also feature, as their existence is not so much denied as relativised. Yhwh here is Yhwh Elyon - most high - who is over all the earth, far above other gods (97:9). Worship of their images is shameful, for even those gods worship Yhwh (97:7)!

In terms of the vocabulary of this psalm, we have rejoicing (2x), be glad (3x), worship (1x) and praise (1x). This vocab alone pushes us to think of this psalm as a song. The other area of repeated vocabulary are in terms of the character and actions of Yhwh, with righteous/ness (4x), judgements/s (2x), uprightness (1x), glory (1x) and holiness (1x). Some of these are Yhwh's, others are reflected in his people .

The structure of this psalm is certainly tricky, but I think I've got some idea. If this works, after the heading (Yhwh reigns!), it's a two-part psalm, with both halves in an ABCBA structure.

Heading 1a Yhwh reigns!

A1 1b-c Earth and coast: rejoice!

B1 2 Yhwh's righteousness and judgement

C1 3-5 Yhwh is boss over creation

B1` 6 All have seen his righteousness and glory

A1` 7 Idolaters, be ashamed; gods, worship!

A2 8a-b Zion and Judah: rejoice!

B2 8c Yhwh's judgements

C2 9-10 Yhwh Elyon guards and delivers his people

B2` 11 Light sown to righteousness, gladness to upright heart

A2` You righteous: rejoice!

The two halves tell a similar story regarding the character of Yhwh and how it is reflected and embodied among his people. The focus is however different. In the first section (1b-7), the key idea is "Yhwh is boss over creation" with the ethical implication, "Don't commit idolatry." In the second section (8-12), Yhwh is still sovereign, but this is to do with the hope for his people. So the idea is more, "Yhwh Elyon guards and delivers," with the ethical implication, "Don't love evil."

Although this psalm is very elevated in its subject matter, in the heavens and with the pantheon, the rubber certainly hits the road in both instances. Flee idolatry and flee evil are evergreen commands, just as relevant then as now.

Psalm 97 as an Exodus psalm

Reading various commentators, the majority of focus is on how this psalm is grounded in or responds to Canaanite mythologies. While I don't deny that may be part of it, what I don't see is an attempt to ground the reading of this and similar psalms in the imagery we are already provided in the Scriptures. In particular, the language of v2-5 seem easily linked to Exodus 19:16-19, as Sinai is covered in cloud and smoke and there's fire and trembling mountains, followed by Yhwh's self-revelation in the giving of the Decalogue. So while there may be other things going on, it seems a mistake to so quickly ignore the key moment in Israel's history: a theophany followed by the law. 

Jonah's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

 Jonah 2 used to be one of my favourite passages in the Bible. For now, let's just say, it's complicated. If I was an editor, I would have told the author, "Lose either chapter 2 or chapter 4; you can't keep both." Chapter 2 makes Jonah pious; chapter 4 makes him sound racist. Chapter 2 makes him sound like he was converted in the belly of the fish; chapter 4 makes it sound as if the fish never happened.

Chapter 2 (in the Hebrew numbering, which is one ahead of the English) begins with the explanation, "And Yhwh provided a great fish, to swallow Jonah," and the chapter concludes, "And Yhwh spoke to the fish, and it vomited Jonah upon the dry ground." What happened in between? 2:1[1:17] continues, "Now Jonah was in the stomach of the fish, three days and three nights." Now, for me, as the editor, I would have again explained, "that's enough - less is more - I like it just as is." Chapter 2 would then read:

"And Yhwh provided a great fish, to swallow Jonah. Now Jonah was in the stomach of the fish, three days and three nights. And Yhwh spoke to the fish, and it vomited Jonah upon the dry ground."

Silence is golden, and the silence of the three days would speak to the reader: what happened those three days in darkness? Were those days informative? Was he just whingeing? Did he have an epiphany? Those questions would then be answered, first positively (Jonah did indeed preach in Nineveh, ch 3) but then negatively (he did not want them to repent, ch 4). Instead, by including the psalm of chapter 2, we are left trying to figure out what its point is, and how these words, which on the surface sound theologically sound, could come from the mouth of one who behaves so abominably in chapter 4.

Anyway, enough about the theology. What's going on in the structure?

There are a pair of bookends: 2:1[1:17] And Yhwh provided a great fish to swallow Jonah // 2:11[10] And Yhwh spoke to the fish and it vomited Jonah upon the dry ground.

In the body of the prayer, there is the narrator's introduction, and, possibly, at the end, his summary conclusion: 2:1c-2[1:17c-2:1] Now Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights, and Jonah prayed to Yhwh his God from the stomach of the fish. // 2:10c[9c] Salvation comes from Yhwh. The reason I could include the end of v10[9] is because, contra the NIV, there is no introductory speech there, and it doesn't flow from v9[8]. But what it does do is mirror the introduction to the psalm, indicating that salvation is indeed from Yhwh, the right object of all our prayers.

The remainder of the psalm is divisible in two, with two subsections, each half concluding with "to your holy temple," (2:5[4], 8-10[7-9]), while the first parts theologically describe the experience of drowning (2:3-4[2-3]; 2:6-7[5-6]). The body of the psalm is then an ABAB structure.

What is not clear in English is the four times something is said to be at the very centre, albeit with three different Hebrew words, each referring, in different ways, to the bodily centre:

Now Jonah was in the stomach מעה
And Jonah prayed to Yhwh his God from the stomach of the fish מעה
From the belly of Sheol I called for help בטן
You hurled me [...] into the very heart of the seas לבב

He is not on the edge, on the cusp, but at the most inward part of the fish, of Sheol, of the seas. His view of his conundrum is that it is the worst it could possibly be.

Regardless of language, another thing which stands out is the manifold ways water is described:

• the depths
• the very heart of the sea
• the swirling currents
• waves and breakers sweeping over me
• engulfing water
• the deep
• seaweed
• roots of the mountains
• bars of the earth

And that's not even mentioning the great sea creatures able to swallow and sustain human life for three days and three nights (do you remember this bloke who lasted almost 90 seconds in a whale's mouth?)! Now I'm not a particularly great swimmer (I've nearly drowned four times), but I still don't think I'm as hydrophobic as Jonah's prayer shows him to be. He really hates the stuff. 

Not least is because, as this prayer demonstrates, at the bottom of the sea lies the gateway to Sheol, the place of the dead. Whether you get sucked down a hole (cf Numbers 16) or down the bottom of the ocean, down below lies the "realm of the dead" (as per the NIV), a place no one wants to end up.

What I haven't discussed is what it all means. As one of my interlocutors on Twitter noted, "there isn't a line from him in that prayer that isn’t proved wrong elsewhere in text of Jonah." I think he's probably right.

Sing the new song of Yhwh - Psalm 96

 In my walk through the Exodus psalms, I've come to Psalm 96, a psalm I knew first as a song. It's a wonderful praise psalm, and it clearly tends toward singing: if there were no song (and there are many), someone would have to write one.

The first thing one notes when going through the Hebrew is what a balanced psalm it is. Some of that is evident in this table:

Sing to Yhwh the saviour (1-6)	Ascribe to Yhwh the king (7-13)
Sing to Yhwh x3 Followed by three imperatives (bless, spread, recount), with a fourth implied (recount) Followed by two כי (for) clauses	Ascribe to Yhwh x3 Followed by five more imperatives (carry, come, worship, tremble, say) Followed by two כי (for) clauses
Yhwh 5x Nations 1x, peoples 2x (NPP) Heavens 1x Might 1x Majesty 1x Holy place 1x	Yhwh 6x Nations 1x, peoples 2x (PNP) Heavens 1x Might 1x Majesty 1x Holiness 1x

A psalm of two halves

The psalm divides into two halves, each half beginning with a triple imperative to Yhwh: 3x Sing to Yhwh begins the first half, while 3x Ascribe to Yhwh begins the second. These introductions are then followed by a series of imperatives, and then two explanatory כי clauses. In both halves there is some indication that there is a wrong being overcome by Yhwh. In v4-5 the problem is the honour stolen from Yhwh and bestowed on foreign gods, but those who sing this psalm know that it is Yhwh who made the heavens and not the insignificant (אלילים) gods of the peoples. The problem in the second half would seem to be injustice, because the solution in v13 is that Yhwh comes to judge the earth, to judge the cosmos in righteousness, his peoples with truth.

Yhwh rules

In both halves the overriding concern is to establish Yhwh's rule. In the first half this is primarily in the spiritual realm - in the heavens - against other gods. In the second half this primarily in the physical realm, seen by the word earth (3x) and cosmos (2x) as the areas in which his rule should be known. Interestingly, the phrase which seems to introduce that in the first half is to "spread the good news (בשר) of his salvation", whereas in the second it is to "say ... Yhwh reigns." Perhaps the idea of salvation is therefore to be understood with reference to what gods are able to do, or not do, as the case may be, whereas rule is set up in contrast to earthly rulers. Who can save? Not the gods; only Yhwh. Who can govern justly? Not the kings; only Yhwh.

Gospelling

It's perhaps noteworthy that this psalm contains the "gospelling" word בשר (basar), best known among Christians from the Romans 10:15 quotation of Isaiah 52:7, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" It only appears in three psalms, 40:10; 68:11(12), and here in 96:2. In Samuel it's more strictly a messenger word - it can good or bad news that is brought (9x in 1-2 Samuel, and a 10th in 1 Kg 1:42), but it elsewhere seems to be positive news that is brought and proclaimed. That is most clearly the case here, as it is the salvation of Yhwh which is to be proclaimed, and recounted among the nations. It is linked to the wonders (נפלאות) of Yhwh among the peoples (96:3), which is the keyword linking this psalm to Book IV's Exodus meta-narrative.

Wonders in Exodus 3:20

The root lexeme פלא occurs only twice in Exodus, and as such its usage in Psalm 96 could be referring to either. The first is in Exodus 3:20, "I will strike the Egyptians with wonders that I will perform in their midst." This introduces the many plagues which are to follow, and explicitly explains the context for these plagues is to be in their midst - to be seen (and experienced) by all the people. This links well with the description in our psalm, and could easily be what it being referred to. It links also with the judgement which concludes the psalm, as the wonders in Egypt are judgement on the Egyptians, and especially on their Pharaoh, for enslaving Israel.

Wonders in Exodus 34:10

The second occurrence is at one of the high points in Exodus, at 34:10, after Moses beheld the glory of Yhwh. This too links to the judgement of Yhwh (v7), but by v10 is looking forward to inheriting the promised land and the newly formed covenant with Israel. Yhwh tells Moses, "I am making a covenant before all your people; I will do wonders not done in all the land and in all the nations. The people in whose midst you are will see the deeds of Yhwh, that they are awesome, which I am doing with you." (Ex 34:10) You can see that this situation could well also be what is referred to in this psalm. Indeed, it seems impossible to adjudicate, and maybe that's the point.

Sing Yhwh's song

This psalm proclaims the salvation of Yhwh; it looks back to his saving work, it looks back to his wonders in rescuing and in causing his people to inherit his promises. But it uses that as a foundation to call the people of God to praise him. The gods of the nations are insignificant, but Yhwh made the heavens. He judges in righteousness and truth, and these are the messages which should be proclaimed in heaven and on earth, across the the earth and throughout the cosmos.

Far enough in Numbers 16

"Much to you"

There's an odd little idiom in Numbers 16, רב־לכם, rab lechem, "much to you", which seems to mean something like "you've gone far enough" or "that'll do". It's also in Deuteronomy (4x), 1 Kings (1x) and Ezekiel (3x).

In Numbers 16 it's first from the lips of the rebels: "You've gone far enough, Moses", and then in response Moses turns it back on them, "Yhwh can choose for himself; you've gone far enough, Korah."

"Too little for you?"

What's extra interesting is that where רב־לכם bookends the initial exchange (Num 16:3-7), there's a corresponding המעט מכם in 16:9 and just המעט in 16:13, which asks "is it too little [for you]?", that is, "is it not enough for you?"

In the first instance (Num 16:8-11) it's Moses asking if it's too little to be set aside as priests, while in the second (16:12-14) it's Korah's counterpoint, asking if it's too little for Moses to bring them into the wilderness and not into the land in order to kill them?

Framing

Like many instances of framing or bookending in the Hebrew Bible, these phrases aren't the first word or the last word of any paragraph, but their placement in these exchanges marks them off as structurally important.

That said, it can be at the actual beginning and end, as is the case with the second speech by Dathan and Abiram from the end of 16:12 to 16:14. The phrase לא נעלה, lo na'aleh, "we won't go up," is the first and last words of that speech, marking the beginning and ending of these words with their determination to not be subject to the adjudication.

But back to the two phrases which frame the two exchanges; they set up the hostility between these two groups, and ultimately it will be Yhwh who will adjudicate between them. I can't wait to find out what happens next!

 

Reflection on Psalm 95: a call to listen

Psalm 95 comes a third of the way into the Exodus psalms (90-106), and harkens back to a key moment in Israel’s wilderness wanderings – that point when the spies return from searching out the land but draw back in fear of the land. It is clearly a psalm of two halves, beginning with praise before applying the lesson learned in Exodus 17 and Numbers 14 to whatever the new situation requires.

95:1-7c

The psalm begins with four noisy verbs: praise, shout, “greet with acclaim”, and “shout with songs.” The first half ends with verbs not of noise but of action: worship, bow down, kneel down. To tie the beginning and end together further, it begins with “Yhwh, the rock of our salvation” and ends with “Yhwh our maker.” To be the saviour is not explained further, but maker is, as Yhwh is the great God, the great king, who holds the extremes of the earth and possesses the heights of the mountains; he made the sea and formed the dry ground.

Finally, to close off the first half, the phrase “his hand” occurs thrice, in v4, v5, and finally in v7, as “the sheep of his hand.” This causes us to reflect on his creating and guiding both macro and the micro, the impersonal and the personal.

95:7d-11

The second section of the psalm concludes somewhat abruptly, with a hanging oath phrase, “if they come to my rest…” which we might extrapolate to “they will never come to my rest,” or “so help me if they ever try to come to my rest,” – which is indeed what happened, as those who went up were slaughtered. We can see then that this psalm conflates two incidents: the arguments at Massah/Meribah in Exodus 17, and the rebellion in Numbers 14 after the spies returned. But these stories are tied together together in the similar diseased hearts that are apparent, with testing, trying, stray hearts, not knowing God’s ways.

But the key, holding it all together, in terms of application, is the near-homonyms which bookend this section: shema’ and sheva’, to hear his voice, and to heed his vow. To not hear his voice means he will fulfil his vow – and in this case it means to be destroyed, to be condemned to a generation-long wandering. But to heed his voice means to receive the promises, to enter his rest, to know Yhwh as both maker, but also as saviour.

This is a call to worship, to prayer, but also to listening. Listening means, in context, taking careful notice of the past. God has spoken clearly in the past, through word and deed. In his acts of creation in the beginning, and his acts of rescue in the wilderness. But also through his words of promise and his words of rebuke. We listen to God and take his warnings at face-value, not rejecting his ways, not testing him, but listening to him and to the one he has sent, our creator and our redeemer.

Psalm 95 as Christian Scripture

Reading this psalm as Christian Scripture, we aren’t seeking to tune in to hear God speak in a new and special way, but to listen to the words God has already spoken, which he still speaks today: words of creation, words of warning, words of redemption, words of guiding and guarding. We can see this especially in the use of this psalm in the NT, as the warning and encouragement is repeated to the people of the new covenant, so that they do not turn back or grumble or test God – that they do not harden their hearts. And it is this word—this promise/warning—which is living and active, sharper than a two-edged sword, dividing soul and marrow. It challenges us: do you worship? Do you praise? Do you listen? Do you know him in his mighty works? Do you know him as the great king above all gods? And do you listen to him as he speaks through his Son, the word become flesh, and he promises that all his sheep will hear his voice.

Psalm 94 - The God who takes notice

This psalm has four parts which explain the logic of the psalm

94:1 Heading: Yhwh is the avenging God

A 94:2-7 Problem: The wicked are unrestrained

B 94:8-19 Answer: Yhwh takes notice and will act

A' 94:20-23 Result: The wicked will be repaid

The wicked which encircle the suppliant also encircle the structure of the psalm. There are a few different words, such as רשׁע (rasha`, wicked 4x: 94:3,3,13,21); רע/רעה/רעע (ra', evil, 3x: 94:13 (evil days), 16 (evildoers), 23 (evil)); און (awon, iniquity 3x 94:4,16,23). They are clustered in 3-4, 13-16, 21-23), at the beginning and the end to explain the problem and hoped-for result, and in the centre to explain the context against which they call out to God for rescue. 

The description of God in this psalm is twofold. Firstly with reference to God's power and protection, Yhwh is an avenging God, he is the judge of the earth, he is a helper, the one who sustains, a stronghold and a rock of refuge (1-2, 17-18, 22)

Secondly, God is the teacher, the instructor, the one who sees and the one who knows (8-12). And this is where this psalm stands out. They scoff in v7, "Yah will not see us; the God of Jacob will not take notice." The response in v8-11 is an expansive retort, using the same verb בין (bin), "Take notice! ... Wise up! Does the one who made ears not hear, the one who formed the eye, does he not take notice?" 

Because he is the creator of the ears and eyes, to scoff "he will not notice" is to demonstrate a dangerous ignorance regarding the information gathering abilities and activities of Yhwh. The psalmist plays on the fluidity of the verb יסר (yasar, to instruct/warn/rebuke) to explain that the one who instructs nations  with knowledge also reproves them (10), but he also gives this to individuals, to the one who is thereby blessed (12). 

This all explains the way Yhwh cares for his people in the following verses, and in particular, in the context of evil. It is not a military victory that is explicitly promised, but a true knowledge of God and of the cosmos, which gives a calm, which soothes one's soul (v19). 

Is this an Exodus psalm?

I've been arguing that 90-106 (Book IV) is an Exodus collection. How then does this psalm work in that context? It does seem as if there is something of a flow, working through the Exodus story bit by bit, but here, it appears to jump forward to the giving of the law from 20-23, but especially the importance of the law in the context of evil as is described in Exodus 23:2, "Don't follow after the many in doing evil". Rather, be instructed by Yhwh to stand firm in his teaching (תורה, torah), v12 - this word providing the other link back. 

In this way, perhaps Psalm 94 is a hidden wisdom psalm rather than a psalm for rescue. For although the default desire is for divine intervention, in this psalm it is the instruction of Yhwh, which, even if not rescuing, enables one to stand firm despite the evil which encircles, which, if nothing else, is surely one of the key messages from the entire Exodus experience.

The Story of Hosea

I'm now in the thick of Hosea; I decided to spend a term teaching this book, which is all good and well, except the exciting part of the story finishes after only three chapters. And the third chapter is only 5 verses.

It's fairly well known for the story of Hosea, a prophet, who is commanded to marry an adulterous woman, Gomer, as a symbol of God's commitment to the unfaithful Israel. They have three children together: Jezreel, Lo-Ruhamah and Lo-Ammi, with all their names having important meanings.

To start off with, there are three important questions to establish:

1. What further use is made of the names after the initial naming?
2. What is the story told in chapters 1-3? Is it one continuous story, or two, or three?
3. How does the rest of the book (4-14) connect to the opening (1-3)?

I'll try to tackle these in order.

What further use is made of the names after the initial naming?

There are five names with meanings:

1. Hosea. From the verb ישע (yasha', to save). Yhwh will save his people.
2. Gomer. From the verb גמר (gamar, to finish). Yhwh is finished with his people.
3. Jezreel. From the verb זרע (zara', to sow). God will sow.
4. Lo-Ruhamah. From the particle לא (lo, not) and the verb רחם (racham, to have compassion). Yhwh will not have compassion.
5. Lo-Ammi. From the particle לא (lo, not) and the noun עם ('am, people). They are not Yhwh's people.

Hosea as a name is only mentioned thrice, and only in the first two verses. Twice in 1:7 the verb 'to save' appears (referring to Judah), but thereafter only three more times in the final two chapters.

Gomer as a name or verb never appears after her single mention in 1:3. She is alluded to as a woman of harlotry, as "she", as a wife, as a mother, but not her name. 

Jezreel turns up three times in the opening verses (1:4a,4b,5), recalling not the verb 'to sow' but the valley of bloodshed known as Jezreel. However at the end of chapter 2 (2:23-23) the verbal meaning is played upon in terms of a reversal. Two further times it occurs, in the famous 'sow the wind, reap the whirlwind' quote (8:7), and then in the exhortation to 'sow righteousness!' (10:12)

Lo-Ruhamah sounds more like a name, but the connection to comfort/mercy/compassion is easily missed. However, while this comes up both as a name and verb and reversal of the name nine times in the first two chapters, thereafter it only returns in the very final chapter (14:3) as the reversal of judgement means the orphans will find compassion.

Lo-Ammi is easily the most prolific of the names, with 'people' being regularly used in the first two chapters (6x) but also thereafter (13x). Of course, in contrast to the other names, it is much harder to avoid saying 'people', especially when this book is about the people of Israel. 

To summarise, with the exception of 'people', the names which are so important in the first chapter more or less disappear, with the least frequent four verbal roots only occurring a combined 7 times in the rest of the book. This could lead someone one of two ways. It could make you think, "oh, there's no way that Hosea 1-3 is written by the same person as Hosea 4-14." But their absence makes them almost more conspicuous. The avoidance of the otherwise common verbs "to save, to have mercy, to sow" seems more noteworthy than their appearance. This makes me think that their occurrences in 8:7; 10:12 (to sow); 13:4, 10; 14:3 (to save) and 14:3 again (to have mercy) are not accidental but deliberate.

What is the story told in chapters 1-3? Is it one continuous story, or two, or three?

My default is to read in a linear fashion:

1. God tells Hosea to marry Gomer.
2. Hosea marries Gomer and has kids
3. Gomer runs off
4. God tells Hosea to win her back
5. God instructs Hosea to purchase her 
6. Hosea marries Gomer and they live together "many days"

But it doesn't have to be that way. In particular, I can't see the plot really advancing any in chapter 2. Rather, it restates much of what was already said in chapter 1, and the positive conclusion in chapter 2 seems like part 2 of the conclusion to chapter 1. That would mean we have chapter 1-2 telling the same story, while chapter 3 gives us the next step.

The third possibility is that there's only one story, told in three different ways, with each chapter supplying information the others omitted. This hinges in part with the fourth word in chapter 3, 'again' (עוד, 'od). This could go with the preceding words, "Yhwh spoke to me again," potentially meaning "God told me yet again to go and marry Gomer". Alternatively it could go with what follows, "Yhwh said to me, 'Again go and marry Gomer'", because she has run off. Either reading works, and in the long run I don't think it matters, but the ambiguity is certainly fascinating.

How does the rest of the book (4-14) connect to the opening (1-3)?

I ask this question because I'd like to know. They really do seem disconnected, but I haven't yet done enough work to determine whether there is one "voice" throughout the book, or whether the distinctive sections betray distinct authors. I haven't really come across anyone who has discussed this in depth. Ultimately it doesn't matter too much, because we have the one book preserved for us and that's what we have to deal with. But it would still be nice to have some ideas about which came first, and what connections we should be seeing. All that is to come!

On the road with Jesus in Mark

Mark 8:27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”

Mark 9:33 They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?”

Mark 9:34 But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest.

Mark 10:17 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

Mark 10:32 They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way, and the disciples were astonished, while those who followed were afraid. Again he took the Twelve aside and told them what was going to happen to him.

Mark 10:52 “Go,” said Jesus, “your faith has healed you.” Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road. 

In the central panel of Mark's Gospel, 8:27–10:52, where thrice Jesus plainly tells his disciples what must happen to the Son of Man (suffer, die and be raised after three days), we have a repeated phrase to remind us what is going on. That is, it is not just the knowledge that Jesus must die (8:31; 9:30; 10:33-34), but that his path is set, there will be no deviation, but from here on in it is Jerusalem or bust.

In that sense, Mark 8:27–10:52 is Mark's long equivalent to Luke's 9:51:

Luke 9:51 As the time approached for him to be taken up to heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem.

Thrice in this section, Jesus three times tells his disciples that he must die, and six times (including the very first verse and very last words) we are told that he is on the road. This spatial information brackets as well as peppers this important section, which is only highlighted by the unique interaction with final suppliant, Bartimaeus. 

Bartimaeus is not the first blind man in Mark; the previous section similarly concluded with a blind man (8:22-26). They play a contrasting role to those who can see but are nonetheless blind to Jesus' identity. But where Bartimaeus stands out is he is the first suppliant who is permitted to follow Jesus, and to follow him "on the way" (10:52). He is then fulfilling what the disciples will prove to be unable to do, despite encouraging them to do so (8:34-38) and them assuring him of their willingness to do so (10:28).

But Bartimaeus will follow, because now is the time for Jesus' identity and mission to be made known, as he will presently do in his three trips to Jerusalem (11:1vv). He contrasts to all those Jesus forbade follow, and to the previous suppliant who was unwilling to follow because of his great wealth. 

This important section, highlighted by the repetition of "on the way", reinforces Jesus' mission. It challenges the reader to consider whether they are willing to follow Jesus, the Son of David, the Son of Man, the Son of God, counting their life as cursed, that by losing their life for him, they might truly gain it.

What is the word/the seed in Mark 4?

I'm preaching Mark 4:1-34 this Sunday. It's the parable of the soils, followed by a couple of parables explaining the kingdom of God. The parable of the soils talks a lot about "the word", but it's never explained. This is an attempt to explain what it might mean.

When you look at the many times "the word" (ὸ λογος) is in the New Testament, it's often translated in any way except "the word." It's message, thing, statement - usually something word related - but "the word" is undertranslated. Dr John Davies raised this point in an FBS seminar on Luke's use of λογος, which is really straightforward, but rarely commented on.

So what is "the word" which is sown in Mark 4? It's usually generalised to preaching generally about the kingdom, based on the parables which follow. But I think it's more specific than that.

In preparing for this series, I've enjoyed working through Peter Bolt's NSBT volume, "The Cross from a Distance", which reads the whole of Mark through the lens of atonement. He doesn't really go here (although he does have a footnote referencing N.T. Wright referencing McDonald, 1989), but there are a few things which made me think "the word" here is specifically the message of the cross.

Take for instance the parable of the seed growing quietly (4:26-29). The seed is not just "ripe" (EVV), it is "delivered over" or "betrayed". And it is not just picked, but the sickle is sent in (cf Joel 3:13).
The following parable, of the mustard seed (4:30-32), describes a seed, dead in the ground, which comes to life. This same image is used in 1 Corinthians 15:35-37 to describe the resurrection body.
Bringing it back to the parable of the soils, we can see that the first three soils each point to an element of Jesus' passion.

1. The footpath recalls the path Jesus took, as he was led to his crucifixion, mocked by the crowds (Mk 15:16-22).
2. The rocky soil (πετρώδης) reminds us of Πέτρος - Peter - who thrice withered under the heat of the questioning (Mk 14:66-72).
3. The thorns which choke the word (ἄκανθα) are reminiscent of the thorns which crowned Christ's head (Mk 15:17).

I know these, on their own, are a bit hard to connect, but with the context, and their colocation, I think it's fair to suggest something is being said here.

"The word" then is not a general message, nor is hearing about being generally better listeners. But the message is specifically the atonement and the resurrection, with this being the first of multiple calls to follow the son of man who will suffer, die, and then rise.

Structures in Mark 2-3

 I know I'm supposed to be an OT guy now, but I'm preaching through Mark until Easter, and I can't help myself. There are some things which stand out, and I haven't noticed elsewhere, but help me make sense of it much better. 

Jesus, Justify Yourself! Mark 2:1-3:6

Following Francis Moloney, who sees 2:1-3:6 as part of "Jesus and the Jews" (1:14-3:6), it makes sense to go back to the beginning of chapter 2 to make sense of the five scenes (and not just because there's a nice chiasm he identifies).

2:1-12 Justifying forgiving sins before healing, to show that the key ailment is spiritual rather than physical, which demonstrates he has God's power to forgive.

2:13-17 Justifying calling Levi and eating with his friends in order to show that he has come to call sinners, that everyone who recognises they are sick is welcome in the kingdom of God.

2:18-22 Justifying not fasting in order to demonstrate that these days are new and special days, that Jesus is now with them, but will be taken away.

2:23-28 Justifying picking grain on the Sabbath in order to explain that God made Sabbaths for people to enjoy, not people to keep Sabbaths.

3:1-6 Justifying healing on the Sabbath to show God's intention is to save life, in contrast to the Pharisees who are willing to team up with the Herodians in order to kill.

So we can see that each of these short anecdotes in Mark 2:1-3:6 are about Jesus vindicating his and his disciples' actions, and showing how spurious the claims are which will lead ultimately to his death, which his opponents' will from then on pursue (3:6).

Something changes when we hit the next section, and then there is another change when we hit chapter 4, so how does this intervening section work?

Who really understands Jesus? Mark 3:7-35

3:20-35 is seen to be a Markan Sandwich, but the sections before are a little less clear. 3:7-12 is viewed as a summary of the crowds, while 3:13-19 a summary of the disciples, now that all twelve have been called.

However, I’m always on the lookout for parallels. The parallels between 3:20-21 and 3:31-35 present themselves with not too much work, but the clearest one in 3:7-19 I’ve not seen mentioned. The parallel is actually less clear in the Greek than the English, which takes the idea of "his family" (3:21 EVV) from the second half of the sandwich, namely 3:31-32. In 3:21 it only has the ambiguous “οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ” (those with him), which, in light of 31-32 is interpreted as "his family".

For me, the noting of the locations in 3:7 and 3:13 tell us that we are supposed to read these stories together. 3:7 talks about the sea, while 3:13 has them on a mountain. Both pericopes involve groups of people coming together around Jesus; in 3:7-10 it is the crowd, described by their geographical origin, who are coming to him to be healed, while in 3:13-19 his disciples are mentioned by name (and occasionally a little more information).

This leaves in the centre (3:11-12) the description of the behaviour of the unclean spirits, who alone understand and declare who Jesus is, “You are the Son of God.” Compare this with the centre of 3:20-35, namely 3:22-27, likewise a discussion of unclean spirits.

The question dominating these two pericopes (3:7-19; 3:20-35) is, “Who really understands Jesus?” The spirits alone truly understand who Jesus is, and the threat he poses to them. His family on the other hand think he’s crazy, thereby showing they aren’t truly his family; rather it’s whoever obeys God.

Interestingly, the phrase in the beginning which draws the crowd to him is “what he was doing” (ὅσα ἐποίει, 3:8); who is Jesus’ family at the end? “Whoever does the will of God.” (ὃς ἂν ποιήσῃ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, 3:35). Jesus is doing the will of God, so he is the one they should follow.

I'm not sure whether this way of making sense of this section Mark 3:7-35 has been raised before, but with the ποιεω inclusio bracketing the two Markan Sandwiches centring on spirits, this seems a coherent way of understanding what's going on.

Getting behind Jesus in Mark

Ὸπίσω in Mark's first call narrative

We're in Mark for the next term, and I noticed something interesting with the preposition ὀπίσω (behind) in 1:17, 20. It occurs twice in the calling of the first disciples (1:16-20), once with each set of brothers. What I found interesting is that it occupies two different places in each calling, whereas it could easily have been within one or even both callings. 

The first time is in Jesus' call to Simon and Andrew, where he says to come "behind me", and their response is to follow (ὰκολουθέω) him: 

16-18 And going along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon, casting into the sea, for they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them, “Come behind me, and I will make you become fishers of men.” And immediately leaving their nets, they followed him.

Ὸπίσω is in the call, but not in response. This contrasts with the second call, to James and John, where there is no speech, simply a report that he called them, and the response that they followed behind him:

19-20 And going on a little, he saw James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, and they were in the boat fixing the nets. And immediately he called them. And, leaving their father Zebedee in the boat with the workers, they departed behind him. 

It would have been easy enough to include ὀπίσω in the response in the first instance, or in the call in the second. Instead, what we in effect have is a bracketing together of the two calls of the two pairs of fishing brothers, the call with ὀπίσω in the first being concluded by the response with ὀπίσω in the second. 

Ὸπίσω elsewhere in Mark

Apart from the one time ὀπίσω occurs as an adjective (13:16), it occurs thrice outside of the call narrative. The first is in the introduction (1:7) as Jesus is previewed as the one who will come after John (ἔρχεται ... ὀπίσω μου). If we are able to link this with the calling of the disciples a paragraph later, then John is introducing Jesus as his disciple, albeit the disciple who will become the master. The cluster (if thrice within a chapter can be called a cluster) in the opening of the Gospel indicates that Jesus is to be followed rather than simply learned from.

The other uses of ὀπίσω are found around the turning point of Mark; twice in 8:33-34. This is the paragraph where Peter announces he believes Jesus to be the messiah, and where Jesus details what must happen to the Son of Man. Peter's defence of Jesus quickly leads to a rebuke, as he is told "Get behind me, Satan!" (ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου, σατανᾶ). This is then quickly turned into a teaching point, as he describes to his disciples the life of the one who "wishes to come after me" (θέλει ὀπίσω μου  ἀκολουθεῖν). 

Thinking through ὀπίσω in terms of discipleship, following on from chapter 1, indicates that this odd use of ὀπίσω both for Peter/Satan (8:33) and for true disciples (8:34) might be better understood together rather than separately. That is, for Peter to be told to "get behind me" might be not so much as a dismissal (go away from me) as a command to situate himself in the correct position (follow after me). Peter's problem was that he had gone out in front, trying to tell Jesus what to do, rather than behaving rightly as his disciple: following, learning and listening. 

That was his original calling (1:17) and to that he must return in order to be an authentic disciple of Jesus. 

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.