Albright insisted that Balaam was an ‘Edomite sage’
Part Two (i):
Albright insisted that Balaam was an ‘Edomite
sage’
by
Damien F. Mackey
“Balaam was an ancient Edomite sage”.
W. F. Albright
Interestingly,
though, Albright does not proceed on in this article (“The Home
of Balaam”, Jstor, 1915) to connect “Balaam
son of Beor” (Numbers 22:5) - as do some commentators - with “Bela son of Beor”, who “became king of Edom” (Genesis 36:31).
James B. Jordan
is one who has proposed such a connection, whilst in the same article including
the prophet job amongst the list of Edomite kings (“Was Job an Edomite King?
(Part 2)”, 2000).
Job very much
was not!
According to my
version of the prophet:
Job's Life and Times
Job was
Israelite, not Edomite, and Job would have lived almost a millennium after
Balaam and the Edomite king, Jobab, with whom Jordan hopes to identify Job.
Jordan has
written on this Genesis 36 list of Edomite kings: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-131-was-job-an-edomite-king-part-2/
Was Job Jobab?
To begin with.
Genesis 36:33 tells us that the second named king of Edom was "Jobab, son
of Zerah, from Bozrah." There are two differences between this man’s name
and that of Job. Dropping the vowel marks because they are not part of the
original text, in Hebrew they are spelled ywvv and ‘ywv. Job’s
name begins with an aleph (‘), and the Edomite king’s name does not, but has an
extra beth (v) at the end.
There is a second
problem. The name Job pretty clearly means "Persecuted," but the
meaning of Jobab is unknown.
Yet, the problem
may not be as great as it seems to us. First of all, we have the ancient
testimony, which indicates that people familiar with the Hebrew and Semitic
languages could readily think that these were variants of the same name.
Second, the aleph that begins the name of Job is sometimes placed there simply
to make the vowel sound more forcefully, and thus is not always a necessary part
of the word when it comes at the beginning. The Edomite king’s name is
pronounced "Yovav" while Job’s name is pronounced "Eeyov,"
both bisyllabic words. Moreover, converting the name "Yovav" to
"Persecuted" ("Eeyov") is easy, and fits the purpose of the
author of Job.
All the same, if
all we have to go on is the names there is not enough evidence to form any
hypothesis. Still, since Job was an Edomite ruler, and since the names are
similar, it is easy to understand why the ancient Jews made this association.
We can perhaps
tease out from the text a bit more information that will help place Job in
time, and strengthen the Job-Jobab hypothesis a wee bit (but only a wee bit).
Genesis 36:31-39 provides us a list of seven kings over Edom, followed by an
eighth.
- Bela ben Beor from Dinhabah
- Jobab ben Zerah from Bozrah
- Husham from Teman
- Hadad ben Bedad from Avith
- Samlah from Masrekah
- Saul from Rehoboth
- Baal-Hanan ben Achbor
- Hadar/d from Pau
The eight[h] is
Hadar or Hadad (spelled this way in many versions; the Hebrew D and R are
written almost exactly alike). This person is almost certainly the Hadad who
fled to Egypt as a child when David conquered Edom, and who then liberated Edom
from Solomon later on (1 Kings 11:14-22). Hadad married the sister of Pharaoh’s
wife, but her name is not given – just as Solomon had married a daughter of
Pharaoh. In Genesis 36:39, Hadad’s wife is named, and her lineage.
Mackey’s comment: I have also
concluded somewhere that 8. Hadad is the same as the Hadad of 1 Kings 11:14-25.
Jordan continues:
The wives of the
preceding seven Edomite kings are not named. We notice that in the Kingdom Era,
the wives of the kings of Judah are given (as the name of the mother of the
next king; cp. 1 Kings 11:20), while the wives of the judges in the preceding
Sinaitic Era are not.
Putting Genesis 36
together with 1 Kings 11, we see Edom as having a week of kings, and then
undergoing death and resurrection, followed by a new line of kings. The earlier
kings were not a dynasty, but were elected from various cities and locations;
while the later kings were descended from Hadad (I Kings 11:20, by
implication). Parallel to this, there were seven elected judges in the book of
Judges (Othniel, Ehud, Deborah, Gideon, Abimelech, Jephthah, and Samson),
followed by a death of Israel when the Tabernacle was taken apart in the days
of Samuel, followed by a resurrection with David, who began a dynasty, and
whose son put the Tabernacle back together as the Temple. But the seven judges
of Israel are not called kings, while their contemporaries in Edom are called
kings, according to the rule that the wicked get their inheritance first and
then lose it, while the righteous get theirs last and keep it (Genesis 36:31).
(See the Note 1 at the end of this essay.)
What is the
chronology of the first seven Edomite kings? We cannot know for certain, but
there are clues that enable us to sketch out the most likely possibility. To
begin at the end, the last king before Hadad was Baal-Hanan. We can assume that
he was the king conquered by David. His predecessor was named Saul (spelled
Shaul in many Bibles, but identical in Hebrew). We shall assume that the
Edomite Saul was a contemporary with the wicked Saul who ruled Israel.
The fifth king was
Samlah, and the fourth was Hadad ben Bedad. This Hadad "smote Midian in
the field of Moab" (Genesis 36:35). Now, in Judges we read that Gideon
liberated Israel from Midian (Judges 6-8). It seems very likely that these
events are linked somehow. It is typical of the Edomites to fall upon a
defeated nation and despoil it. The Amalekite Edomites were on their way to
take over Egypt as the "Shepherd Kings" when they met Israel coming
out of Egypt (Exodus 17). We find the same pattern in Obadiah 10-14 and Psalm
137. Thus, it seems likely that after Gideon defeated and drove out the
Midianites, the Edomites under Hadad ben Bedad fell upon them and conquered
them.
The third Edomite
king was Husham, the second was Jobab, and the first was Bela son of Beor. I
suggest that this Bela is to be linked with Balaam son of Beor (Numbers 22:5).
We know that there were already kings in Edom at this time, because one such
king denied Moses passage through his territory (Numbers 20:14-21). If this
king was Bela son of Beor, Balaam would possibly be his brother.
The name Bela is
written bela` while the name Balaam is written bil`am. The E in
Bela is short, and could easily shorten further to an I if the name is
extended, as it is in the name Bilam: Bela is accented on the first syllable,
while Bil`am is accented on the second, after a break in sound. Thus, it is
entirely possible that Bela and Balaam are the same person. The name seems to
be a shortened form of Baal, which means "lord, husband, eater."
Bela, as first king of Edom, would be "Lord/Husband/Eater," while
Balaam means "Lord/Husband/Eater of a People." (Compare the
Babylonian god Bel with the Canaanite god Baal for a similar association.) The
lord of a people is their husband, and "eats" them into himself as a
body politic, as part of his body. (See Note 2 at the end of this essay.)
Whether Bela and
Balaam were the same person or not, the fact that they are both sons of Beor,
the only mention of any "Beor" in the Bible, indicates the strong
possibility that they were at least brothers, and thus contemporaries.
Now, the king list
of Edom is clearly not complete. There was already a king over Edom in the days
of Moses, and we have suggested that he was Bela son of Beor. Eight kings are
not enough to cover the entire 480 or so years between the end of the
wilderness wanderings and the latter part of Solomon’s reign. Some kings are
not included in the list so that we have a "complete" list of seven
kings.
But if Bela was
king is Moses’ day, and Jobab came soon after him, or immediately after him,
Jobab would be king in the days of Joshua. Jobab would have had opportunity to
encounter Moses and God’s priestly nation in the wilderness, and might have
been converted at that time. Moses’ command in Deuteronomy 23:7-8 indicates
that some Edomites were indeed seeking to join Israel during this period.
If this Jobab were
the same Edomite ruler as Job, then such an encounter would explain two things.
First, it would explain how Jobab and others in his area came to a knowledge of
the true religion. Second, it would explain how the Israelites came to know the
story of Job.
We can advance our
hypothesis one further step. Jobab was son of Zerah, and the only Zerah
mentioned in Genesis 36 is the son of Reuel, son of Esau (36:13). This Zerah
may or may not have been Jobab’s father. Esau married Reuel’s mother, the
daughter of Ishmael, a generation after he married his first two wives (Genesis
26:34; 28:8-9). If Reuel was born many years later, we can put his birth at
about the time Israel descended into Egypt, or shortly earlier. Remembering
that Moses’ mother Jochebed was born to Levi after that son of Jacob had moved
to Egypt (Numbers 26:59), Reuel’s son Zerah might be a younger contemporary of
Jochebed, and thus Jobab might be a younger contemporary of Moses.
Now, assume that
Bela and Balaam are the same person. Moses put this man to death right at the
end of the wilderness wanderings (Numbers 31:8 — and the mention of Balaam the
son of Beor alongside five kings of Midian heightens the possibility that
Balaam was Bela, king of Edom). At that point, then, Jobab the son of Zerah
would have become king of Edom.
Of course, it must
be granted immediately that (a) this hypothetical chronology might not be
correct; (b) even if it is correct, Jobab might not have succeeded Bela
immediately; (c) Jobab might not be Job; and (d) the experiences of Job might
have become known to the Israelites at any time during the period of the
Judges. Hard and fast proof of my suggested reconstruction is not available.
[End
of quote]
Having Balaam as an Edomite, which
ethnicity for Balaam I also prefer, does lead one into some rather tricky
geographical considerations.
I shall be
considering all of that next.
Balaam was not in Edom
when Balak of Moab summoned him
If “Balaam was an ancient Edomite sage”, as according to W. F. Albright,
then why does king Balak of Moab send for Balaam in
Syrian Mesopotamia?
Numbers 22:4-5: “So
Balak son of Zippor, who was king of Moab at that time, sent messengers to summon Balaam son of Beor, who was at Pethor,
near the Euphrates River, in his native land”.
וּבָלָק בֶּן-צִפּוֹר מֶלֶךְ לְמוֹאָב, בָּעֵת
הַהִוא
וַיִּשְׁלַח מַלְאָכִים אֶל-בִּלְעָם
בֶּן-בְּעֹר, פְּתוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר עַל-הַנָּהָר אֶרֶץ בְּנֵי-עַמּוֹ
According to
various commentators, this “Pethor, near the Euphrates River” was the same as
Pitru near Carchemish. E.g.:
“According to Shalm[a]neser
III [king of Assyria], Pethor, or Pitru was located at the
confluence of the Sajur and the Euphrates, just east of present-day Aamârné,
Syria, some 11 miles S of Carchemish (around 36°40’4″N, 38° 5’23″E)”.
In Numbers
23:7, Balaam says specifically: ‘Balak brought me from Aram …’.
Commenting on
this, Albright writes (“The Home of Balaam”): “Balaam was an ancient Edomite sage.
The reading Aram in Num. 23,
7 is simply a corruption of Edom,
a confusion which is common in the OT”.
However, just
because Balaam was to be found in the northern Syrian region of Carchemish (if
indeed he was) at the time of king Balak’s need does not necessitate that this
was the region from where Balaam actually hailed – unless if, as above, אֶרֶץ
בְּנֵי-עַמּוֹ is to be translated
as “in his native land” (and near the Euphrates River).
No more was
Amos – {who, before he was found prophesying at Bethel (Amos 7:13), was “among the herd[s]men of Tekoa”,הָיָה בַנֹּקְדִים מִתְּקוֹעַ} - actually from Tekoa. He could not have been because he was “a
dresser of sycamore-trees” which did not flourish in Tekoa. Amos, whom I have
identified as the prophet Micah (“Amos redivivus”),
from Moresheth-Gath (a region favourable to sycamores):
Prophet Micah as Amos
constantly
moved around, following sheep herds.
And
Balaam, too, a venal prophet for hire, moved around to wherever he found the
best offer.
The
venality of Balaam is attested in both 2 Peter
2:15 and in Jude
1:11 wherein Balaam figures as an example of a false prophet motivated by greed
or avarice.
The
cosmopolitan aspect of Balaam is attested by his naming of far-flung peoples/places
in his famous prophecy in Numbers 24: “Amalek” (v. 20); “Kenites” (v. 21); “Ashur”
(v. 22); “Cyprus” [?] (v. 24); “Eber” (v. 24).
In
favour of a northern location of Balaam at the time of his call by king Balak
of Moab, rather than an Edomite location, are:
- mention of “the River” הַנָּהָר (Numbers 22:5), unqualified, which fits well with the Euphrates, but no river in arid Edom (e.g. Wadi Zered) would likely be presented in an unqualified fashion;
- the fact that Balaam meets the king of Moab on the king’s northern border (22:36): “And when Balak heard that Balaam was come, he went out to meet him unto Ir-moab, which is on the border of Arnon, which is in the utmost part of the border”, would indicate that the prophet was coming from a northerly direction, not from Edom to the south.
As to the seemingly problematical
(for my theory) אֶרֶץ בְּנֵי-עַמּוֹ if to be translated as “in his native land” (and near the
Euphrates River), Timothy
R. Ashley refers to the great professor A. S. Yahuda’s interpretation of this bene ‘ammo as apparently pertaining to a
northern location (The Book of Numbers, p.
446): “Others concur with A. S. Yahuda
in pointing the Hebrew consonants 'mw
as 'amû or 'amaw, which is a place-name, located by Yahuda in northern
Mesopotomia …. A fifteenth-century BC [sic] inscription from Alalakh refers to
Amau as a territory between Aleppo and Carchemish”.
Comments