CANDLER SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

EMORY UNIVERSITY

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

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

SUBMITTED TO DR. JACOB L. WRIGHT

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
BL 611R: THE BOOK OF NUMBERS

BY
MATTHEW A. LEE
DECEMBER 15, 2014

CONTENTS

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

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ ..................... 1
BALAAM SON OF BEOR .......................................................................... ..................... 3
In the Deir Alla Tradition

Additional References in the Hebrew Bible

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

The Donkey as Protagonist

22.22

22.23-30

10

Thematic Structure and Balaams Donkey

14

The First Role Reversal

14

The Second Role Reversal

15

The Messenger as Protagonist

17

22.31-35

17

Thematic Structure and Balaams Donkey

20

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

Summary

23

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 24
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 26

ii

ABBREVIATIONS

AB
B.C.E.
BDB
BJS
Chr
D
Deut
Dtr
DtrH
EBib
ErIsr
Exod
HACL
HB
Heb
HSM
J
JAOS
JBL
Josh
JPS
JSOTSup
KTU
LXX
Mic
Neh
NICOT
NIV
NRSV
Num
OTL
P
Prov
PTMS
RB
SBLSCS
WANE
Zech

Anchor Bible
Before Common Era
Brown, F., S. Driver, and C. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs
Hebrew and English Lexicon. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and
Company, 1906. Repr., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2008.
Brown Judaic Studies
1-2 Chronicles
Deuteronomist
Deuteronomy
Deuteronomistic Historian
Deuteronomistic History
Etudes bibliques
Eretz-Israel
Exodus
History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant
Hebrew Bible
Hebrew
Harvard Semitic Monographs
Yahwist source
Journal of the American Oriental Society
Journal of Biblical Literature
Joshua
Jewish Publication Society
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series
Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit
Septuagint
Micah
Nehemiah
New International Commentary on the Old Testament
New International Version
New Revised Standard Version
Numbers
Old Testament Library
Priestly source
Proverbs
Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series
Revue biblique
Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Series
Writings from the Ancient Near East
Zechariah

iii

INTRODUCTION

I have come to you now, but do I have the power to say just anything? The word
God puts in my mouth, that is what I must say.
Num 22.381
Balaam, son of Beor, is undoubtedly one of the most perplexing figures of the biblical tradition.
His origins are uncertain and the reasons for his prominence in the book of Numbers are vague.
Much attention has been devoted to the Balaam pericope in Num 22-24 and even more so to the
episode of the donkey in Num 22.22-35. Source critics have proposed a wide range of
hypotheses; redaction critics have mulled over the location of the episode within the narrative;
and yet the episode remains contentious in biblical scholarship.
Set between the departure from Sinai and conquest of the Transjordan, the Balaam
narrative as a whole draws on a particular theme: the instance that Balaam utters only the words
that the Lord gives him underlines the inspiration and authority of Balaams visions of Israels
future. This same point runs throughout the cryptic story of Balaam, the donkey, and the
messenger of the Lord.2 Furthermore, with respect to the location of the episode of the donkey,
the words of Balaam, as quoted above, can be understood as somewhat of a driving force behind
the Balaam narrative. In other words, the function of the Num 22.22-35, as I will argue, is to set
forth the exclusivity of the word of the Lord. When analyzing the text, it will be important to
examine how the episode functions within, as this will allow one to recognize its significance
and portrayal of Balaam; but also, it will be necessary to make note of reference to Balaam
1

All scripture references are taken from the NRSV.

Gordon J. Wenham, Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Pentateuch (vol. 1 of Exploring the Old
Testament; ed. Gordon McConville; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 114-115. Wenham gives a good,
concise diagram of the structure in Num 22-24.
2

outside of the Balaam pericope, whether similar or different. While scholarly consensus on the
dating of verses 22-35 is indefinite at best, the episode can be best understood, I contend, as
corresponding to the narrative preceding and following.
Thus, in the course of this paper, I will demonstrate that Num 22.22-35 is situated
perfectly within the narrative to function as a literary progression of Balaams character. In doing
so, I will discuss the significance of the Balaam tradition and the Transjordanian Deir Alla
inscription, and references to Balaam elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Num 31.8, 16; Deut 23.45; Josh 13.22; 24.9-10; Mic 6.5; and Neh 13.2). Furthermore, when engaging the episode of the
donkey, I will suggest breaking apart the text, rather than exhausting verses 22-35 collectively,
which will allow the reader to appreciate the biblical humor, thematic structure, and the role
reversals between Balaam and his donkey, which can be linked to other ancient Near Eastern
texts.
In breaking apart the text, one will see how the episode progresses from the story from
the verses prior, and how later biblical contributors redacted verse 22 to capitalize on their
attempt of viewing Balaam in a negative light, as do most other later biblical references.
Moreover, while Balaam is depicted as the protagonist in the preceding narrative, the episode of
the donkey replaces Balaam as the protagonist with, first, the donkey and, second, the messenger
of the Lord. This reversal in literary function will serve to portray Balaam as being utilized by
the Lord just prior to his oracles, but even more so, prior to the verse quoted above: I have come
to you now, but do I have the power to say just anything? The word God puts in my mouth, that
is what I must say.

BALAAM SON OF BEOR

In the Deir Alla Tradition

Hendricus Jacobus Frankens discovery and excavation of the Deir Alla inscription in 1967 in
the Jordan Valley has been a significant supplement to the study of Num 22-24.3 The inscription
has been dated to the eighth-century B.C.E. and clearly is written in a Northwest Semitic
language: whether the Transjordanian dialect is more closely related to Aramaic or a
Hebrew/Canaanite dialect remains up for debate. Regardless, the text relates the story of Balaam,
son of Beor, a seer of the gods, who received a prophecy from the gods telling of their
discontent with human events. But it is uncertain whether this Transjordanian Balaam can be
directly linked with the Balaam found in Num 22-24. I contend, however, there is enough
evidence to place the episode of the donkey earlier with the preceding narrative, rather than later.
Not only does Balaam identify himself with the adday (Num 24.4, 16), but also there are
remarkable literary parallels between Num 22-24 and the Deir Alla text.
In his third and fourth oracles (Num 24), which are generally considered older than the
first two, Balaam refers to himself as the one who sees the vision of the Almighty, which is the
traditional interpretation of adday (). In line 5 of the Deir Alla text, Balaam responds to the
peoples inquiry: Sit down! I will tell you what the adda[yyin have done.] Now, come, see the
words of the gods!4 Because the references to Balaam in Num 22-24 account for his association
3

Victor H. Matthews and Don C. Benjamin, Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient
Near East (3d ed.; New York: Paulist Press, 2006), 131. For other translations and commentaries on the Deir Alla
inscription, see Jo Ann Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir All (HSM 31; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980);
Martti Nissinen Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East (vol. 12 of Writing from the Ancient Near East; ed.
Peter Machinist; Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003); Kenneth C. Way, Donkeys in the Biblical
World: Ceremony and Symbol (HACL 2; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011); Baruch A. Levine, Review
Article: The Deir Alla Inscriptions, JAOS 101 (1981): 195-205; Baruch A. Levine, Numbers 21-36: A New
Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 4A; New York: Doubleday, 2000).
4
Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir All, 29.

with the adday and depict him in a similar manner to that of the Deir Alla text, it is certainly
plausible that common traditions regarding Balaam were shared between the two. Likewise,
since there are nearly no introductions to Balaam in the biblical text, it appears this foreign seer
was well known to the people to whom the Deir Alla inscription was addressed and had a
tradition of long standing amongst the ancient Near East.5
The similarities between the Balaam narrative and, especially, the episode of the donkey
further show the agreement between the two traditions. Depictions of a role reversal and
donkeys arise in both the Deir Alla text and the episode of the donkey (discussed on pp. 14-16).
Many scholars draw attention to the motif in the Deir Alla text of the world upside down with
reference to animal activity, especially the weaker animal threatening the stronger, for example:
the swallow reproaches the eagle (lines 7-8).6 In a similar manner, both the Deir Alla text and
Num 22-24 contain donkeys and unusual animal activity. While a wide range of ancient Near
Eastern texts contained these phenomena, the talking animals in the Balaam traditions are unique
because they provide the only specific example of this phenomenon in the category of prophetic
texts.7

Additional References in the Hebrew Bible

Aside from the Balaam narrative in Num 22-24, the Hebrew Bible contains one other favorable
view of Balaam, which is found in Mic 6.5. If one is to accept that (the majority of) chapters 1-3
are authentic, this puts the reference to Balaam as a later addition to the book. But how much
later? Gary A. Rendsburg, in presenting his list of sources and dates of Israelian Hebrew, places

Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir All, 125.

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

Mic 6-7 in the middle monarchic period (ca. 860-720 B.C.E.).8 If one agrees with Rendsburg, the
episode of the donkey must not necessarily be a later addition to the textindeed it may also
date to around the same time of the Deir Alla text. However, scholarly consensuses, if any, over
the dating of the book are loose; redaction critics have put forth an astonishing number of
hypotheses regarding this matter. Thus, it is uncertain as to why one reads the favorable view of
Balaam in Micah, but I do not believe any implications can be drawn from this reference with
regards to the narrative in Numbers.
The remaining references to Balaam are generally regarded as negative. In Deuteronomy,
Balaam is presented as being ignored by God, who turns the curse into a blessing (Deut 23.4-5).
Following Deuteronomy comes the references in Joshua. In Josh 13.22, Balaam the diviner is
killed with the sword, and later in 24.9-10, the references continue the depiction in
Deuteronomy.9 Similarly, Neh 13.2 again reminds the reader of Balaam being hired to curse the
Israelites and the cursing turning into a blessing. And the last references to Balaam are found
within Numbers, in 31.8, 16, in which Balaam is the one responsible for the defection of the
Israelites vis--vis their affair with the Midianite women.
Such negative references call to attention the dating of these works, which assists in
determining why Balaam is presented in a favorable light in Num 22-24. In chapters 1-3, the
prologue in Deuteronomy, Balaam is not once mentioned. One would think that if Deut 23.4-5
belonged to the D compilation used by Dtr, then mention of Balaam in the prologue would most

Gary A. Rendsburg, Northern Hebrew through Time: From the Song of Deborah to the Mishnah, in
Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew (ed. Cynthia Miller-Naud and Ziony Zevit; vol. 8 of Linguistic Studies in Ancient
West Semitic, ed. Cynthia Miller-Naud and Jacobus A. Naud; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 339-359.
9
John Van Seters, From Faithful Prophet to Villain: Observations on the Tradition History of the Balaam
Story, in A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and Content: Essays in Honor of George W. Coats (ed.
Eugene E. Carpenter; JSOTSup 240; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 126-132. Seters argues that Josh
13.22 is a P text and that 24.9-10 is from the hand of J, which, for him, is in full connection with the story in Num
22-24 (other than 22.22-35) as Js work, but he places J later than DtrH.

likely occur, which points to a later date than perhaps expectedon this matter, John Van
Seeters suggests, This is confirmed by its clear reference to the Second Temple situation
dealing with foreign participation in Israels worship. This is how the law is used in Neh 13.2
where it is quoted verbatim. Both references clearly belong to this late Persian context.10 By
utilizing the vocabulary of Deuteronomy, the material in Joshua further expands the negative
view of Balaam by stating that God did not even listen to Balaam. And finally, reference to
Balaam in Num 31 and the war with the Midianites is regarded by most to be entirely a Priestly
account, most likely being exilic. Moreover, it appears all other negative references to Balaam in
the Hebrew Bible can be regarded as later than the Balaam narrative in Num 22-24, which, as I
have discussed, holds similarities with the Deir Alla inscriptions account of the well known
Balaam of the eighth-century B.C.E.

BALAAM, THE DONKEY, AND THE MESSENGER OF THE LORD

Full of ambiguity and obscurity yet irony and humor, the episode of the donkey is most generally
regarded as a single unit; that is, many commentators exhaust verses 22-35 collectively. Rather,
when dealing with this passage, it is important to understand how the narrative functions within
itself, as this will allow for a better understanding of why this passage stands in its present
context. Therefore, to assist in highlighting the purpose of the overall unit of the text, the passage
will be discussed in separate sections: verse 22; verses 23-30, which comprise the narratives
presentation of the personified donkey as protagonist and Balaam as antagonist; and verses 3135, which present the messenger of the Lord as protagonist and Balaam, still, as the antagonist,

10

Van Seeters, From Faithful Prophet to Villain, 129.

but reimagines the Balaams character. Furthermore, I will discuss the recurring thematic
structure in each of the sections and precisely how the role of Balaams donkey serves its
purpose in the narrative, as this will inform ones understanding of the purpose of the episode of
the donkey within the narrative of Numbers.

The Donkey as Protagonist

22.22
The episode in which Balaam is ridiculed begins with a rather involved verse (v. 22), one that is
troublesome and complicates ones reading of the Balaam narrative. Two verses prior, one reads
that God came to Balaam with instructions: If the men have come to summon you, get up and
go with them; but do only what I tell you to do (v. 20). However, this episode begins by
informing the reader that God was angry because he (Balaam) was going. It is generally agreed
that the episode of the donkey begins with verse 22, as opposed to verse 21: So Balaam got up
in the morning, saddled his donkey, and went with the officials of Moab. As suggested by
Hedwige Rouillard, an analysis of composition as well as vocabulary favors this view that the
postscript in verse 21 concludes the previous section; the postscript is worded similarly to
postscripts elsewhere in the story of Balaam () .11
The way in which verse 21 concludes prior to the episode of the donkey anticipates
perhaps a positive view of Balaam. As noted by several scholars, the choice of language is
striking and very similar to the language used when Abraham is told by God to sacrifice his son

11

Hedwige Rouillard, La Pricope de Balaam (EBib 4; Paris: Lecoffre, 1985), 115-121. See also Levine,
Numbers 21-36, 153. It is interesting that other translations separate these two sections: cf. JPS, NIV, and several
others. For similar postscripts, see Num 24.25 and 22.35b: .

Isaac:12 So Abraham rose early in the next morning, saddled his donkey, and took two of his
young men ( )with him In Probing the Frontiers of Biblical Studies, Rev. Dr. Anthony
Petrotta makes note of Hasidic interpreters and the distinction they made given the similarity in
language between the stories of Abraham and Balaam: Whereas God did not permit Abraham to
carry out his act even though Abraham was instructed to do so, how much less would God be
willing to allow Balaam to succeed when Balaam is opposing Gods will?13 However, whether
or not Balaam is opposing God is never explicitly made clear in the narrative.
But the reader is still left wondering why verse 22 sharply contradicts verse 20. One may
notice the use of the pronoun he in verse 22, rather than again using Balaams name:

Gods anger was kindled because he was going.
On this matter, Baruch Levine suggests that, by replacing the proper name with the pronoun he
(), the redactor(s) (responsible for one of the possible two sources in the preceding narrative)
made Balaam in verse 21 the antecedent of he in verse 22,14 which, for the redactor, would
allow for a better transition within the narrative. Thus, it may be said that verse 22a is a
secondary addition to the episode and, particularly, to verse 22. This addition would further serve
the redactors intent in casting a negative light onto Balaam, even before the interaction begins
with the donkey and the messenger. Furthermore, verse 22b begins with a verb in the hitpael
stem (), which is the reflexive-reciprocal counterpart of the piel stem, and often expresses
result. With this in mind, it would seem that the messenger of the Lord took his stand in the

12

J. Harold Ellens and John T. Greene, eds., Probing the Frontiers of Biblical Studies (PTMS 111;
Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2009), 290. David Marcus, From Balaam to Jonah: Anti-prophetic Satire in the Hebrew
Bible (BJS 301; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995), 37-39.
13
Ellens and Greene, Probing the Frontiers of Biblical Studies, 290.
14
Levine, Numbers 21-36, 153.

road as his adversary15 as a result of Balaam saddling his donkey and going, which would
certainly allow for a smooth insertion of the text. This view would additionally propose a
solution as to why the divine name in verse 22a is not Yahweh, such as elsewhere in the
episode of the donkey.
Continuing with the opening verse, one reads: He [Balaam] was riding on the donkey,
and his two servants were with him. That one reads previously in verse 21 of Balaam saddling
his donkey makes this part of the verse seem repetitive and out of the ordinary, since the reader
was already made aware of this detail previously. It appears the rest of verse 22 (above) may
have also been added solely to suggest that Balaam was riding with his servants. Earlier in the
chapter, one reads that Balak sent messengers ( )to Balaam (v. 5); that the elders of
Moab and the elders of Midian ( ) departed (v. 7); that Balaam spoke to the
princes ( )of Balak (v. 13); and that the princes of Moab ( ) rose and went to
Balak (v. 14). Despite the variety in terminology, the redactor(s) made it a point to replace these
designations with servants ( )in verse 22c. And to jointly connect with the narrative, the
detail of Balaam riding on his donkey is repeated. Thus, these messengers, which are given
different titles yet are clearly more prestigious, are replaced here by mere servants.16
What remains in verse 22 is the description of the messenger of the Lord standing in
Balaams way, which, as I mentioned above, employs a hitpael verb. The episode beginning in
this manner will account for the overall purpose of the episode of the donkey being in its present
context. Moreover, the central part of the verse (22b) is most important and is, as I contend,
original to the episode, and it informs the reader of the opening detail in the story: that the
15

Because of the scene depicted in the narrative, I prefer messenger rather than angel as the translation
of , as it makes the character of Yahweh (the messenger of Yahweh) seem more pragmatic and gives him more
of a central role in the narrative. For more on , see BDB 521.
16
Peggy L. Day, An Adversary in Heaven: n in the Hebrew Bible (HSM 43; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars
Press, 1988.

messenger of the Lord takes his stand in the road as his adversary (). This is the only
occurrence in the Hebrew Bible where the messenger of the Lord is designated as an adversary in
this sense. However, it is critical to note that the noun has no definite article nor is it used as a
proper noun; rather, it is used as a functional concept to describe the one who intercedes on
behalf of the Lord.17 The messenger of the Lord is thus one who will play a significant role in
this episode.
But it is unclear why the messenger has taken a stand in the road. After the addition onto
the verse, the reader is informed that God became angry because of Balaam going, but the text
never explicitly says whether Balaam is going to assist Balak or do only as the deity says.
Balaam is instructed to do only as the Lord instructs him to do, but the next verse (v. 21) is
unclear as to why Balaam was going and, subsequently, why God becomes angry.18 Thus, the
textual interpolations are misguiding as to the purpose of the situated episode.

22.23-30
Verse 23 immediately begins by somewhat moderating Balaams mission, in that it is not
Balaam the seer but the donkey who sees the messenger standing in the road.19 Further, the
episode depicts the donkey as the protagonist and Balaam as the antagonist. The language
employed in this verse ( ) immediately reminds the reader of verse 22 when the
messenger takes his stand in the road (). Interestingly, the messenger is depicted as a

17

Cf. Job 1.6-9, 12; 2.1-4, 6-7; Zech 3.1-2; 1 Chr 21.1. For an in-depth overview of these occurrences of
, see Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 45-145.
18
Timothy R. Ashley, The Book of Numbers, (NICOT; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993), translates
verse 22: As ( )he was going arguing that something the reader is unaware of occurred during the journey, not
prior to it. See also Ellens and Greene, Probing the Frontiers of Biblical Studies, 280-300.
19
Robert Alter discusses the verb ( to see) as the Leitwort, which holds that the meaning of particular
words refers directly to the theme as well. See Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books,
1981), 95.

10

warrior-type figure, described as having a drawn sword in hand.20 Being the first role reversal in
the episode, after seeing the messenger in the road, the donkey turns off the road, which causes
Balaam to strike the donkey.
After being struck by Balaam in order to return to the road, the messenger of the Lord
repositions himself in order to stand in the way again, only now in a narrow path between the
vineyards with walls on either side. Because of the narrower space, the donkey scrapes ()
against the wall and scrapes Balaams foot against the wall. This is known as an action-result
sequence in Hebrew, in which the same root ( )is employed twice but with different stems:
the first in the nipal stem ( she scraped herself), and the second in the qal stem (
she scraped [Balaams foot]).21 And after she is struck for the second time, the donkey
encounters the messenger a third time in an even narrower place, which causes Balaam to strike
the donkey yet again for the third time.
What is being depicted here is a progression from unconfined to a more confined space,
from the road, to a narrow path between the vineyards, and finally to a narrow place with no
room to turn. Essentially, Balaam is being led into a trap, to a point where a confrontation was
inevitable.22 And before the confrontation takes place, the donkey sees the messenger of the Lord
and lies down ( )under Balaam. The donkey does so not because she has little room to
move, nor is it in response to Balaams third striking, but because she sees the messenger of the
Lord standing before her. The use of the verb allows one to interpret the donkeys act of
20

Levine acknowledges a significant parallel in Josh 5.13 where the man standing before Joshua also has a
sword drawn in hand () , and he argues this parallel might suggest a late pre-exilic or early post-exilic
date for this episode; see Levine, Numbers 21-36, 156.
21
Marcus, From Balaam to Jonah, 40. For an in-depth overview of action-result sequences, see Moshe
Held, The Action-Result (Factitive-Passive) Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical Hebrew and Ugaritic, JBL 84
(1965): 272-282, in which he asserts the reasons for employing action-result sequences: 1) such sequences are
stylistic and are used for emphasis, and 2) mostly in poetry (but not Akkadian), perhaps the most important
characteristic is thought parallelism.
22
Levine, Numbers 21-36, 157.

11

lying down as a form of prostration before the messenger.23 Here, in verse 27, one reads that
Balaams anger also was kindled, recalling the addition to verse 22 in which Gods anger was
kindled.
22.22:
22.27:
Thus, as the text stands, verse 27 forms an inclusio for the first section in which Balaam is
antagonist.24
Following Balaams third strike, the Lord opens the mouth of the donkey who asks,
What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times? After reading verses 2327, one might think the messenger might reappear in the scene. But here is where the second role
reversal occurs in the episode. Rather, the donkey questions Balaam (v. 28) in order to call
attention to her loyalty as his donkey, which he has ridden all his life (v. 30). Immediately
following the third time she has been struck, the reader is informed that the Lord opened the
mouth of the donkey. Speech comes naturally to humans, of course, but not to animals, so
Balaams donkey given the ability to speak is significant; there is an amplified connotation of the
verb (), which enables the donkeys speech.25 Interestingly, in asking Balaam this question,
the donkey recalls the three times that Balaam has stuck her, which reinforces the narratives
emphasis on the number three. As Levine notes, the idiom of three times ( ) is rare in

23

Levine, Numbers 21-36, 156; Levine also adds that the Heb typically connotes a restful activity for
animals while they are grazing or after they have been rounded up. See BDB, 918.
24
For further discussion on this, see Way, Donkeys in the Biblical World, 184-185. Perhaps the addition of
Gods anger was to form this literary device. But for the redactor(s), its purpose most likely would have been to
cast a negative light on Balaam.
25
Levine, Numbers 21-36, 157.

12

biblical Hebrew and the preceding demonstrative particle these ( )serves to emphasize the
weight of the question.26
In response to the donkeys plea, Balaam insists that the donkey has made a fool of him
() 27 and that if there were a sword in his hand, Balaam would kill her. At first
reading, this may be an appropriate response for Balaam, since his journey has been adjusted due
to the donkey changing course three times prior when seeing the messenger (which Balaam has
not yet seen). However, it seems ridiculous that a donkey could make a fool out of a human.
Additionally, one might assume Balaam would travel with his sword close by, since the king of
Moab is sending him away on a mission.
Then, in verse 30, the donkey says to Balaam: Am I not your donkey, which you have
ridden all your life to this day? Have I been in the habit of treating you this way? The donkeys
question in verse 28 takes on an important purpose: she is recalling her loyalty to Balaam, which
should call his violence toward her into question. Balaam, who still does not find the donkeys
ability of speech strange, is being questioned as to his lack of faithfulness to his donkey. And in
response to the donkeys rhetorical questions, Balaam simply answers, No. Not only is he
clearly presented as the antagonist, but also Balaams prominence in the story is being
minimized. The donkey asks these questions to emphasize that, indeed, she has been Balaams
donkey for his entire life and that she has not been in habit of treating of him this way.
Moreover, the questions are rhetorical, which of course need no answer.

26

Levine, Numbers 21-36, 157-158. Levine also suggests that the repeated use of the idiom, which occurs
elsewhere only in the context of annual pilgrimage festivals, must not be a coincidence here in the episode of the
donkey. Furthermore, it may be said that this verse in the narrative alludes to Balaams mission being that of a
divine command, since later, in verse 32, the messenger explains that he has taken a stand in Balaams way as part
of the mission.
27
Marcus notes that the verb which in the hitpael generally connotes physical abuseoccurs in
another HB satire in Exod 10.2.

13

In this role reversal, a double-rhetorical question is employed:28 each question use the
interrogative particle ( and ) but expects a different answer. With its use of , the first
question requires a positive answer.29 Though the answer is unnecessary: Am I not your
donkey, which you have ridden all your life to this day? [Yes]. Subsequently, the use of in
the following question is to imply the answer opposite from the first, which Balaam indeed
gives, though an answer is, yet again, unnecessary. Moreover, Balaams character is belittled in
that he provides a negative answer to the donkeys double-rhetorical questions and, further, he
does so after the donkey has been given the ability to speak first, rather than Balaam.

Thematic Structure and Balaams Donkey

The First Role Reversal
As Martin Noth quite fittingly suggests, this episode is without doubt a masterpiece of ancient
Israelite narrative art,30 and is the first of two distinct sections, which constitute the episode of
the donkey. Furthermore, while the number three serves to organize the overall episode, this first
role reversal in verses 23-27 is built off of the number three: 1) the messenger of the Lord takes a
stand in the Balaams path three times; 2) the donkey sees the messenger and changes her course
three times;31 and, 3) Balaam responds by striking the donkey three times.32
Not only do verses 23-27 of the episode of the donkey reverse Balaams ability to see
with the donkey, but they also alter the symbol of the donkey. The characterization of Balaams

28

Marcus, From Balaam to Jonah, 40.

Bruce K. Waltke and M. OConnor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1990), 684, n. 48. Moshe Held, Rhetorical Questions in Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew, ErIsr 9
(1969): 71-79.
30
Martin Noth. Numbers (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 178.
31
Note that all three times the phrase is worded exactly the same: , The donkey
saw the messenger of Yahweh.
32
Marcus, From Balaam to Jonah, 39-40. See also Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 104-107.
29

14

donkey does not quite match the more general characterization found in many other ancient Near
Eastern texts, such as in a number of Egyptian, Aramaic, Hittite, and Sumerian texts. In this wide
range of texts, the donkey is characterized as stubborn and lazy. For example, in the 106th line of
the Proverbs of Ahiqara collection of Aramaic texts discovered among the ruins of
Elephantine dating to about the fifth-century B.C.E.the donkey is depicted as being stubborn
towards its rider:
[]m d lrdh [rkb] lyk wn[h] sblnk | [nh rd wmr lk yhw]y sbwlyk wkstk wnh
rkbyk l zh.
[A man said] one [da]y to the onager, [Let me ride] on you, and I will provide for you.
[The onager replied, Keep] your care and your fodder; I want nothing to do with your
riding!33
In the selected Aramaic text, as a whole, the donkey is depicted as being stubborn and as being
an animal unwilling to obey instructions. It may be said, then, that perhaps Balaams donkey is
also depicted as being stubborn, since she turns off the road and goes into the field (v. 23).
On the contrary, however, Balaams donkey does not seem to be depicted as lazy as
one might expect. In various other ancient Near Eastern texts as well as elsewhere in the Hebrew
Bible, the donkey is characterized as a beast of burden and slow animal.34 But in these verses
of the episode, Balaams donkey first turns off the road, then scrapes against the wall, and finally
lays down under Balaam. Here, the descriptions of the donkeys movements are presented as
being more intentional and strategic, which seems to illustrate the forethought of the episode.
Thus, the characterization of the donkey in Num 22.23-27, in some measure, stands in contrast
with the more general characterization throughout the ancient world. Moreover, in an attempt to
33

Cf. Prov 26.3. Way, Donkeys in the Biblical World, 69-70. See also James M. Lindenberger, The
Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983), 203. Other ancient Near Eastern
texts depicting the donkey as stubborn and/or lazy are as follows: Satire of the Trades, Instruction of Any, and
The Instruction of Onchsheshonqy (Egyptian); Crossing of the Taurus (Hittite); and for the other texts
(Sumerian), see Bendt Alster, Proverbs of Ancient Sumer: The Worlds Earliest Proverb Collections (2 vols.;
Bethesda: CDL Press, 1997).
34
See Way, Donkeys in the Biblical World, 97-98, 170.

15

portray the donkey as protagonist and being utilized by the Lord, the author reimagines the
symbol and role of donkey in order to amplify her literary function.

The Second Role Reversal

The rather short second role reversal of the dialogue between Balaam and his donkey again
incorporates the motif of the number three. Following the messengers three attempts at standing
in Balaams way, the three times that the donkey sees the messenger, the three times the donkey
reacts to the messenger standing in her way, and the three times Balaam beats the donkey, the
conversation between Balaam and the donkey reiterates the numerical structure. Although
Balaam only responds twice, the donkey asks a triad of questions, one a simple interrogative and
two rhetorical.35 In contrast with the first role reversal in which the narrative describes the
journey, the dialogue is what drives the second.
Following the third striking, the reader is informed of the donkeys mouth being opened
by the Lord, as previously mentioned. It now becomes obvious that the donkey is depicted as
being utilized by the Lord in that she is the first to speak. The narrative radically portrays the
donkey as being in control, and Balaam as the one who is being questioned and must respond.
And again, as previously discussed, it is clear that Balaam does not find the donkeys ability to
speak strange; Balaam simply responds to the donkey, as if it were natural for animals to speak.
Because he responds in this way, it appears that Balaam perhaps was already aware of his
donkeys ability to speak. While other forms of divination were prohibited in ancient Israel,
donkeys were widely associated with divination practices and dream omens in the ancient Near

35

Marcus, From Balaam to Jonah, 40.

16

East, as evident in several Sumerian, Egyptian, Ugaritic, and Akkadian texts.36 If it were true that
Balaam already knew of the donkeys ability to speak, the biblical authors may have
incorporated this story to encapsulate what was necessary in order to ensure Balaam, a foreigner,
would limn attributes of one who would speak only the words of the Lord.

The Messenger as Protagonist

22.31-35
The reader is now informed that the Lord opens the eyes of Balaam,37 since up until this point in
the narrative he could not see the messenger of the Lord. However, one notices a different word
used here for open than was used previously. Whereas the donkeys mouth is opened ( )in
verse 28, now Balaams eyes are opened (). But the sense here with the usage of suggests,
uncovering or revealing.38 Thus, immediately the second section in the episode employs a
new theme and new protagonist, for the donkey no longer interacts with Balaam. And
interestingly, this occurrence of in verse 31 is the only occurrence in the Hebrew Bible in
which the subject (the Lord) of the verb ( )opens the eyes of another; and here, Balaams eyes
are uncovered so that he will see the messenger of the Lord standing before him.
Upon having his eyes uncovered and seeing the messenger, Balaam bows down and falls
to his face. This description is a remarkable way of now presenting the seer as acquiescent.
Balaam then hears from the messenger, who asks, Why have you struck your donkey these
three times? In the Masoretic Text, one notices the preposition just before the interrogative
36

For examples, see Way, Donkeys in the Biblical World, 99.

Note the LXX use of a contrastive to indicate the intervention of God, rather than the Lord,
which is an attempt by the translator to minimize the role of Israels God in the story by use of the general .
John William Wevers, LXX: Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers (SBLSCS 46; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1998),
372, 377.
38
Cf. Num 24.4, 16. See BDB, 162-163. Cf. LXX, v. 28: , from , I open; v. 31:
, from , I reveal, make manifest.
37

17

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

common causal preposition and is a indication of Classic Biblical Hebrew, a linguistic phase
from around the eighth- to sixth-century B.C.E.39
Balaam does not respond to the initial question, and the messenger hereby continues by
saying, I have come out as an adversary because your way is perverse before me. At first
reading, the messengers statement seems obvious and appropriate, being that the purpose of the
narrative prior to this section was to diminish Balaams role. But at closer look, this verse seems
to be an attempt by the narrative to reimagine Balaam, the antagonist, and his character.
As discussed by Rouillard, the second-half of the verse (
)was difficult for translators in antiquity and it remains difficult today.40 The first difficulty
comes with the verb , which means, to be precipitate, to precipitate,41 though there has been
debate concerning the root of the verb. Second, it is important to note that the Masoretic Text has
( the way), whereas the Samaritan Pentateuch, LXX, and Latin Vulgate have ( your
way). And finally, as Peggy Day states, can also mean before me in the sense of in my
evaluation or even in my judgment,42 which allows for a new interpretation of verse 32. Thus,
the second-half of the verse can read as follows: I have come out as an adversary because the
journey is precipitate in my judgment.43 The importance of this section now begins to come
clear: the narrative is stressing the importance of being fully aware of the divine presence, even
if in the form of a divine messenger.
39

Naama Pat-el, Syntactic Aramaisms as a Tool, in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew (ed. Cynthia MillerNaud and Ziony Zevit; vol. 8 of Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic, ed. Cynthia Miller-Naud and Jacobus
A. Naud; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 245-263.
40
Hedwige Rouillard, Lnesse de Balaam, RB 87 (1980): 5-37.
41
BDB, 437.
42
BDB, 617. Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 65-66.
43
As Day translates: I have come forth as a n because the journey was hasty in my judgment. See
Day, An Adversary in Heaven, 66.

18

Next, the messenger informs Balaam that, indeed, if the donkey had not turned away
these three times, he surely would have killed Balaam and let the donkey live (v. 33). To
respond to this assertion, Balaams character immediately shifts as he responds to the messenger
by saying, I have sinned, for I did not know that you were standing in the road to oppose me
(v. 34). Before he realized the messenger of the Lord was standing before the donkey, Balaam
was rather quick to anger; but now, Balaam is being depicted as deferential before the Lord,
though this was not the case when Balaam was unable to see the messenger of the Lord.
It is worth mentioning that the Septuagint translation here decides to render as
(the angel/messenger of the Lord) rather than its typical
(messenger/angel of God), as noted above. Why this sudden change in vocabulary occurs in
unclear, and again, in the following verse, the phrase is used. However, John
Wevers suggests, with which I also agree, the reason for the single occurrence of this phrase is
because of the narratives emphasis on Balaams confession of sin properly directed to Israels
God, Yahweh.44
Finally, in verse 35, after Balaam has asserted that he will return home if it is displeasing
to the Lord, the messenger of the Lord speaks again to Balaam and says, Go with the men, but
speak only what I tell you to speak. Whereas he was instructed to go and do ( )only as he
was told in verse 20, here Balaam is told to speak ( )only what he is told to speak. And after
this instruction, the reader is informed that Balaam went on with the officials of Balak. Many
commentators treat this part of the verse simply as a scribal addition to connect the episode of
the donkey back in with the rest of the narrative. While I cannot disagree with this observation,
verse 35b does in fact serve a greater purpose. By stating that Balaam went on with the officials

44

Wevers, LXX, 379.

19

of Balak, the concluding verse forms an inclusio to situate the episode within the narrative.45 In
situating the episode within the narrative, a parallel phrase ( ) is employed, which reminds
the reader of verse 21 () , the verse before the sudden shift;46 only now it is the officials
of Balak, not simply Moab, which transitions well into the next verse.

Thematic Structure and Balaams Donkey

Having a different theme and overall purpose, the third section in which Balaam is again
depicted as antagonist serves to essentially summarize the journey and Balaams violence
towards his donkey so that the messenger can confront him. Here, the reader twice encounters
the phrase these three times (cf. v. 28). The messenger of the Lord addresses Balaam striking
his donkey three times and the donkey turning away to avoid the messenger three times so that
he can emphasize that he could have killed Balaam and not the donkey. The messenger saying
this calls attention not only to his literary role as protagonist but also his divine task by standing
in the way three times prior to the encounter. And furthermore, this statement also allows for the
portrayal of Balaam as recognizing his faults, as he responds by saying that he has sinned.
As for the donkey, the reader may notice her absence in the scene depicted here between
Balaam and the messenger of the Lord. The donkey no longer interacts with Balaam, for now the
messenger has taken up the role to engage Balaam. But it is interesting that the donkey has an
implicit portrayal, that of being impervious to death. This portrayal only further characterizes the
donkey as one who is utilized by the Lord. The messenger stating that he would have let the
donkey live perhaps sheds light on the donkeys role in the story. First, she can see. Next, she
can speak. And finally, if the messenger had acted on his threat, the donkey would have lived
45
46

Marcus, From Balaam to Jonah, 39.

Marcus, From Balaam to Jonah, 39.

20

and thus, in the story, is not associated with death, whereas this association between donkeys and
death was common in ancient Near Eastern literature. In the selected Ugaritic text KTU 1.119,
for example, the donkey is closely linked to death by necessary means, being described as an
element of sacrifice:
u urm . u npt . l ydb
mlk . bt il . np . l i[ry]
np . l bl xx[
]
w r . l x[ ]
Both a flame-sacrifice and a presentation-offering
the king must sacrifice
at the temple of Ilu:
a neck for Balu[ ]
and a donkey for[ ]47
In this text, along with several others, the donkey is closely associated with death and was
commonly offered as a sacrifice. However, Balaams donkey is spared from death and it is
Balaam who is threatened with the possibility of being killed. Thus, this different
characterization of the donkey in the narrative further serves to highlight her implicit role in the
second section.

THE EPISODE OF THE DONKEY AND ITS FUNCTION

Before Balaams donkey is introduced, the narrative informs the reader of King Balaks fear and
that he wishes to seek out Balaam, son of Beor, to curse the Israelites. After he relates his
message, Balak sends the elders of Moab and Midian for the first time to give this message to
Balaam (v. 7). Balaam responds to the men and tells them that he will bring word, just as the
Lord speaks to him. Immediately following is Balaams first encounter with the deity (vv. 9-12);
47

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

21

God asks: Who are these men with you? Balaam responds to God by repeating the information
and message he was given. Following the encounter with the deity, Balaam is given divine
instructions for the first time: You shall not go with them; you shall not curse the people, for
they are blessed (v. 12). And after the officials of Balak receive Balaams word, the king then
receives the word.
Again, Balak sends his officials out to return to Balaam, only this time they are greater in
number and more distinguished (v. 15). Once he receives Balaks message for a second time,
Balaam again tells the men he could not go beyond the command of the Lord, but also tells
them to remain where they are so that Balaam can learn of the deitys words. Then, one reads of
Balaams second encounter with the deity; however, this time it is only God who speaks and the
encounter consists of the instructions for Balaam: If the men have come to summon you, get up
and go with them; but do only what I tell you to do (v. 20).
What the reader may notice is the three-fold repetition of events thus far in chapter 22:
first, Balak sends for Balaam; second, Balaam has an encounter with the Lord; and third, Balaam
is given instructions, at first not to go but then to do only what he is told to do. Now, however,
the pattern of events is interrupted by the oddity of verse 22 because of two reasons: first, the
reader suddenly learns that God is angry with Balaam, and second, Balak never receives word
from his officials. The former, which I have discussed, can be regarded as a later addition to the
verse and not original to the episode. The latter, however, may be the reason why the episode of
the donkey was inserted at this point in the narrative. While this detail may seem trivial, I
contend that the author(s) responsible for the development of Balaams character (vv. 22-35) had
this in mind when the episode was placed in its present context. Thus, the next sequence of

22

events begins with Balaams third encounter with the deity, only now it is a messenger of the
Lord.
The third encounter between Balaam and the messenger, as a separate episode but placed
here within the narrative, is the portrayal of the foreign seer being utilized by the Lord in the
wilderness. But first, it is his donkey at work, stepping off the road to avoid the messenger; and
as a result, Balaam gets angry and beats her three times. Whereas Balaam is perhaps presented
strictly in more of a positive light and certainly as the protagonist in the narrative preceding the
episode (and after), here in the third encounter, it is almost as if the story begins by showing
others testing the foreigner, the antagonist. But in the end, Balaam admits his wrongdoing and
his sin, after which the story informs readers that he is to go, now, but only speak what he is told
to speak by the Lord. While the following narrative (vv. 36-40) does seem to directly connect
with the end of verse 21, the episode of the donkey in its present context concludes just before
Balaams oracles and his utterance to Balak: I have come to you now, but do I have power to
say just anything? The word God puts in my mouth, that is what I must say.

Summary
To summarize, in contrast to the assertion that Num 22.22-35 is a later addition to the narrative, I
maintain that it is more convincing and harmonious to view the episode as a continuation of the
preceding narrative. If one is to regard verses 22a and 22c as scribal insertions (perhaps around
the time of the later references to Balaam elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible?) then one can read the
story as a progression for a certain purpose; that is, the narrative replaces Balaam as the
protagonist with, first, his donkey and, second, the messenger of the Lord. Because he is a
foreigner, however, the purpose of the episode in its present context is to present his journey with

23

the officials of Balak as a progression up until the very point Balaam is to speak the divinely
given words and bless Israel.
The narratives depiction of the donkey as the protagonist is nothing but humor and
irony, in order to advance to the next protagonist, the messenger of the Lord. But the messenger
actually seems to be, in some sense, the Lord, who challenges Balaam and threatens his journey.
Now, at the culmination of the progression, Balaam is to speak only what the Lord tells him, not
simply do, as in the verses leading up to the episode. Moreover, with regards to the narration,
preliminary to his third encounter with Balak and his oracles blessing Israel, Balaam is portrayed
first as simply the son of Beor at Pethor, then as one instructed to do only as instructed by the
Lord, and finally as one who is manipulated by the Lord in order to ensure that Balaam speaks
only what instructed by the Lord. Thus, the episode of the donkey is ideally situated within
chapter 22 and the overall Balaam pericope in chapters 22-24.48

CONCLUSION

In this paper, my intention has been to analyze the episode of the donkey in Num 22.22-35 and
demonstrate its literary connection to the surrounding narrative. In doing so, I have discussed the
Balaam tradition with regards to the Deir Alla inscription; the references to Balaam and their
later date outside of Num 22-24 and elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible; and have given an in-depth
analysis of the text in the episode of the donkey in order to stress the thematic structure, role of
Balaams donkey, and draw attention to the function of the episode in the overall Balaam
narrative. The Balaam of the Deir Alla tradition is the Transjordanian seer of the gods who

48

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

24

relates a vision from the adday and was most likely a well known figure of his time in the
ancient Near East. Aside from the reference to Balaam in Mic 6.5, which probably dates long
before the rest, the general view towards Balaam outside of Num 22-24 is negative: Num 31.8,
16; Deut 23.4-5; Josh 13.22; 24.9-10; and Neh 13.2. After discussing the dating and context of
these references, it appears the Balaam narrative comes much earlier, perhaps around the eighthcentury B.C.E.
In discussing the episode of the donkey in Num 22.22-35, I suggest breaking apart the
text, rather than exhausting verses 22-35 collectively, allows for a better understanding of the
episodes present context. Further, this enables one to appreciate the biblical humor, thematic
structure not only within the episode but also within chapter 22, and the role of the donkey,
especially in the role reversals, which closely correlates with other ancient Near Eastern texts as
well as the Deir Alla text. With regards to solely the episode of the donkey, I have maintained
for its literary dependence on the surrounding narrative, as it is presenting a progression of
Balaams character. Additionally, I have argued for the original part of verse 22, being that 22a
and 22c are later insertions to capitalize on the lesser view of Balaam in the episode. As for this
lesser view, I have suggested that the episode replaces Balaam as the protagonist with, first, his
donkey and, second, the messenger of the Lord, while Balaam is depicted as the antagonist. This
reversal in literary function serves to portray Balaam as being utilized by the Lord prior to his
assertion that he must speak the words divinely put in his mouth.
And lastly, I have called attention to the function of the episode of the donkey. Balaam
meets with Balak and experiences a divine encounter twice; only the third divine encounter
occurs before his third meeting with Balak, and it the third encounter with the messenger of the
Lord that sets forth the purpose of the episode. The word of the Lord, and the Lord alone, is to be

25

spoken. Thus, verses 22-35 are situated within chapter 22 perfectly, in that the progression of
Balaams character is depicted ideally before he insists to Balak that he will only speak the
words God puts in his mouth. Balaam, the foreigner and seer of the gods, is reimagined as
protagonist in the story to connect beautifully with the narrative encompassing the episode of the
donkey.

26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alster, Bendt. Proverbs of Ancient Sumer: The Worlds Earliest Proverb Collections. 2 vols.
Bethesda: CDL Press, 1997.
Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981.
Ashley, Timothy R. The Book of Numbers. New International Commentary on the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1993.
Brown, F., S. Driver, and C. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1906. Repr., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson,
2008.
Day, Peggy L. An Adversary in Heaven: n in the Hebrew Bible. Harvard Semitic
Monographs 43. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1988.
Ellens, J. Harold and John T. Greene, eds. Probing the Frontiers of Biblical Studies. Pittsburgh
Theological Monograph Series 111. Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick, 2009.
Hackett, Jo Ann. The Balaam Text from Deir Alla. Harvard Semitic Monographs 31. Chico,
Calif.: Scholars Press, 1980.
Held, Moshe. Rhetorical Questions in Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew. Eretz-Israel 9 (1969): 7179.
Held, Moshe. The Action-Result (Factitive-Passive) Sequence of Identical Verbs in Biblical
Hebrew and Ugaritic. Journal of Biblical Literature 84 (1965): 272-282.
Levine, Baruch A. Numbers 21-36: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.
Anchor Bible 4A. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Levine, Baruch A. Review Article: The Deir Alla Inscriptions. Journal of the American
Oriental Society 101 (1981): 195-205.
Lindenberger, James M. The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1983.
Marcus, David. From Balaam to Jonah: Anti-prophetic Satire in the Hebrew Bible. Brown
Judaic Studies 301. Atlanta. Ga.: Scholars Press, 1995.

27

Matthews, Victor H. and Don C. Benjamin. Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the
Ancient Near East. 3d ed. New York: Paulist Press, 2006.
Miller, Patrick D. Prayer and Sacrifice in Ugarit and Israel. Pages 84-100 in Israelite Religion
and Biblical Theology: Collected Essays. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Nissinen, Martti. Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. Vol. 12 of Writings from the
Ancient Near East 12. Edited by Peter Machinist. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2003.
Noth, Martin. Numbers. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968.
Pardee, Dennis. Ritual and Cult at Ugarit. Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2002.
Pat-el, Naama. Syntactic Aramaisms as a Tool. Pages 245-263 in Diachrony in Biblical
Hebrew. Edited by Cynthia Miller-Naud and Ziony Zevit. Vol. 8 of Linguistic Studies in
Ancient West Semitic. Edited by Cynthia Miller-Naud and Jacobus A. Naud. Winona
Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2012.
Rendsburg, Gary A. Northern Hebrew through Time: From the Song of Deborah to the
Mishnah. Pages 339-359 in Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Cynthia MillerNaud and Ziony Zevit. Vol. 8 of Linguistic Studies in Ancient West Semitic. Edited by
Cynthia Miller-Naud and Jacobus A. Naud. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2012.
Rouillard, Hedwige. Lnesse de Balaam. Revue biblique 87 (1980): 5-37.
Rouillard, Hedwige. La Pricope de Balaam. Etudes bibliques 4. Paris: Lecoffre, 1985.
Seters, John Van. From Faithful Prophet to Villain: Observations on the Tradition History of the
Balaam Story. Pages 126-132 in A Biblical Itinerary: In Search of Method, Form and
Content: Essays in Honor of George W. Coats. Edited by Eugene E. Carpenter. Journal
for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series 240. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1997.
Waltke, Bruce K. and M. OConnor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake,
Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Way, Kenneth C. Donkeys in the Biblical World: Ceremony and Symbol. History, Archaeology,
and Culture of the Levant 2. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011.
Wenham, Gordon J. Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Pentateuch. Vol. 1 of
Exploring the Old Testament. Edited by Gordon McConville. Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Wevers, John Williams. LXX: Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers. Society of Biblical Literature
Septuagine and Cognate Series 46. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1998.

28