slaveofChrist

Once again, I do not agree with this portion of the article. I find it unfortunate that this flawed logic was incorporated in what appears to me to be a generally well written article.


Until we can prove that the author of Numbers had access to this text and it was existent before he wrote his book, we cannot assume that Balaam

DrJim

slaveofChrist wrote (and quoted Vorkosigan):
.

Why not, slave? His name etc. appears in the religious writings of two different peoples separated by perhaps as much as 400 years.
And truth be told, there is absolutely no physical evidence of the biblical version existing BEFORE the Deir Alla text (8 century bce). The Bible version cannot be proved to exist before the Hellenistic period. How can you prove Numbers came first without a single shred of physical evidence?

JRL

Vorkosigan

Balaam: a Light to the Gentiles?

Though a bit slanted, it is nevertheless a good intro to some of the problems in figuring out who Balaam was.

• "In February and March of 1967, H. J. Franken was conducting excavations at Deir ‘Alla in the Jordan River Valley when his vigilant foreman, Abu Abdul Rasul, noticed writing on pieces of plaster being removed from the remains of an ancient building. He brought the information to the excavator.
  
  That building probably was a sanctuary for a goddess whose name begins with the Hebrew letter "shin.” Shamash and Shgr have both been suggested as possibilities, especially Shgr, since it occurs later in the second combination in connection with the Council of the Gods.....
  
  It seems that Levine has done the best job of explaining what happened next. His suggestion, agreed to by Kaufman in his review article and by McCarter, was that Balaam was encouraged to try to remove the onus of carrying out this task from the goddess and by his magic was able successfully to relieve her of this repulsive mission. However, there was a penalty to pay and Balaam was directly in line to pay the price for his success. For interfering in the affairs of the gods, Balaam was banished to the underworld.8 Still, there is scarcely a complete line in the entire inscription, and that factors heavily into the continuing scholarly debate about the significance of the find. Perhaps, with Kaufman, we will be forced to conclude as he did that "the Aramaic Texts from Deir ‘Alla" constitute one of those inscriptions that are destined to remain enticingly obscure" (74).
  
  If the meaning of the text is obscure, the significance of its existence and the location in which it was found are unmistakable. The non-biblical description of a biblical prophet has now been pushed back to the time of King Hezekiah, and the setting is one which suggests that the veneration of Balaam and his prophecies extend even further back into the history of Transjordan. It makes it easier for the reader to grasp the magnitude of the accomplishments to which this prophet to the Gentiles attained. The parallelism between Balaam and Moses is unmistakable and yet shocking. We are left to ponder the alternate pathways of two of God's most spiritually significant prophets, and to observe that in their deaths, as in the last segment of their lives, the ministries of the two men were closely intertwined. They were in fact buried in the same Valley of Peor, and in death their graves were hidden from the sight of later generations, lest the temptation to worship them as gods become too great to resist.

See what I mean, Slave? Once you explore these things, the sort of shallow correspondences fall away. Currently, in the oldest account of Balaam we have, he is a cult hero of a semitic polytheistic cult, not an adherent of the (later) monotheistic god of the (later) Jews. Who borrowed who, and when, is not easy to tell. I will bet, though, that if more stuff mentioning him is found, it will soon be discovered that he was a hero in different ways to different groups.

Vorkosigan

slaveofChrist

I cannot prove that Numbers existed before 800BC, although I believe it did. We obviously dont have manuscripts that date back that far, but I think there is other evidence that is sufficient for me to believe that Numbers existed before then and is historically accurate (although this thread is not a debate on that topic).

Still, how can you prove that the author of Numbers borrowed the legendary idea of Balaam for his text? What other evidence is there that his writings are the same as other religious writings of the day. In fact, I think there is evidence of the opposite.

Doctor X

slaveofChrist:

In all seriousness, what is your point?

Is it that Baalam may have been "historical?" That a figure may have been historical--as in actually existed--does not prove the myths attached to him . . . as others have indicated.

Furthermore, others have given you references on the historical problems of Exodus--goeth thou to the Recommended Reading for some good published references. I particularly like the Archaeology and the Bible.

Now, if I show you an inscription that blesses you in the name of "YHWH and his Asherah" should you start worshiping "Mrs. YHWH?"

I am not trying to belittle you with this, I am wondering what your thrust is. It seems, to me, that by trying to argue historicity of one part you may try to argue historicity of all parts. This is a common tactic of apologists, and I would rather not paint you with that brush if it is not justified.

--J.D.

Vorkosigan

The age of Numbers is not a relevant issue....

I can't! I don't know which direction "borrowing" runs and I don't care. I do know two facts. First, the oldest current reference to Balaam is as a cult hero of a semitic polytheistic religion, not a monotheistic one (monotheism is a late development in Canaanite history). And second, Balaam is a hero in at least two different semitic cults.

The situation is similar to that of Daniel, a cult hero in many parts of the Middle East, or Hercules, who had cults all over the Greco-Roman world. Really, "borrowing" is too simple a word for a very complex religious phenomenon.

Ethically, don't you think the author of the article you cited ought to have mentioned the fact that the Deir Alla Balaam belonged to another cult?

My brain is a bit slow today, and I don't understand this point at all. Sorry. Can you clarify?

Vorkosigan

slaveofChrist

It is very clear from the Biblical account that Balaam did not worship Yahweh and I dont think that anyone has made that claim by any means. I certaintly haven't and the author of the article I posted doesn't seem to have made that claim either.



I really did not ambitiously approach this thread. I am really just feeling out the forum so to speak. I thought this article was interesting as well. Forgive me for not making a clear point.

DrJim

I thought it was interesting too, but obviously for different reasons than you did! In general the ariticle is making connections between things that are not really justified. Now, there is clearly some connection between the two balaam texts: it just can't be demonstrated from the existence of the one demonstrates the essential historical accuracy of the other.

I am wondering what evidence you would have for saying the bilbical account should be considered earlier than the inscription. From the Hellenistic manuscripts to ca. 1000 bce or whatever is a pretty big jump.

Doctor X

slaveofChrist:

No problemo . . . after reading my post I wondered if I came off too brusk.

From my standpoint, I find it interesting that the name was retained. The "original Noah" was Istapubruanawhathellpthapth--granted maybe the Sumerian/Akkadian would not translate well into Semitic language, I rather assumed the "new name" is part of taking a myth--much like YHWH replaces Baal.

--J.D.

slaveofChrist

Dr. X, would you care to elaborate?