Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Balaam's Donkey (Numbers 22:22-35) is a fairly well-known story in the Tanakh because of the "star" of the story: the talking donkey – a she-ass, to be more specific. But in addition to giving us a wonderful little story of how the lowly and marginal frequently play a larger role than the ‘greats’ of the time, it also offers us an early glimpse at the concept of "the satan" and how this concept was used before it later evolved into the idea of a malevolent, personified evil force.
The Balaam Cycle consists of the book of Numbers 22 to 24 and has it's culmination in 25. It is made up of several documentary sources (referring to the Documentary Hypothesis, which was given it’s definitive form by Julius Wellhausen in his Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels of 1882, and which posits that the Torah was composed of multiple documents – JEDP – which were later edited, or redacted, into the final form that we have it as now) and this will change our perspective of the story and some of its key players. The difficulty in ascertaining the proper assignment of sources is well-expressed by Richard Elliott Friedman in The Bible: With Sources Revealed where he notes that it "is perhaps the hardest section of the Torah in which to delineate sources. Most scholars regard this three-chapter story as a composite...." (p. 280, n. *) It appears that the majority of the story is E (the Elohist), but traces of J (the Yahwist) are still present as well as the Redaction of JE – known as RJE. The reasons for the scholarly suggestion that the cycle is made up of multiple sources is summarized by Jo Ann Hackett in the Anchor Bible Dictionary as due to “The doublets and inconsistencies in the Numbers 22-24 account of Balaam….” (V. 1, p. 569) We will delve a little deeper into these problems in a later post.
Who was Balaam, son of Beor? The Hebrew for Balaam is בִּלְעָם and is best transliterated as Bil’am (the version of the name rendered as Balaam comes to us from the tradition of adapting Hebrew names into Greek though the Septuagint translation of the original Hebrew, which forms influenced later versions of the name passing through the Latin Vulgate translation and now finally we use them in the English forms most people are familiar with). He was a well-known non-Israelite prophet or seer also known from extra-biblical sources. Hackett, in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, gives us a few more documentary-specific details, when she notes:
In the verses that many commentators assign to the J source, Balaam is a diviner, a form of intermediary apparently acceptable in court circles in preexilic Judah, as elsewhere in the ANE [Ancient Near East]; [. . .] In those verses generally called E, however, we see in Balaam a typical Yahweh-prophet, one who can only speak the word that Yahweh puts in his mouth, a phrase reflecting the paradigmatic description of a prophet in Deut 18:18 [. . .]” (p. 569)
Outside of the biblical texts, we can find him in an 8th Century BCE inscription (actually a text pieced together from pieces of plaster that had been written upon with ink) from Tell Deir ˁAllā, in the East Jordan Valley – the biblical Valley of Succoth in the land of Gilead. The text calls itself The Book of Balaam, in which he is described as a “seer of the gods” (ḥzh ˀlhn). The Book begins:
The misfortunes of the Book of Balaam, son of Beor.
A divine seer he was.
The gods came to him at night,
And he beheld a vision in accordance with El’s utterance.
They said to Balaam, son of Beor:
“So will it be done, with naught surviving,
No one has seen [the likes of] what you have heard!” (Trans. Baruch Levine, 2002)
It’s clear from this and the rest of this text that Balaam sees oracles from El, and various other gods. Yahweh is never mentioned, so we do not have a direct correlation with the tradition found in Numbers, but we do have independent attestation that there was a well-known prophet/seer known as Balaam (or Bil’am) that was familiar with, and on good terms with, the gods that would have been worshipped by the ancient Israelites of that region. According to Everett Fox, in his translation and commentary of the Torah, The Five Books of Moses:
The Torah uses him (as the Bible may have used Job and other such personalities) for its own purposes, picking up a theme it has utilized earlier: the acknowledgement of God’s power and Israel’s glory by a wise or inspired pagan (cf., for instance, the figure of Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, in Ex. 18; or, to use later examples, Jericho’s Rahab in Josh. 2 and the Queen of Sheba in I Kings 10). Just as the Pharaoh is made to acknowledge God’s power and Israel’s glory toward the beginning of the Exodus sequence, so the nations or tribes surrounding Israel are portrayed as coming to the same realization at its end. Bil’am, as it were, provides religious legitimacy for these ideas in the non-Israelite domain.” (p. 765)
Now - back to the story in Numbers 22 – 24, with a quick rundown of the plot leading up to 22:22-35: the Moabite king Balak, trying to get an edge over the Israelites, hires the services of Balaam the seer to curse them. Balaam tells the King that he can only do what God (El in this instance) tells him to do, and that he was already told the messengers that same that Balak had previously sent. Balaam has some conversations with El or Yahweh (again, that confusion of sources making themselves felt) and concludes that he shouldn’t curse the Israelites, because they are a blessed people. Confusingly, El tells Balaam that he may finally go on his mission, but only if he speaks the exact words that he tells him to (a very important theme in the entire Balaam Cycle) – and then in the next verse (presumably a different documentary source and tradition) Yahweh is angry when Balaam embarks on his journey (Numbers 22:20-22). And here is where our interesting little story picks up. Note on the translation: I had originally used the excellent translation of Everett Fox – because of the Hebraic character of his work – but will be using the New Revised Standard Version (with several emendations of key words that are closer to the Hebrew and vital to our topic), which allows quotation of up to 500 verses. Keep in mind that most Bibles translate the name of God, YHWH (probably vocalized as Yahweh) as LORD – so I will be changing that, since it is a key to understanding how the documentary nature of the story influences our reading of it. I will also be emending angel to messenger, since this too is a more accurate rendering of the original – since angels are a later idea, and most translations attempt to harmonize the various instances of the term. The difference will be discusses in a later post. Donkey becomes the more accurate she-ass, as well – another important translational choice for other reasons. I will still use Fox’s translation at other times, but limited to a few verses – which hopefully, is permissible. I encourage anyone who is interested in getting closer to the Hebrew Text to pick up Fox’s excellent translation.
On with the story, now:
God’s anger was kindled because he (Balaam) was going, and the [messenger] of [Yahweh] took his stand in the road as his adversary. Now he was riding on his [she-ass], and his two servants were with him.
The [she-ass] saw the [messenger] of [Yahweh] standing in the road, with a drawn sword in his hand; so the [she-ass] turned off the road, and went into the field; and Balaam struck the [she-ass], to turn [her] back onto the road.
Then the [messenger] of [Yahweh] stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on either side.
When the [she-ass] saw the [messenger] of [Yahweh], [she] scraped against the wall, and scraped Balaam’s foot against the wall; so he struck [her] again.
Then the [messenger] of [Yahweh] went ahead, and stood in a narrow place, where there was no way to turn either to the right or to the left.
When the [she-ass] saw the [messenger] of [Yahweh], [she] lay down under Balaam; and Balaam’s anger was kindled, and he struck the [she-ass] with his staff.
Then [Yahweh] opened the mouth of the [she-ass], and [she] said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?
Balaam said to the [she-ass], “Because you have made a fool of me! I wish I had a sword in my hand! I would kill you right now!”
But the [she-ass] said to Balaam, “Am I not your [she-ass], which you have ridden all your life to this day? Have I been in the habit of treating you this way?” And he said, “No.”
Then [Yahweh] opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the [messenger] of [Yahweh] standing in the road, with his drawn sword in his hand; and he bowed down, falling on his face.
The [messenger] of [Yahweh] said to him, “Why have you struck your [she-ass] these three times? I have come out as an adversary, because your way is perverse before me.
The [she-ass] saw me, and turned away from me these three times. If [she] had not turned away from me, surely just now I would have killed you and let [her] live!”
Then Balaam said to the [messenger] of [Yahweh], “I have sinned, for I did not know that you were standing in the road to oppose me. Now therefore, if it is displeasing to you, I will return home.”
The [messenger] of [Yahweh] said to Balaam, “Go with the men (the Moabite nobles that had accompanied him); but speak only what I tell you to speak.” So Balaam went on with the officials of Balak (the King of Moab).
(Numbers 22:22-35, NRSV)
This post has become incredibly long, so I’ll end this part here. But I’ll leave you to reflect on: what character had the role of “the satan” in this story? A certain term is mentioned twice, and the Hebrew word for it is “satan”. What does everyone think about the extra-biblical text The Book of Balaam? A little further research in that area reveals some surprising details of the gods worshipped by the protagonist of the story: El, Shaddai, etc.
Apart from that – I hope you got some laughs from the story: a seer that cannot see; a she-ass who can; only by Yahweh allowing the she-ass to speak, and only by Yahweh opening the seer’s eyes is the seer made aware of the grave danger she was saving him from, and his realization that his own inability to see it was less than ideal. I imagine
that Balaam’s opinion of his faithful she-ass changed after that episode, and he had a lot of making up to do!
Works Cited
Fox, E. (1991). The Five Books Of Moses: A New Translation With Introductions, Commentary, and Notes. New York: Schocken.
Friedman, R. E. (2003). The Bible - With Sources Revealed: A New View Into The Five Books Of Moses. New York: Harper Collins.
Hackett, J. A. (1992). Entry on BALAAM. In D. N. Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary: Volume I (pp. 569-572). New York: Doubleday.
Levine, B. A. (2003). The Deir ˁAlla Plaster Inscriptions (2.27): (The Book of Balaam, son of Beor). In W. W. Hallo, The Context of Scripture: Volume II - Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World (pp. 140-145). Leiden - Boston: Brill.
"...The [messenger] of [Yahweh] said to him, “Why have you struck your [she-ass] these three times? I have come out as an adversary, because your way is perverse before me."
This post has become incredibly long, so I’ll end this part here. But I’ll leave you to reflect on: what character had the role of “the satan” in this story? A certain term is mentioned twice, and the Hebrew word for it is “satan”. What does everyone think about the extra-biblical text The Book of Balaam? A little further research in that area reveals some surprising details of the gods worshipped by the protagonist of the story: El, Shaddai, etc.
Apart from that – I hope you got some laughs from the story: a seer that cannot see; a she-ass who can; only by Yahweh allowing the she-ass to speak, and only by Yahweh opening the seer’s eyes is the seer made aware of the grave danger she was saving him from, and his realization that his own inability to see it was less than ideal. I imagine
that Balaam’s opinion of his faithful she-ass changed after that episode, and he had a lot of making up to do!
Interesting & it does show someone had a sense of humor - even back then.
I've wondered about that scripture... & actually was teaching my kids that some scriptures are symbolic & not to be taken literally. I used the donkey talking as an example. Then my outspoken one got up in front of the congregation (during testimony meeting) & explained in the microphone that he knew that "the bible isn't all true, but it's still good to read it." I love my little one!
I looked up hebrew word for satan & it's "adversary."
I think that's a much more fitting word, instead of how satan/devil is used as a scapegoat... "The devil made me do it!"
Just as we build muscle with resistence, I think some adversarial influences are helpful to us.
See In the Word of God there are only two talking animals , one is this donkey of this Balaam from these scriptures and the only other is the serpent from the story of Eve at the tree of God and Evil from Genesis 3:4-5..... But you can be sure that the devil talked though both these times ..
Okay – reposting this because the comments by grandpa and Luminous Truth led to some interesting avenues in the story’s comprehension. A quick word on the point of the thread, though: it's specifically designed to help bring a scholarly view to bear on the evolution of the concept of Satan in the Bible – whether it happens to be the particular Bible of Judaism or Christianity - by using a specific example of an early usage of the concept which also happens to be an entertaining story. Its truth merits - do not matter in the slightest for the discussion at hand. For the purposes of this thread - I could care less if it's true or not. I will deal with some of the truth claims, since Luminous Truth has mentioned them - but that is not the main thrust here overall. It's to help broaden one's perspective on biblical ideas and motifs: this can used by Christians, Jews and Atheists and whoever else cares to have an informed perspective, before they either start accepting it as gospel truth, or bashing it. How you approach the story and how you assess it’s possible historicity or ‘truthfulness’ is entirely up to you. Let’s just try to not let that get in the way of some old fashioned investigation.
Balaam was being pressured into action, for according to the narrative Balak king of Moab wished him to perform a curse against the Israelites, even though in the prelude to our story Balaam had repeatedly told the King’s messengers that he would only fulfill the will of El or Yahweh. Balak, in his appeal to Balaam says:
....Here, a people has come up out of Egypt,
here, it covers the aspect of the land,
it has settled hard upon me! [from a previous encounter]
So-now, pray go, damn this people for me,
for it is too mighty (in number) for me!
Perhaps I will prevail: we will strike it, so that I drive it from the land.
For I know
that whomever you bless is blessed,
whomever you damn is damned! (Numbers 22:5-6, TFBOM, Fox)
In lieu of a military victory, Balak opts for a magical victory (or a magically-infused military victory) - using the well-known and apparently highly-effective seer Balaam. The "elders of Moab and the elders of Midian" approach Balaam on behalf of the King of Moab, and he replies to them by telling them to spend the night while he consults Yahweh. Here again - source criticism can be brought to bear, for the narrative quickly switches from "Yahweh" to "El" (God). In keeping with the deities of The Book of Balaam, the regular biblical term for God (elohim) is eschewed in favor of El.
But [El] said to Balaam, “Do not go with them. You must not curse that people, for they are blessed.” (Numbers 22:12, NJPS)
So Balaam informed the elders that their request is impossible, and Balak sends even greater nobles to convince him. Balaam again jumps through the same hoops and informs them that their offers of great riches, even honor, will not sway him, for:
....If Balak were to give me his house's fill of silver and gold
I would not be able to cross the order of YHWH my God
to do (anything) small or great!
So now,
pray stay here, you as well, tonight,
that I may know
what YHWH will once again speak with me.
And God came to Bil'am at night,
he said to him:
Since it is to call you that the men have come,
arise, go with them;
but - only the word that I speak to you,
that (alone) may you do. (Numbers 22:18-20, TFBOM, Fox)
Again - we see some source confusions, especially with the immediately following part: the main bulk of the Balaam's Donkey story, in which Balaam is made out to be a seerless seer. To first demonstrate the problem, in case you cannot recall how the story begins, this is what immediately follows on God's conversation:
When he arose in the morning, Balaam saddled his [she-ass] and departed with the Moabite dignitaries. But God was incensed at his going; (Numbers 22:21-22a, NJPS)
So to comment on your post, granpa, it's not as simple as it may appear - which in turn has given Luminous Truth a strange view on what is happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth If the story is true, with this i agree. all seers are such that they lie to themselves even.
"trust me, I almost got killed by one of the god of Israel's invisible hit-man; my donkey saw it first! and tried to save me! So it wasn't just me being a scared fool and being tricked by invisible fairies! The fairy itself threatened me not to put words in its mouth, so I am quoting it directly and perfectly"
nice on Balaam.
The fools accompanying him believed in seers and invisible fairies already, so there was not so much work to be done by Balaam, whose reputation and sustenance depended on him lying to these people.
End Quote.
Whether seers actually have the power to see, or whether prophets have the power to prophesy, - is not really important here for the moment. I'll explain why in a second, after a few comments on source criticism. I pointed out in the first post that this section of Numbers is one of the most difficult passages in which to assign sources, but we can get a little help from the content of the narrative. The older consensus of the source for Numbers 22:22-35 (The Balaam's Donkey Story) was the J source, or the Yahwist. The reason for this is from the nature of the J materials, which usually consist of the oldest material found in the Torah, and the most legendary. Hermann Gunkel, in his introduction to his translation and commentary on the book of Genesis, notes that:
The collecting of legends began even in the state of oral tradition....the writing down of the popular traditions probably took place at a period which was generally disposed to authorship and when there was a fear that the oral traditions might die out if they were not reduced to writing. We may conjecture that the guild of story-tellers had ceased to exist at that time, for reasons unknown to us. (Eng. trans., The Legends of Genesis, p. 123)
The J source was interested in what's known as the Epic Tradition, and so was E (the Elohist Source) to a lesser degree. The Epic Tradition best described by Frank Moore Cross, and as John Miles Foley puts it, in A Companion To Ancient Epic, "in Cross's view, epic refers to a hypothesized common poetic tradition that lies behind the "so-called JE sources [. . .]” and “‘Epic’ becomes a means of distinguishing richly narrative materials from priestly sources which show special interest in preserving or shaping texts concerned with ritual, genealogy, purities, and other matters of relevance to priests” (p. 278) Foley is referencing Cross's Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, which you should go get right now and start reading. This Epic Tradition contains many older elements of the Israelite's religion and stories, and some of the most entertaining. In The Legends of Genesis, Gunkel gives an interesting and revealing look at how this Epic Tradition manifested itself in J and E:
J contains separate legends and legend cycles, condensed and detailed stories, delicate and coarse elements, primitive and modern elements in morals and religion, stories with vivid antique colors along with those quite faded out. It is much the same with E....This variety shows that the legends of E, and still more decidedly those of J, do not bear the stamp of a single definate time and still less of a single personality, but that they were adopted by their collectors essentially as they were found. (p. 125)
According to scholars like Gary Rendsburg, this Epic Poetic Tradition was toned down, either by the J or E collectors or during the process of the Redaction and combining of J and E by R into JE, because the poetic nature of the legends and stories were too much like the style used by the Israelite's pagan ancestors or neighbors - and the definite choice of prose over poetry as the dominant form in the Torah is a conscious one. We still can find poetry in the Torah and other parts of the Bible, and some of it is considered, by scholars, to be the absolutely oldest material.
A quick summation shows that source criticism has now adopted the methods of the newer form criticism and scholars use this addition to delve even further back beyond the traditional source criticism of Wellhausen his theorized sources of JEDP, to find the various legends, stories, and oral traditions that went into the formation of the actual sources. Gunkel suggests that it might be better to view the traditional sources as collectors, rather than authors.
But how does all this bear on Numbers and the account of Balaam? Well, J (and E to some degree) is characterized by very particularly interesting features that are lacking in later sources, such as the Deuteronomist (D) and the Priestly Source (P). It has portrayals of Yahweh anthropomorphically (walking around, talking, thinking and acting like humans). It has many of the most memorable stories in which characters are given the most development. It has direct communication of God with humans. It has lots of magic, talking animals, etc. It appears to represent some of the oldest traditions. E has less of this, and a quick comment on the differences, the doublets and J's older status will also help to elucidate further the character of J:
Thus the robust primitive version of the Hagar story in J (chap. 16) is older than the lachrymose version of E (21); the story of Jacob and Laban is told more laconically and more naively by J than by E; in the narrative of the birth of the children of Jacob, J speaks with perfect frankness of the magic effect of the mandrakes (30:14 ff.), instead of which E substitutes the operations of divine favor (30:17); in the story of Dinah, J, who depict's Jacob's horror at the act of his sons, is more just and more vigorous in his judgement than E, where God himself is compelled to protect Jacob's sons (35:5, see variant reading of RV);...." (Gunkel, Legends of Genesis, p. 126)
As mentioned previously, most scholars attributed the story of Numbers 22:22-35 to the J source (mostly because of the talking donkey, among other reasons) - but this has come under attack in recent times. W. Gross, in Bileam: Literar- und formkritische Untersuchung der Prosa in Num 22-24 (1974) points out that the Epic Tradition of J or E is better suited in the surrounding material concerning Balaam, rather than in the highly unflattering account of Balaam in 22:22-35 - in which he comes off as a bit of a buffoon. From an earlier post we have seen the Balaam was a famous seer even outside of the biblical text, and in the surrounding material concerning Balaam in Numbers he is shown in a highly favorable light. He has the ear of Yahweh, he speaks with God, he has great power (those he blesses are blessed, those he curses are cursed), he is sent on a mission by God to eventually bless the Israelites, rather than curse them. As P. L. Day, in the Dictionary of Demons and Deities in the Bible, points out:
[. .] since Gross' study the tendency has been to date the passage [Balaam's Donkey] to the sixth century BCE or later. With the exception of the above story, which obviously ridicules Balaam, he is characterized in an extremely positive way in Numbers 22-24. Outside these chapters, the first clear indications that he is being viewed negatively are attributable to P (Num 31:16) and Dtr2 (Josh 13:22), both of which are typically dated to the sixth century. Thus the available evidence suggests that Balaam was viewed positively in earlier, epic tradition, but negatively in later sources. Given that the story under discussion views Balaam negatively, the story most likely stems from a later source. (p. 727)
So that is some interesting information, suggesting that the surrounding material is more reliable than the story being discussed - especially taking into account the extra-biblical evidence. Of course, this in no way suggests that the story is truthful; the composite nature of Numbers 22-24 is actually a very potent argument against this entire section being truthful. But this is not what matters for our purposes, as I have said before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth if the story is based on a true occurrence, then he was lying about seeing invisible hit-men and his donkey talking to him.
End Quote
So - to sum up - it doesn't really matter if the story is true or not. If your intention is to disprove the story, then you'll find plenty of evidence of a diverse authorship to help with that. If your intention is to understand the story, and what the biblical authors were trying to convey, then hopefully this will shed some light on that, as well. If you're a believer, perhaps you will have learned something to help enrich your reading of this fascinating story.
Anyways - I've spent so much time on this post, that I haven't even got the time to continue with the thread, as intended - so it shall have to wait till tomorrow if anyone is still interested in unraveling the mystery of who satan is in the story. We still have some unanswered questions that I'm hoping some of you will take upon yourselves to tackle, and I'm still hoping that some insightful observations will be put forth concerning the story. Is the story true? I don’t feel it matters much. Was Balaam an actual historic character – since we have him now doubly attested by independent sources? Now, that’s thought-provoking. As for the story, I'm more interested in it's Sitz Im Leben - and if you're unfamiliar with that term, feel free to Google it away. This thread needs another picture:
Works Cited
Jewish Publication Society Tanakh Translation. (1985). Philadephia: The Jewish Publication Society
C. Breytenbach; P. L. Day. (1999). Entry on Satan. In K. v. Toorn, B. Becking, & P. W. Horst (Eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (pp. 726-732). Michigan: Brill.
Foley, J. M. (2005). A Companion to Ancient Epic. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Fox, E. (1991). The Five Books Of Moses: A New Translation With Introductions, Commentary, and Notes. New York: Schocken.[/SIZE]
Gross, W. (1974). Bileam: Literar- und formkritische Untersuchung der Prosa in Num 22-24. Munich.
Gunkel, H. (1901). The Legends of Genesis. (W. H. Carruth, Trans.) Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Co.
Hackett, J. A. (1992). Entry on BALAAM. In D. N. Freedman, The Anchor Bible Dictionary: Volume I (pp. 569-572). New York: Doubleday.
See In the Word of God there are only two talking animals , one is this donkey of this Balaam from these scriptures and the only other is the serpent from the story of Eve at the tree of God and Evil from Genesis 3:4-5..... But you can be sure that the devil talked though both these times ..
You are correct about there being only 2 instances of talking animals in the Torah – I think I would use the more specific term “Torah”, though, as the term “Word of God” is open to so much interpretation. In addition, I don’t think I can agree with you that I “can be sure that the devil talked through both these times”, for:
1- Nowhere in the Genesis account, or anywhere else in the entire Bible (both Jewish and Christian), does it specifically say that it was “the devil” talking through the snake. The narrative clearly and plainly narrates how it was merely a snake – and only a snake. Only in later interpretations would the shrewd snake become something other than a shrewd snake – which would be an interpretation directly against what “God’s Word” specifically says it was. No devilish possession is implied or even sensible, if one accepts the words of the text at their face value. But we’ll leave that for another time. Perhaps after this thread is finished, you’ll find out why it was probably impossible for the snake to have been possessed by the devil, or even to have been the devil. Remember – the concept of Satan evolved over the centuries in Israelite, Judaic and Christian thought, and this thread is showing an early usage of the term satan: before it became a Personal Name.
2- Again relying on what the text explicitly says: Yahweh is the one who opened the mouth of the she-ass and allowed her to speak. Even more so than in the Genesis account, the Balaam’s Donkey story more fully will illustrate why the idea of a malevolent Satan hadn’t been formed yet in the mind of Israelite writers, so this is even less likely to have been an instance of Satan speaking through an animal. Read on – and you will see why. SuperSoul has given you a very, very large hint that will send you in the right direction!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul
Interesting & it does show someone had a sense of humor - even back then.
I've wondered about that scripture... & actually was teaching my kids that some scriptures are symbolic & not to be taken literally. I used the donkey talking as an example. Then my outspoken one got up in front of the congregation (during testimony meeting) & explained in the microphone that he knew that "the bible isn't all true, but it's still good to read it." I love my little one!
I looked up hebrew word for satan & it's "adversary."
I think that's a much more fitting word, instead of how satan/devil is used as a scapegoat... "The devil made me do it!"
Just as we build muscle with resistence, I think some adversarial influences are helpful to us.
SuperSoul – you are pretty much on your way to figuring out who the satan is in this story! I’m glad you caught the humor in the story – it’s a very funny account about a non-Israelite prophet being one-upped by his she-ass: as is often the case in many Biblical stories, in which a powerful male character is shown to be entirely in the wrong by a less-powerful female character. Female characters tend to get a bad rap in the Bible, but I believe (and most scholars) that this is an error in focusing on the negative aspects of what was common patriarchal behavior in the Ancient Near East. The Hebrew Bible is one of the few collections of stories we have from that time in which female characters, usually on the margin of society or class, play very important roles in relation to the male character’s roles. Story after story shows female characters rising above their cultural status and showing that they are far more inventive, far more faithful, and far more righteous than the male characters. When I speak of the comparison with other ANE texts – I am speaking of mortal characters, not divine characters: of course in some religions, a female goddess plays a prominent role, but is still usually subservient to a male deity above her. The stories in the Hebrew Bible involve usually powerless women using their feminine powers to accomplish things the men never could have. Can anyone think of examples?
I agree that nobody should ever blame their actions on the devil, and this became a too common feature of many apologetics, especially when he became an actual figure, a demonic force that could then be blamed for the evil in this world. Just look at the later interpretations of how the Devil, in the guise of a snake, duped humanity out of their rightful immortality in the Garden of Eden. But perhaps more on that later.
The Hebrew word satan is a noun, and a common noun, and derives from a verb. שָׂטָן is how the noun appears in Hebrew, and it is transliterated as śāṭān. The verbal form is śāṭan – not much of a difference, except for the final vowel, which is short – rather than long. The root letters of śāṭān are שטן and the final nun is important in determining the words definition. Previously, scholars had tried to find the noun’s meaning in a root which treated the final nun as a suffix, but this has been shown to be faulty (P. L. Day, DDD). With no cognate terms in other languages prior to its usage in the Hebrew Bible, it appears that we must find our meaning within its pages, and cannot rely on other cognate languages to help.
SuperSoul is absolutely correct in pointing out that the term “adversary” from our Balaam’s Donkey story is actually the English translation of the Hebrew common noun śāṭān! But what does this mean for our story? The messenger of Yahweh was acting as Balaam’s śāṭān – essentially: his “adversary”. Perhaps a strange and unexpected turn of events, but indeed that is what is going on here. But how can we be sure that the messenger of Yahweh is not actually the later Devil himself? One of the key items in determining the difference between a śāṭān, the śāṭān, and Satan is the definite article “the” or the indefinite article “a”. Remove any of these, when śāṭān is being used as a common noun, and you now have a personal noun, and a Personal Name: Satan.
Under the definition for the common noun śāṭān in Brown, Driver and Brigg’s A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, we find:
1. Adversary, and
2. Satan
If we explore the verbal form, from which the noun derived, we end up with several definitions. Victor P. Hamilton, in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, says that “the choice appears to be between ‘accuse,’ ‘slander,’ and ‘be an adversary’.” (v. I, p. 985) He gives several examples of where the verb may take multiple meanings, making the translator’s job a difficult one.
Those who render me evil for good
[accuse/slander me] because I follow after good. (Psalms 38:20, NRSV)
Let my [accusers/adversaries/slanderers] be put to shame and perish
let those who seek to hurt me be covered with scorn and disgrace. (Psalms 71:13, NRSV)
There is a difference between an “accuser” and a “slanderer” – the former may be one who brings charges against someone (even just and righteous charges), while the latter is usually maligning someone’s character. Hamilton concludes that “on the basis of the actual uses of śāṭān [as a common noun], we would suggest that śāṭān means ‘accuser’, with the added nuance of either ‘adversary’ or ‘slanderer’, depending on context.” (p. 986) Since the older Lexicon previously consulted is based on an even older Lexicon of Gesenius, I think this is an acceptable starting point to tackle the problem of what a śāṭān is doing in the story, and how best to translate the Hebrew.
Based on the usage of the noun śāṭān in the Hebrew Bible, we find the following tally from Day in DDD:
It occurs in nine contexts. In five it refers to human beings and in four it refers to celestial beings. When it is used of human beings it is not a proper name, but rather a common noun meaning ‘adversary’ in either a political or military sense, or ‘accuser’ when it is used in a legal context. In the celestial realm there is only one context in which śāṭān might be a proper name. In the other three contexts it is a common noun, meaning ‘adversary’ or ‘accuser’. (p. 726)
So which one is our śāṭān in the Balaam story? We have seen it translated as “adversary” and I think that is reasonable. The messenger of Yahweh, what’s more, is the adversary! Though the noun is used of non-divine beings in other biblical references, in this biblical reference it clearly refers to a divine being of some sort. Some translate the śāṭān in this story as “the messenger of Yahweh” and some translate it as “the Angel of Yahweh”. Because of the same evolving ideas of divine “messengers” into winged “angels” in later writings and theology, I prefer the term “messenger” – given the suggested date of composition or redaction of the story. The Hebrew for the being is malˀāk yhwh, and this is a far cry from the later Greek angelos.
So what else helps fashion our image of this particular śāṭān? Well, he certainly isn’t the same Satan that later theology would portray as the evil, diabolic opponent of Yahweh, or God. Instead of being an opponent to Yahweh, he is actually his servant, his messenger, his errand boy, the one who fulfills Yahweh’s Will. He is the Messenger of Yahweh. Now – we aren’t quite finished with our quest to find who the śāṭān is in this story, because there’s a very important facet of “messengers of Yahweh” in early Biblical usage that might not be apparent to some at first glance, or ever in some cases. SuperSoul – you have found the correct answer (GOOD JOB! J), but it needs a little more fleshing out – you’ll have to trust me on this, but we are not quite finished yet. Hopefully some of you can discover some interesting details of “messengers” and help continue this discussion even deeper. I’ve given you the Hebrew for “messenger” above, so that should be a helpful aid. In the meanwhile, I would be curious to hear the thoughts of anyone who can help add to the ongoing discussion in a helpful way.
Perhaps another litle clue about the Messenger of Yahweh may be found in this picture showing Jacob's encounter with him:
Works Cited
New Revised Standard Version. (1989).
C. Breytenbach; P. L. Day. (1999). Entry on Satan. In K. v. Toorn, B. Becking, & P. W. Horst (Eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (pp. 726-732). Michigan: Brill.
Gesenius, W. (1907). A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. (F. Brown, S. R. Driver, C. A. Briggs, Eds., & E. Robinson, Trans.) Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hamilton, V. P. (1995). Entry on Satan. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (Vol. 5, pp. 985-989). New York: Doubleday.
SuperSoul – you are pretty much on your way to figuring out who the satan is in this story! I’m glad you caught the humor in the story – it’s a very funny account about a non-Israelite prophet being one-upped by his she-ass: as is often the case in many Biblical stories, in which a powerful male character is shown to be entirely in the wrong by a less-powerful female character. Female characters tend to get a bad rap in the Bible, but I believe (and most scholars) that this is an error in focusing on the negative aspects of what was common patriarchal behavior in the Ancient Near East. The Hebrew Bible is one of the few collections of stories we have from that time in which female characters, usually on the margin of society or class, play very important roles in relation to the male character’s roles. Story after story shows female characters rising above their cultural status and showing that they are far more inventive, far more faithful, and far more righteous than the male characters. When I speak of the comparison with other ANE texts – I am speaking of mortal characters, not divine characters: of course in some religions, a female goddess plays a prominent role, but is still usually subservient to a male deity above her. The stories in the Hebrew Bible involve usually powerless women using their feminine powers to accomplish things the men never could have. Can anyone think of examples?
Childbirth!
If you consider God to be CREATIVE... considering how creative women are, God would definitely have feminine qualities, as well as masculine qualities, don't you think?
Although, I verge on being agnostic... I cling to what little faith I have left in God... for myself & for my kids. There's POWER in believing. So, when I pray, I pray to both Heavenly Father & Heavenly Mother, although I realize there's much more than that... it helps me resonate.
Once in my church, somebody spoke about when he saw some middle-eastern archaeology art that showed a person after death... walking toward God (a man on a throne)... & THEN... onward byond the man, to a woman on a throne.
Quote:
I agree that nobody should ever blame their actions on the devil, and this became a too common feature of many apologetics, especially when he became an actual figure, a demonic force that could then be blamed for the evil in this world. Just look at the later interpretations of how the Devil, in the guise of a snake, duped humanity out of their rightful immortality in the Garden of Eden. But perhaps more on that later.
You know what's really funny? Once, in Sundayschool, there was a very angry discussion about satan... how bad he was. I wondered why everyone was getting so angry (a trait associated with Satan) about Satan. I said something to the extent, "God made everything, including evil/Satan... & God commanded us to love everyone, even our enemies." By love, I mean, to appreciate for what it is... not to give in to & lose one's identity for. It's like a friend mentioned, evil is like an "ellusive veil" - our coping strategies that save us from the crushing truth, until we can handle a little more. The opposite of love isn't really hate, because hate is just love (passion) turned inside out. The opposite of love is apathy - not caring at all.
Quote:
The Hebrew word satan is a noun, and a common noun, and derives from a verb.
Quote:
שָׂטָן is how the noun appears in Hebrew, and it is transliterated as śāṭān. The verbal form is śāṭan – not much of a difference, except for the final vowel, which is short – rather than long. The root letters of śāṭān are שטן and the final nun is important in determining the words definition. Previously, scholars had tried to find the noun’s meaning in a root which treated the final nun as a suffix, but this has been shown to be faulty (P. L. Day, DDD). With no cognate terms in other languages prior to its usage in the Hebrew Bible, it appears that we must find our meaning within its pages, and cannot rely on other cognate languages to help.
SuperSoul is absolutely correct in pointing out that the term “adversary” from our Balaam’s Donkey story is actually the English translation of the Hebrew common noun śāṭān! But what does this mean for our story? The messenger of Yahweh was acting as Balaam’s śāṭān – essentially: his “adversary”. Perhaps a strange and unexpected turn of events, but indeed that is what is going on here. But how can we be sure that the messenger of Yahweh is not actually the later Devil himself? One of the key items in determining the difference between a śāṭān, the śāṭān, and Satan is the definite article “the” or the indefinite article “a”. Remove any of these, when śāṭān is being used as a common noun, and you now have a personal noun, and a Personal Name: Satan.
Under the definition for the common noun śāṭān in Brown, Driver and Brigg’s A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, we find:
1. Adversary, and
2. Satan
If we explore the verbal form, from which the noun derived, we end up with several definitions. Victor P. Hamilton, in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, says that “the choice appears to be between ‘accuse,’ ‘slander,’ and ‘be an adversary’.” (v. I, p. 985) He gives several examples of where the verb may take multiple meanings, making the translator’s job a difficult one.
Those who render me evil for good
[accuse/slander me] because I follow after good. (Psalms 38:20, NRSV)
Let my [accusers/adversaries/slanderers] be put to shame and perish
let those who seek to hurt me be covered with scorn and disgrace. (Psalms 71:13, NRSV)
There is a difference between an “accuser” and a “slanderer” – the former may be one who brings charges against someone (even just and righteous charges), while the latter is usually maligning someone’s character. Hamilton concludes that “on the basis of the actual uses of śāṭān [as a common noun], we would suggest that śāṭān means ‘accuser’, with the added nuance of either ‘adversary’ or ‘slanderer’, depending on context.” (p. 986) Since the older Lexicon previously consulted is based on an even older Lexicon of Gesenius, I think this is an acceptable starting point to tackle the problem of what a śāṭān is doing in the story, and how best to translate the Hebrew.
Based on the usage of the noun śāṭān in the Hebrew Bible, we find the following tally from Day in DDD:
It occurs in nine contexts. In five it refers to human beings and in four it refers to celestial beings. When it is used of human beings it is not a proper name, but rather a common noun meaning ‘adversary’ in either a political or military sense, or ‘accuser’ when it is used in a legal context. In the celestial realm there is only one context in which śāṭān might be a proper name. In the other three contexts it is a common noun, meaning ‘adversary’ or ‘accuser’. (p. 726)
So which one is our śāṭān in the Balaam story? We have seen it translated as “adversary” and I think that is reasonable. The messenger of Yahweh, what’s more, is the adversary! Though the noun is used of non-divine beings in other biblical references, in this biblical reference it clearly refers to a divine being of some sort. Some translate the śāṭān in this story as “the messenger of Yahweh” and some translate it as “the Angel of Yahweh”. Because of the same evolving ideas of divine “messengers” into winged “angels” in later writings and theology, I prefer the term “messenger” – given the suggested date of composition or redaction of the story. The Hebrew for the being is malˀāk yhwh, and this is a far cry from the later Greek angelos.
So what else helps fashion our image of this particular śāṭān? Well, he certainly isn’t the same Satan that later theology would portray as the evil, diabolic opponent of Yahweh, or God. Instead of being an opponent to Yahweh, he is actually his servant, his messenger, his errand boy, the one who fulfills Yahweh’s Will. He is the Messenger of Yahweh. Now – we aren’t quite finished with our quest to find who the śāṭān is in this story, because there’s a very important facet of “messengers of Yahweh” in early Biblical usage that might not be apparent to some at first glance, or ever in some cases. SuperSoul – you have found the correct answer (GOOD JOB! J), but it needs a little more fleshing out – you’ll have to trust me on this, but we are not quite finished yet. Hopefully some of you can discover some interesting details of “messengers” and help continue this discussion even deeper. I’ve given you the Hebrew for “messenger” above, so that should be a helpful aid. In the meanwhile, I would be curious to hear the thoughts of anyone who can help add to the ongoing discussion in a helpful way.
Perhaps another litle clue about the Messenger of Yahweh may be found in this picture showing Jacob's encounter with him:
I'm not sure about all of the symbolic meaning... but some guesses...
Messages come in many forms... by many messengers... I'd say the most significant one being our own self-talk/thoughts. Each message is true from a certain perspective.
From what I've gathered, it seems that seeking spirits out (like through wiji boards etc) attracts a lower realm of spirits, or more of a negative energy intent. It seems that spirits that reveal themselves to us unexpectedly have a message, or have good energy/intent. Both spirits exist, but we only are aware of them when resonating to that energy - like tuning in to a radio station. Sometimes we're so caught up in our lives that we're clueless about a lot - including important messages. So Baalam is angry about his own thoughts... he felt embarassed, like a fool because of his own thoughts. Yet, instead of realizing the source of the messages (himself), he took it out on his donkey - the one who's helped him so much, carried his burdens. He was too oblivious to notice the danger (cliff?) & the messenger warn him, so his donkey noticed it & had to tell him. Kindof a funny way of showing how dense we can be at times.
This is just my take on it.
I don't know what theologists would say... I'm sure plenty! lol
A few more thoughts...
I've heard that biblically speaking (& maybe symbolically)... horses represent war, since they were used more for that. Donkeys are considered more peaceful. ("Prince of Peace" rode a donkey previously appointed for him.)
In Numbers 22 (before the donkey-talking part)...Balak offered money, cattle & honors to Balaam to curse Israel, which the Lord forbids. This could be related to us by when we're offered immediate pleasures & praises of others if we sacrifice (or "curse") what is best in the big picture. Pride, & the blindness of pride for what it is (as reflected in Baalam's inability to see the adversary/messenger pointing it out to him) often hurts peace (as Balaam did by striking his donkey).
This might also apply to those scriptures you mentioned about rendering evil for good, & false accusers.
(And now that I think about it, reminds me of "ad hominem attacks" sometimes used. )
Last edited by SuperSoul; 11-12-2011 at 11:10 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
