The more ancient and far more picturesque story is that contained in Nu 22--24. According to this, Balaam is a prophet from Pethor, wliich is by the Euphrates, a place otherwise unknown, who is bribed by Balak, king of Moab, to come and pronounce a curse on the Israelites. Bahiam earnestly endeavours to carry out Balak's wislies, but by divine in.spiration pronounces a blessin" instead of a curse. He is disiuis.sed by Balak, ana returns to his home, and is heard of no more. It is obvious that this story has no point of contact with that of P, and can be reconciled with it only by modifying or eliminating 24". If Balaam had returned to his home he could not be in the Midianitish camp immediately afterwards. It is generally admitted that Nu 22--24 belongs to the composite narrative known as JE. But there is some ditl'crence of opinion as regards the critical analj'sis of the [jsussage. Some, having regard to its general unity of purpose and sentiment, have a.ssigned it in its totality to J ; others refer only the episode of Balaam'.s journey to J and the rest to E. It is probable, however, that here, as elsewhere, there has been a more continuous interweaving of the two sources. The sacrificial rites of 22<''-23^ seem to i)oint to E, and the symmetry of that section seems to require that it Should be referreil in the main to one source. On the other hand, the episode of Bala.ani's journey, with little doubt, belongs to J. There are also signs of composite authorship in other parts. Thus 22"* and 2?"' are evidently duplicates, so are w.* and **". A helpful criterion is the distinction of divine names in certain verses of ch. 22, esp. • and *" ; where, as in 23^, an anthroi)onior])hic character is assigned to God Himself as contrasted with the anjjel of J" of v.*^ etc. It seems therefore right to assign vv."- "• '" and '" to E, but these pretty clearly carry with them vv."- "■'». It matters little how we assign the remaining verses, as both accounts must have contained statements of the same kind. But if J is the fundamental account, w.*"' will belong to it. Ch. 24 involves a further question. If the prophecies of ch. 23 belong to E, it is jirobablc that these belong to J. But they are believed to have undergone a very considerable revision and expansion by a later reviser, either before or after the union of .) and E. The pa.ssage esp. assigned to a late date is vv.*-**, which refers to the period of A.ssyr. ascendency. The insertion of 'the elders of Midian' in 22*-' is probably the
work of a much later re^^se^, who thereby thought to connect the story more closely with that of P.
If this analysis is in the main correct, there will be found a considerable diti'erence of character in the stories of J and E. According to the first, Balaam makes no ditliculty about going, nor does he receive any revelation forbidding it, but of his own accord he intimates to Balak that as a prophet he is entirely under the control of J". Balaam dis- covers his sin in going, only by the intervention of 'the angel of J",' and at once jnoposes to return. For the first time he is permitte<i to go, Imt only on the condition that he does not attem])t to resi.sl the inspiration of God. 22^ is indeed referred by some to the reiser of JE, but some such limited permission is at anj rate imjilied in v.^. When Balaam arrives at Kiriath-huzoth, he is shown the whole company of the Israelites dwelling according to their tribes. The spirit of God conies upon him, and he bursts into a rhapsody of praise, suggested in its form by the sight before tiim. The chief thought is the splendour of the huge encampment in its ordered array —
' As gardens b.v the river side, As Ugn-aloes which J" hath planted. As cedar trees beside the waters.'
What Balaam, according to the story, foretells, is the increa.se in the multitude of the people and the power of their king. This provokes Balak's anger; he smites his hands together, and would have dis- missed Balaam at once ; but with great dignity the latter justifies himself, and, regardless of Balak's «Tath, he proceeds to predict the destruction, first of Moab, then of Edom, at the hand of the king of Israel. Balak himself seems overawed by the torrent of inspired rhetoric, and he has nothing more to say to the prophet, who inimediatelj' retires. J's narrative is terse and vigorous throughout, full of quaintness, yet always dignified and iiicturcsque without grandiloquence. Wliat remains of E's narrative falls distinctly below it in point of literary merit. It is more ornate, but less really beautilul. There is a tendency to what ai)pears like an artificial repetition of similar incidents. Balak twice apppeals to Balaam, who twice in his turn appeals to God, and twice receives an answer from Him. Thrice Balak builds for Balaam seven altars, and offers a bullock and a ram on every altar, and the language in wliich Balak's command is given and carried out is rejieated each time. We might add that thrice Balaam pronounces a blessing instead of a curse, only that the third blessing of E has disajipeared in ch. 24 to make way for the blessing of J. There is, moreover, besides its anthropomorphism, a want of sjiontaneity and naturalness about the story. We feel this in the way that Balaam [jarleys with God (2.'t'). He tells Him that he has prepared the seven altars, and olfcred a bullock and a ram on every altar, and im|>lies therefrom a hope that He will grant his wish : and there is an almost mechanical view of insi)iration in the thought of the word put in Balaam's mouth (2'!°). What a dilference between this and the thought of J (24'-'), that the Sjiirit so takes pos.session of him that his whole nature is aglow I Then again, how unnatural comparatively Balak's conduct is ! How strange that lie shoulj have put up with Balaam's utterances so com- jilaccntly, and contented himself with a mild remonstrance. (See IIkxatkucii, Nu.MiiKlis;.)