What Do You Make of This?

[Hebrew Student]

Hey Everyone!

I wanted to ask what people think of this. I took a class in Old Aramaic this semester, and we had to do a paper at the end of class on an Old Aramaic inscription of our choice. When I was flipping through our textbook to choose an inscription, I found an inscription with the phrase: znh spr bl'm br b'r 'sh chzh 'lhn h', which translated is "This is the book of Balaam the son of Beor. He was a man who saw the gods." Obviously, this purked my interest, and I decided to do this inscription.

However, I had not a clue what I was getting myself into. Apparently, this inscription was found near ancient Ammon at a cite called Deir Alla. It was written on wall plaster that apparently collapsed during an earthquake. That makes it doubly hard. You see, I examined the paleographical data, and came to the tenitive conclusion that the inscription dates from the late eighth century B.C. It was also written in ink. Now, first of all, plaster that is 2,700 years old will tend to crumble. Hence, it was difficult to tell what were the cracks in the plaster, and what were actual marks of ink. Infared lighting helped with this, but there were other problems. Because the wall plaster was destroyed in an earthquake, it was found in pieces. Hence, part of the trick of dealing with this inscription is trying to place all of the pieces back together. Also, this is in the context of the fact that they shortly afterward discovered another Aramaic text written near the Balaam text also on wall plaster, and, if you attempt to insert fragments, you have to be careful that you are not inserting a fragment that goes with the other text. Also, I should mention that the ink is badly worn. It is much easier to read with infared photography, but there are still places that are hard to read.

Not only that, but other features of the text are strange. First of all, there are places where the text seems to not function like Aramaic. For example, there appears to be no clear example of the emphatic aleph. There are places where it appears to have more in common with Canaanite dialects than with Aramaic! However, there are several things characteristic of Aramaic in the text. For example, Aramaic does characteristically use the word br for son, and several of the verbs are very characteristic of Aramaic, for instance, the usage of npq in line 6. The script, although having many similarities to Aramaic, is also very similar to the Ammonite Amman Citadel Inscription. However, it is mixed with very early examples of Aramaic script [such as those found in the Bar Rakib inscriptions] as well as even some late forms that are closer to the Ashur Ostrocon.

Not only that, the interpretation of the text is strange. In spite of all of the above problems, we can get a decent idea of what is going on. Here is my translation of the text that I did for my paper [elipsis indicates where the text is broken or unreadable]:

1. … the book of Balaam the son of Beor. He was a man who saw the gods. The gods came to him at night, and spoke to him
2. according to the oracle of El, and they said to Balaam the son of Beor, “He shall do…I will surely kindle a fire for…
3. Balaam arose the next morning…south…he was not able to eat, and he fasted and wept bitterly.
4. Then his people went up to him and said to Balaam the son of Beor, “Why do you fast, and why do you weep?” Then he
5. said to them, “Sit down, and I will tell you what the Shadin gods…Come and see the works of the gods, the gods altogether!
6. The Shadin gods stood in the assembly, and said to Shamash, ‘Send out the lightning of the heavens. In your cloud place darkness and not a pow-
7. erful light! To your bolt, give the seal of a dark cloud. Do not remove it forever and ever!’ The swift re-
8. proaches the eagle and the voice???? of the vulture sings. The stork…The sons of the nechats bird troubles the young heron. The swallow tears up
9. the dove. The sparrow…staff. Instead of the ewe the [shepherd’s] staff is led. The hares eat the
10. wolves.????...drink wine. Hyenas obey chastisement. The whelps of…
11. he laughs to the wise. The poor woman mixes myrrh. The priestess…
12. for the official, the threaded loin cloth. The one who is regarded now shows regard. The one who showed regard is now regarded …
13. And the deaf hear from afar…
14. and all see. The constraint of offspring and offspring…
15. to the leopard…The piglet causes the sons of…to flee
16. of a tooth…destruction, and eye…


That is a summary of what I have learned of this inscription. It is just really hard to know how to understand how to take this in the light of what the Bible says. I figured I would ask how you guys understand it in light of the story of Numbers 22ff, and if you can see any insights, or what you think about this. It is just hard to know how to understand it.

God Bless,
Adam

 

[Caroline]

Well, you got me there. But ancient manuscripts and inscriptions are often kinda odd. I read Egyptian hieroglyphs myself (a little, I mean, as a hobby). I finally concluded that just because it's old and on a wall doesn't mean the author was sane. But if you ever get to the bottom of what the piglet causes, let me know. That sounds like the most interesting part ...

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Doesn't "late 8th C." translate to about the time of Samaria's fall? 722BC, or thereabouts?

Such would place it 300 years after Saul. And then it's another... 300 years to the days of the conquest?

Maybe it was an actual transcription of some record in their hands. Or maybe, it is just a fictional claim.

Balaam came to curse Israel at the behest of Balak, king of Moab, in league with Midian. Is this writing even referencing the same prophet? The biblical one died shortly after his benediction (rather than a curse). He was killed for his part in the instigating moral failure at Baal Peor (Num.31:16; ref. ch.25).

Personally, I can't compare this writing to the witness of Scripture, the only reliable things we ever know Balaam said (although we might suspect more of him, based on the narrative). The prophecy of Balaam in the Bible just seems (in translation) so superior, in both style and substance.

 

[Hebrew Student]

Hey Pastor Buchanan,

You bring up a lot of good points. Let me see if I can write what I have learned.

Doesn't "late 8th C." translate to about the time of Samaria's fall? 722BC, or thereabouts?

I gave it a date of somewhere between 725B.C.-710 B.C., based on the similarities in script with the Amman Citadel Inscription, which is around 750B.C. Your date would fit my range, but, given some similarities to later forms of Aramaic scripts, I might be more comfortable with something like 715 B.C. However, it is also possible, as Van Der Kooij states, that it is as late as 675 B.C. The reason is because it is difficult to guage how quickly these scripts changed. If they changed very slowly, we could be looking at a date of 675 B.C. If it changed very quickly, it could be as far back as 730 B.C. In fact, Van Der Kooij gives a range of 725B.C.-675 B.C. for this very reason. The reason why I chose the date range that I did is because of the great similarities with the Amman Citadel Inscription. I thought that needed to be given more weight [expecially since the text was discovered in that area].

Such would place it 300 years after Saul. And then it's another... 300 years to the days of the conquest?

Yes, but date doesn't matter that much in term of accuracy. Remember, the book of Genesis has uber ancient material in it, and yet, the book of Genesis was written in the Late Bronze Age. In fact, the idea that the closer something is to the events, the more accurate it is, is something that is being challanged in scholarship right now. One of the reasons for this is because it hasn't born out to be true, even in our own experience. For example, my professor said his father had a book on World War II that was published in 1945. He said that, while the pictures were interesting, the actual material in the book was unreliable, and said all kinds of things that all WWII historians reject today. What matters more is the accuracy of the sources you use, not so much how close you are to the events.

Maybe it was an actual transcription of some record in their hands. Or maybe, it is just a fictional claim.

It was most certainly a transcription of some kind, because the specific term spr is used. Also, the idea that you would write this on a wall plaster knowing that it was false doesn't make much sense. Hence, while it might be fictional, it, more than likely, would not be considered as such by this time.

Balaam came to curse Israel at the behest of Balak, king of Moab, in league with Midian. Is this writing even referencing the same prophet? The biblical one died shortly after his benediction (rather than a curse). He was killed for his part in the instigating moral failure at Baal Peor (Num.31:16; ref. ch.25).

There is almost no question amongst scholars that this is referencing the same man. The reason is because of the fact that this text was found in the same area as the Biblical Balaam, it mentions him specifically by his name and his father's name, calls him a seer, and tells us by implication that his visions were written down. In other words, you would have to have another person who was:

1. From this area
2. Named Balaam
3. Had a father named Beor
4. Was a seer,
5. And became famious enough to get his visions recorded in a book.

Having those qualifications repeated in this six hundred year time period would be almost near impossible. It would be like someone finding a text from our time in Geneva, Switzerland mentioning man named John Calvin who had a father named Gerard, was a protestant reformer, and had written a book in Christian theology that was copied, and then suggesting that it was some other John Calvin.

Personally, I can't compare this writing to the witness of Scripture, the only reliable things we ever know Balaam said (although we might suspect more of him, based on the narrative). The prophecy of Balaam in the Bible just seems (in translation) so superior, in both style and substance.

Ya, I know what you mean. The oracle here is just simply weird. Then again, the oracle in the Bible is from the true God, and this is an oracle of the pagan god El. Also, part of the problem is that this text is so difficult both in terms of the medium [plaster] and the worn ink. However, it is still just difficult to know how to take.

God Bless,
Adam