us theories mentioned above, Balaam would
appear in one source of J as an Edomite, in another as an Ammonite; in E as
a native of the south of Judah or possibly as an Aramaean; in the tradition
followed by the Priestly Code probably as a Midianite. All these peoples
either belong to the Hebrew stock or are closely connected with it. We may
conclude that Balaam was an ancient figure of traditions originally common
to all the Hebrews and their allies, and afterwards appropriated by
individual tribes; much as there are various St Georges.

The chief significance of the Balaam narratives for the history of the
religion of Israel is the recognition by J and E of the genuine inspiration
of a non-Hebrew prophet. Yahweh is as much the God of Balaam as he is of
Moses. Probably the original tradition goes back to a time when Yahweh was
recognized as a deity of a circle of connected tribes of which the
Israelite tribes formed a part. But the retention of the story without
modification may imply a continuous recognition through some centuries of
the idea that Yahweh revealed his will to nations other than Israel.

Apparently the Priestly Code ignored this feature of the story.

Taking the narratives as we now have them, Balaam is a companion figure to
Jonah, the prophet who wanted to go where he was not sent, over against the
prophet who ran away from the mission to which he was called.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Ewald, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel^3_, Bd. ii. p. 298;
Hengstenberg's _Die Geschichte Bileams und seine Weissagungen_ (1842); the
commentaries on the scriptural passages, especially G. B. Gray on Numbers
xxii.-xxiv.; and the articles on "Balaam" (Bileam) in Hamburger's
_Realencyclopaedie fuer Bibel und Talmud_, Hastings' _Bible Dict._, Black
and Cheyne's _Encyclopaedia Biblica_, Herozog-Hauck's _Realencyklopadie_.
For the analysis into earlier documents, see also the _Oxford Hexateuch_,
Estlin Carpenter and Harford-Battersby.

(W. H. BE.)

[1] Quoted Neh. xiii. 1 f.

[2] Josh. xxiv. 9, 10. E; cf. Micah vi. 5.

[3] Num. xxxi. 8 (quoted Josh. xiii. 22), 16. These references are not
necessarily inconsistent with JE; but they are probably based on an
independent tradition. The date of the Priestly Code is _ca._ 400 B.C.

[4] Gen. xxxvi. 32.

[5] For names and reasons, see Gray, _Numbers_, 314.

[6] 2 Peter ii. 16, 17 (also refer to the ass speaking), Jude xi.

[7] _Ant._ iv. 6.

[8] _Quod. Det. Potiori_, s. 20.

[9] _De