onites were associated with the Moabites,
possibly an imperfect reminiscence of the reference to Ammon in J. Joshua,
in his farewell speech to the Israelites,[2] also refers to this episode.
The Priestly Code[3] has a different story of Balaam, in which he advises
the _Midianites_ how they may bring disaster on Israel by seducing the
people from their loyalty to Yahweh. Later on he is slain in battle,
fighting in the ranks of Midian.

It is often supposed that the name of the king of Edom,[4] Bela, son of
Beor, is a corruption of Balaam, and that, therefore, one form of the
tradition made him a king of Edom.

The _Poems_ fall into two groups: the first four, in xxiii. 1.-xxiv. 19,
are commonly regarded as ancient lyrics of the early monarchy, perhaps in
the time of David or Solomon, which J and E inserted in their narrative.
Some recent critics,[5] however, are inclined to place them in the
post-exilic period, in which case a late editor has substituted them for
earlier, probably less edifying, oracles. But the features which are held
to indicate late date may be due to editorial revision.

The first two are found in an E setting, and therefore, if ancient, formed
part of E.

The _First_, xxiii. 7-10, prophesies the unique exaltation of Israel, and
its countless numbers.

The _Second_, xxiii. 18-24, celebrates the moral virtue of Israel, the
monarchy and its conquests.

Again the second couple are connected with J.

The _Third_, xxiv. 3-9, also celebrates the glory and conquests of the
monarchy.

_Agag_, in verse 7, can hardly be the Amalekite king of 1 Sam. xv.; Amalek
was too small and obscure. The Septuagint and other Greek Versions and Sam.
Pent, have _Gog_, which would imply a post-exilic date, cf. Ezek. xxxix.
Probably both Agag and Gog are textual corruptions. _Og_ has been
suggested, but does not seem a great improvement.

The _Fourth_, xxiv. 14-19, announces the coming of a king, possibly David,
who shall conquer Edom and Moab.

The remaining poems are usually regarded as later additions; thus the
_Oxford Hexateuch_ on Num. xxiv. 20-24. "The three concluding oracles seem
irrelevant here, being concerned neither with Israel nor Moab. It has been
thought that they were added to bring the cycle up to seven."

The _Fifth_, xxiv. 20, deals with the ruin of Amalek. It is of uncertain
date; if the historical Amalek is meant, it may be early; but Amalek may be
symbolical.

The _Sixth_, xxiv. 21 f., deals