2012, Vol.18, No.4

Korean Journal of Old Testament Studies 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.67

pISSN : 1229-0521 / eISSN : 2799-9890
https://journal.kci.go.kr/ksots

The purpose of this study is to propose a new paragraph of the story of Balaam and reinterpret this story in the whole context of the Bible. The method of this article is ‘an exegetical study for the canonical unfoldings’ and it is applied to the study of Balaam story(Num 22-24). “Balaam, a sinner or saint?” This question is connected with the interpretation of the story of Balaam. Until now, most of Old Testament studies have attempted to interpret Balaam's story in the paragraph of Num 22-24 and suggested the interpretive ambiguity of Balaam. But this paper explores the canonical unfolding of Balaam’s story from the OT to the NT(Num 31:16, Deut 23:3-6, Mic 6:5, 2Pet 2:15-16, Rev 2:14). In the process of analyzing and comparing this story with the connected texts(Num 31:16, 2 Pet 2:15-16, Rev 2:14), negative character and concrete sin of Balaam is revealed. It is also found that some of the connected texts of this story have understood the story of Balaam in the paragraph of Num 22-25(Num 31:16, Rev 2:14). After this scrutiny of the story of Balaam in the whole context of the OT and the NT, it is concluded that this story can be interpreted in the new paragraph of Num 22-25. This interpretation of the new paragraph shows what the hidden guilty of Balaam is. Superficially Balaam was a messenger of God, but substantially he was an evil man who advised the Moabite and the Midian to tempt the Israelite into idolizing(Num 25).

This article reconstructs the portrait of God in the story of Saul. There are two extreme opinions about the reason for Saul's fall. One blames Saul, the other God. Recently new literary critics found more faults with God than with Saul based on their observation that God was displeased with the people's demand for a king. They argued that Saul was predestined for failure due to God's ill-will. The portrait of God drawn by them is characterized by ambiguity, malice, and hostility. Utilizing new literary critical method, especially characterization, textual gap and ambiguity this study closely examines the ways in which Samuel's words and deeds affect the unfolding of the story and the portrait of God. His portrayal of God is divergent from that of the narrator and God. The author concludes that the portrait of God drawn by the new literary critics is based on the projection of the prophet Samuel which is tainted by his own agenda. The prophet enjoys considerable freedom in carrying out God's command, partly because of the laconic nature of God's commands. He is free even to do nothing about God's command. Often times he has to interpret the commands into actions, filling details in. In the process his agenda dilutes and in some cases eclipses the intention of God, resulting in the distortion of the portrait of God. Rather than being malicious and hostile, the author finds a God, who initially shows anti-monarchic sentiment, preempts the people's demand for a king and takes initiative in placing a king over Israel. God is open to human demands and embraces human frailty. This study challenges the long-held assumption that Samuel faithfully represents God, and convincingly establishes the differences between them. This article is expected to catalyze a deeper study of the characters in biblical stories.

Joshua 7 describes why and how the Israelites failed to conquer the city of Ai when they first tried. It appears that the chapter clearly depicts the reason as the fault of Achan. But if the sin of Acahn is the only reason, the second attempt, after punishing Achan to death, must be the same with the first. But the aspect of second attempt portrayed in chapter 8 is quite different from that of the first in 7:2-5. It means that Achan's case is not the only reason. Comparing the text of Joshua 7:2-5 with that of surrounded chapters, it is clear that the portrayal of Joshua is remarkably different from that in other battle accounts. In other words, this particular text shows no sign of Joshua being a dedicated, sharp warrior. The followings are the images of Joshua we have discovered. First, he did not order any commands to move out or withdraw. He merely kept silent or approved hesitantly. Second, he did not rise early in the morning unlike the other days. This conveys an impression that the mind of the commander in chief was indolent in the time when he should have been sensitive in the field. Third, he was not with the people as in the other battles, nor did he lead out. Fourth, he did not set up any strategy for the battle. Fifth, he did not ask for YHWH's guidance for this battle. Combining all these facts, we are able to conclude that the primary responsibility for failing this battle is on Joshua. However, the text of Joshua 7 is deliberately masking Joshua's mistakes in this campaign. First of all, Joshua 7:1 makes the reader focus on Achan's sin. There is no doubt that Achan's sin was a serious problem among the Israelites, YHWH's covenantal community. Yet the way Joshua 7 is written shows how it is trying to hide Joshua's mistake in relation to Achan's problem. In the following text, 7:2-5, Joshua is completely left out. However, even this literary strategy could not wholly cover Joshua. Critical analysis of the text helps us to understand the reality of the account more clearly beyond the intention of the text.