HistoricalChristian.Faith

Why does 2 Peter call Balaam “son of Bosor,” not “son of Beor”? (2 Peter 2:15)

Type: supporting argument (off-timeline) · Assessment: sound that “Bosor” (Βοσóρ) is the original New Testament reading and “Beor” a later harmonization to the Old Testament / plausible for the two leading Semitic explanations of the odd form (a play on bāśār, “flesh,” or an inner-scribal swap seeded by the Edomite king-list) / weak that the form proves Petrine (Galilean) authorship — advanced by J. N. D. Kelly and the older commentators, doubted by Richard Bauckham.

Related arguments: the seer’s name & origin — see also the Deir ‘Alla seer’s identity · Pethor and Balaam’s home · Bela son of Beor of Edom

The claim

“Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness.”

— 2 Peter 2:15 (KJV). Everywhere in the Hebrew Bible and its Greek translation Balaam is “son of Beor” (Hebrew בְּעוֹר, LXX Βεωρ; Numbers 22:5), but at this one point the Greek New Testament calls him Balaam tou Bosor, “Balaam son of Bosor” (Βοσóρ) — a patronymic found nowhere else. The crux is both textual (some manuscripts read Beor) and interpretive (why would the writer, or a variant tradition, put an s where the Old Testament has none?), and several explanations have been advanced — a Galilean-Aramaic pronunciation that authenticates a Palestinian author, a deliberate pun making Balaam “son of flesh,” an accidental scribal swap, and (anciently) a place-name.

Who advances it

Three live modern explanations, plus one ancient one. (a) The Galilean-phonetic reading goes back to Theodor Zahn (Introduction to the New Testament) and is carried by J. N. D. Kelly (Black’s New Testament Commentary) and the older English commentators (Ellicott, the Pulpit Commentary, Gill, Fausset): Bosor reflects a Galilean mispronunciation of the guttural ע (ayin), taken as an “undesigned coincidence” confirming that the writer was Peter the Galilean. (b) The bāśār (“flesh”) pun — Balaam as “son of flesh,” fitting the letter’s theme of carnal lust — was proposed already by Luther, Wettstein, and Vitringa (cited in C. Bigg’s ICC), and is preferred by Richard Bauckham (Word Biblical Commentary) and Thomas Schreiner (NAC); it has a distant ancient cousin in Jerome’s and Bede’s glossing of “Bosor” as “fleshly.” (c) The scribal-swap reading is argued by Christopher M. Hays (Filología Neotestamentaria 17, 2004): Bosor is an unintentional replacement of Beor, seeded by the Edomite king-list where “Bela son of Beor” sits beside “Bozrah” (LXX Bosorra). (d) The place-name reading is the Venerable Bede’s: Bosor is “the name of the city from which Balaam is said to have come.”¹

The evidence for

The textual datum first, because it decides the shape of the question. “Bosor” is not a majority-text curiosity to be corrected away: it is, in Bauckham’s words, “by far the best attested reading.” It stands in the earliest witness (𝓁⁷²), in correctors of Sinaiticus (ℵ²) and Alexandrinus, in Ephraemi Rescriptus (C), and across the Byzantine tradition and lectionaries — hence the KJV. The rival “Beor” (Βεωρ) appears in Vaticanus (B), the Sahidic and Armenian, and Augustine — precisely the sort of scattered, versionally-supported reading that betrays a harmonization to the familiar Old Testament name. The decisive tell is the conflated reading of Sinaiticus’s original hand, Βεωορσóρ, which Metzger judged “no doubt due to the conflation of Βοσóρ with a marginal correction –εωρ” — i.e. a scribe had Bosor in his exemplar and someone had penciled the Old-Testament -eōr in the margin. So the modern editions (NA28, UBS5) print Bosor as original and treat Beor as the secondary correction; only Westcott and Hort, following Vaticanus, printed Beor. This makes Bosor the lectio difficilior — the harder reading a scribe would smooth, not create — and turns the whole question into: why did the author (or his tradition) write the harder form?²

The Semitic explanations answer that question with real substance. For (b), the letter is saturated with “the flesh” (2:10, 2:18), so a Hebrew ear could hear Bosor as bāśār and read “son of flesh” as a fitting slur on the carnal seer — a reading Bauckham calls “more plausible” than the phonetic one, that Paul Himes defends at length as a sophisticated Aramaic pun (the very reason the harder reading is original), and that the Latin tradition anticipates: Jerome’s Book of Hebrew Names, glossing 2 Peter, gives “Bosor: in tribulation, either fleshly or furry,” and Bede repeats “Bosor, meaning either of flesh or in tribulation.” For (c), Hays shows that the Balaam traditions and the Edomite king-lists are “tightly intertwined” — “Bela the son of Beor” of Genesis 36:32 stands one verse from “Bozrah” (LXX Bosorra, 36:33), and LXX Job re-identifies these kings — so the proximity of Beor and Bosorra could have “paved the way for the unintentional replacement of Βεωρ with Βοσóρ.” And the older commentators note that the interchange itself is unremarkable in Aramaic transmission — the guttural ayin (ע) represented by a sibilant, the vowel-glide much as “Boanerges” sounds the sheva — a straightforward alternate transliteration.³

Adversarial assessment

What holds. The textual verdict is secure and not really in dispute: Bosor is the original New Testament text and Beor the harmonizing correction — every current critical edition and almost every commentator agrees, and the Sinaiticus conflation caught the correction happening. That much is sound. And that the odd form has a Semitic explanation — whether a “flesh” pun or an inner-scribal swap — is well-grounded: both are advanced by serious text-critics on real evidence, and the “flesh” reading in particular fits the letter’s own vocabulary and was independently felt by Jerome and Bede.

What is overstated or imprecise. Three cautions. First, the “flesh” pun, attractive as it is, should not be dressed as a documented midrash: Bauckham himself concedes the bāśār explanation “is not known from Jewish sources.” The rabbinic pun that is attested runs the other way — it connects Beor (בְּעוֹר) with bə‘Īr (“beasts”) to charge Balaam with bestiality (b. Sanhedrin 105a), which does nothing to explain the s of Bosor. The pun is a plausible modern conjecture, not a tradition the author is known to have inherited. Second, the Galilean-authorship inference is the weakest link, and it is the one the older commentators lean on hardest (“a slight confirmation of St. Peter’s authorship… he was a Galilaean, and his speech betrayed him”). The reported Galilean feature is a weakening or dropping of the gutturals (Peter’s accent at Matthew 26:73; the Talmud’s mockery at Erubin 53b) — not the hardening of an ayin into a sibilant s that “Bosor” would require; the sound-change runs the wrong direction, which is why Bauckham demotes Zahn’s idea to a bare “suggestion.” As an argument for who wrote 2 Peter it does not carry weight in either direction. Third, Bede’s place-name reading founders on the grammar: “Balaam tou Bosor” is a patronymic exactly parallel to the LXX’s “Balaam son of Beor” — it names the father, not a hometown — and no modern commentator revives it.

Assessment

Sound that “Bosor” is the original reading of 2 Peter 2:15 and “Beor” a harmonization to the Old Testament — the manuscript evidence is decisive and the Sinaiticus conflation shows the correction in the act. Plausible for the two leading Semitic accounts of why the harder form stands: a play on bāśār (“son of flesh,” fitting the letter’s carnality theme — but a modern conjecture, not an attested midrash) or an inner-scribal swap seeded by the Edomite king-list’s neighbouring “Beor” and “Bozrah/Bosorra” (which dovetails with the wiki’s Bela-of-Edom material). Weak that the form authenticates Petrine or Palestinian authorship: the specific sound-change “Bosor” needs is not the attested Galilean guttural feature, so the popular “undesigned coincidence” over-reaches its evidence. The honest upshot is that Bosor is a genuine philological puzzle with a firm text and a still-open explanation — most likely a Semitic word-play or transmissional quirk, not a signature.

« Back to the Balaam timeline · related: Is Balaam “Bela son of Beor,” king of Edom? · the Arabic Ba‘ūrā’, a cleaner witness to Beor

Sources