Comparison of Humans to Animals in 2 Peter 2,10b-22 105 comparison is that both irrational animals and the false teachers are destined for death and decay. In other words, they are alike in having this inherent character. I have found no close parallel to a comparison of this kind; the closest is Psalm 49, which is quoted and discussed above. The reason may be that many would simply take it for granted that humans and animals are alike in this way. Those who thought they differed in this respect would not make such a comparison. It would mainly arise where humans could either be like or unlike animals in this way. 2 Peter thinks that Christians are destined to escape death and decay, to be sharers in divine nature (see 2 Peter 1,5). But the false teachers will not share this destiny; instead they will be like irrational animals. 2. Like Balaam’s donkey (2 Pet 2,16) Jude 11 says about those it criticizes that “they go the way of Cain, and abandon themselves to Balaam’s error for the sake of gain, and perish in Korah’s rebellion.” 2 Peter’s revision of this in 2,16 eliminates the references to Cain and Korah and expands the reference to Balaam. Presumably comparison of the false teachers to Balaam served the author’s purpose better than the triple comparison made by Jude (13). Expanding the reference to Balaam also allowed the author of 2 Peter to mention Balaam’s donkey explicitly. This enabled him to develop the theme of comparing the false teachers to animals. As I have noted above, this comparison emphasizes a positive feature of an animal. In describing Balaam’s donkey, the author of 2 Peter says that Balaam received a rebuke of his lawbreaking when a voiceless donkey having spoken with a human’s voice prevented the madness of the prophet (uJpozuvgion a[fwnon ejn ajnqrwvpou fwnh/' fqegxavmenon ejkwvlusen th;n tou' profhvtou parafronivan). The author of 2 Peter has taken this from Num 22,28-30. These verses tell how the Lord opened the mouth of Balaam’s donkey to reproach Balaam for beating the donkey. It is possible that this beating is what the author of 2 Peter means by Balaam’s lawbreaking and his madness. However, it seems more likely that the author understands lawbreaking and madness more broadly. If so, he probably presumes the elaboration of the story of Balaam in non-biblical sources in which the donkey rebukes Balaam for his general failings, not simply for beating the donkey. According to Bauckham the targums to Num 22,30 attribute to the donkey a speech in which she rebukes Balaam for his foolishness (14). In Targum Neofiti the donkey rebukes Balaam for lacking understanding and argues that if Balaam is unable to curse the donkey, he will surely be unable to curse the Israelites. The donkey’s speech in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is quite similar (15). One indication that the author of 2 Peter is not directly dependent on the biblical text at this point is that he uses the word uJpozuvgion for Balaam’s (13) On this see T.S. CAULLEY, “‘They Promise Them Freedom’: Once Again the yeudodidaskaloi in 2 Peter”, ZNW 99 (2007) 129-138. v (14) BAUCKHAM, Jude, 2 Peter, 268. Bauckham mentions specifically Frg. Tg., Tg. Ps.- J., Tg. Neof. (15) Targum Neofiti 1, 127, 254.