Florian Kreuzer, «Der Antagonist: Der Satan in der Hebräischen Bibel – eine bekannte Größe?», Vol. 86 (2005) 536-544
Considering the figure of N+#) in the Hebrew Bible, the attempt to reconstruct a
figure which already existed in the imaginary world of Ancient Israel in biblical
times must fail. Zech 3 and Job 1-2 obstruct the development of a precise image
out of YHWH’s environment. The texts achieve that by their inherent vagueness
of description. For this reason the antagonistic element necessary for the dramatic
plot of both texts does not consist in an already existing, known being. It is
rather named by the abstract term ‘the opponent’, in Hebrew "N+#)".
202 Ruth Fidler
contrasted with the prophetic dream). As in psalm 3 it is debatable
whether this ultimate vindication of the psalmist is visualized here as
an “intimate spiritual experience†(36) or as a morning theophany (37),
but clearly the nocturnal setting does not necessarily lead to a dream.
Possibly it reflects an incubatory procedure that culminates in a real
theophany (38).
This brief and incomplete review of liminal reports in the Bible has
touched upon several possible explanations for the co-occurrence of
dream or sleep features with wakeful features in these reports: (1) A
literary-historical explanation: Liminal reports were in fact dream
reports that had their dream terminology subdued. This seems suitable
in the case of 1 Chr 1,7; but in prophetic and quasi-prophetic accounts
such as 1 Sam 3, 1 Kgs 19,9-18 or Gen 15 it would be more
appropriate to consider one of or a combination of the following: (2) A
phenomenological explanation: a liminal report may reflect a liminal
experience, e.g. in a state of consciousness that cannot be categorized
by the usual dichotomy asleep/awake (39) or a mixed experience, that
crosses the threshold of sleep during its evolvement, as may be the
case in I Sam 3 or Ps 17 in view of the comments above. (3) A Traditio-
historical approach: The common belief in the potential of dreams to
reveal ‘another’ reality and thus bridge over gaps in time, space or
being (i.e. between divine and human) was part of the heritage also of
prophets and psalmists. This notion — evident in Num 12,6 — may
explain why the patterns of prophetic reports of visions resemble those
of parallel types of dream reports (40), or why certain accounts of
prophetic experiences — e.g. 1 Sam 3 or Jer 31,23-26 — come so
(36) E.A. LESLIE, The Psalms (New York 1949) 353.
(37) WEISER, The Psalms, 180. Weiser is sympathetic to H. Schmidt’s
hypothesis that finds here a temple ordeal. See above, note 15.
(38) LINDBLOM, “Theophanies in Holy Placesâ€, 104-105.
(39) G. HÖLSCHER, Die Propheten (Leipzig 1914) 57-58; J.-M. HUSSER, Le
songe et la parole, 151-157; ID., Dreams and Dream Narratives, 153-154, 176-
178. Hölscher attributed such experiences as 1 Sam 3 to a transition stage,
whereas Husser discusses them in terms of conditioned prophetic sleep and lucid
dreams. For various reports of ‘presence’ experiences that occurred at night but
were not dreams see W. JAMES, The Varieties of Religious Experience. A Study in
Human Nature (London 1960) 74-91.
(40) M. SISTER, “Die Typen der prophetischen Visionen in der Bibelâ€, MGWJ
78 (1934) 399-430; Z. WEISMAN, “Patterns and Structures in the Visions of
Amosâ€, Beit Mikra 14 (1969) 40-57 [Hebrew]; B. LONG, “Prophetic Call
Traditions and Reports of Visionsâ€, ZAW 84 (1972) 494-500; ID., ‘Reports of
Visions among the Prophets’, JBL 95 (1976) 353-365.