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+#)".
204 Ruth Fidler
Psalm 155 (Syriac Psalm III) was described as “quite biblical in
form and expression, being an individual Danklied-Klagelied
combination†(43) and “as biblical as a nonbiblical psalm can get†(44).
Understandably then, this parallel is cited as the ultimate proof that Ps
3,6 refers likewise to a dream (45). But such a conclusion does not
necessarily follow from the evidence. Post-biblical authors, lacking the
special sensitivity of their biblical predecessors regarding dreams,
were inclined to introduce dream terms into their accounts of
theophanies and prophetic messages that do not have such definitions
in the Bible (46). Therefore it is equally feasible to argue that Psalm
155,18-19 in Syriac and in Qumran bears no greater testimony to the
original meaning of Ps 3,6 than does Pap. Ryl. 461 to the original
position of this verse. Both have their contribution to the history of
exegesis, but this should not be confused with exegesis itself.
A combination of the phenomenological line (2) with the traditio-
historical one (3) therefore seems more promising. Psalmists, not
unlike biblical prophets, generally steer clear of dream terminology
when reporting their own encounters with the divine. A sense of
special closeness to God echoes also through the Psalms, although its
roots are somewhat different: as regards prophets this sense has to do
with their personal charismatic status, whereas psalmists often express
their proximity to God is terms that are more spatial or cultic. “He who
dwells in the shelter of Elyon, who abides in the shadow of the
Almighty†(Ps 91,1), who is “planted in the house of YHWH†(92,14)
or hides in the shadow of his wings (17,8) may also be inclined to a
more direct concept of communication with God than attainable
(43) J.A. SANDERS, The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa) (DJD 4;
Oxford 1965) 76.
(44) SANDERS, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll, 112. Sanders found it impossible
to date this psalm. See however A. HURVITZ, “Observations on the Language of
the Third Apocryphal Psalm from Qumranâ€, RevQ 5 (1964) 225-232. Hurvitz
pointed to an accumulation of “linguistic idioms which are peculiar to late biblical
or even post-biblical Hebrewâ€, concluding that the psalm could not be earlier than
the Persian era (ibid., 231). Cp. also VAN ROOY, “Psalm 155â€, 110-111.
(45) SCHROEDER, “Psalm 3â€, 247-248.
(46) J. BARTON, Oracles of God. Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel
After the Exile (New York – Oxford 1986) 118-122, 127; R.K. GNUSE, Dreams
and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus. A Traditio-Historical Analysis
(Leiden 1996) 12, 161-162, 173-174, 176-177. Gnuse’s review shows that
Josephus introduced dream terms when he paraphrased Gen 46,5; 2 Sam 12,1; 1
Kgs 9,2.