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+#)".
A Touch of Support: Ps 3,6 and the Psalmist’s Experience 207
individuals in special proximity (spatial or personal) to the theophanic
deity; (b) Some of these liminal reports refer to hand gestures made by
a deity to the recipient of the theophany. In the following paragraphs
the texts in each of these two categories are arranged according to
phenomenological considerations.
a) Close encounters
Dan’el (1) and Ashurbanipal (2), both found in spatial proximity
to the deity, are reported to experience theophanies that may border on
dreams but are not so entitled. The cylinders of Gudea (3) and the Mari
letters (4) invite observations also on a personal status of proximity to
the deity that coincides with a decrease in or with non-occurrence of
dream terminology.
(1) Dan’el: In the Ugaritic epics two men are privileged with the
personal blessings and/or guidance of El (’il) concerning a yet
unfulfilled desire to beget a son and heir: Kirta and Dan’el. The former
weeps “in his chamber†(56), his tears pouring “like shekels†to the
ground, thus provoking El’s descent “in his dreamâ€, with the question
“What ails Kirta that he cries†etc. El’s encounter with Dan’el (57), on
the other hand, although it resembles the one with Kirta in its subject
and its result (the birth of a son), is never entitled ‘dream’. This may
seem odd given the complex ritual performed by Dan’el, which entails
spending six days and nights (!) supplying “the holy ones†with food
and drink, before his prayers are answered. The difference in
terminology between the two theophanies can perhaps be related to the
difference in location: Kirta’s dream brings El to his chamber, but
when Dan’el performs his complex “incubatory†ritual (58) he
apparently is already in spatial proximity to the gods, so the ritual
results in a more direct encounter.
(56) KTU, 1.14 I:26: “y‘rb bh≥drh ybky†= “He entered his chamber (and)
weptâ€. Cp. also ANET, 143 (translation by H.L. Ginsberg).
(57) KTU, 1.17 I:16-26
(58) J. OBERMANN, How Daniel Was Blessed with a Son: An Incubation Scene
in Ugaritic (JAOS Suppl., 6; Baltimore 1946) 10. This widely followed definition
of Dan’el’s actions has been challenged by B. MARGALIT, The Ugaritic Poem of
AQHT (BZAW 182; Berlin – New York 1989) 260-266 and HUSSER, Le songe et
la parole, 44-54 who both point to some inaccuracies in the adoption of the Greek
term into the Semitic world. However, their argument that Dan’el is not engaged
in incubation since he is not sleeping (hence not dreaming) on the seventh day, I
find less relevant. As the present discussion shows, incubated — or sought —
theophany does not necessarily entail dreaming, since a more direct encounter
may evolve.