A Reconsideration of the Form-Critical Structure in I Samuel 3: An Ancient Near Eastern Dream Theophany

Abstract

are not events which were completed in the past and are then static. Rather, it is all part of continuum; process is the very basis of life -be it biological life, intellectual life, or spiritual life. And yet, to facilitate this process, and to be part of it, means to be immersed in its organic symbol-system. The medium must be in tune with the message, otherwise there are only two alternatives; either the ossification caused by static rigidity, or the rupture caused by radical shift, i.e. translation into an alien symbol System. There is a constant tension between the two. The Aramaic version of the bible constitutes the ongoing attempt of a people to remain true to its ancient Book, and yet to live äs a creative, evolving, self-aware community. The targum represents an attempt par excellence at communication: with the past, the present, and in a sense, with the future.The Aramaic Version of the Bible originated during the Hellenistic period, and evolved conrinuously thereafter. Some individual elements can be shown to contain even Moslem influence. Due to its extremely paraphrastic rendering, the Palestinian Aramaic >targum< is more of a commentary on the Bible than it is a strict translation of the Hebrew original.This study traces the development of the Aramaic >targum<: the controversies surrounding the translation of Scripture, the methods of translation and transmission, the various purposes behind the paraphrases, additions and changes found in the Aramaic, and the characteristics which typify the evolution of the targum. It does so on the basis of the linguistic and conceptual elements found in the targum itself, and the early literature (juridical and homiletic) concerning the targum.

Dream Accounts in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Jewish Literature

“…12, 17, 20, 22). Nevertheless, there is an indecision among scholars concerning precisely the division of the two sources in this narrative (compare the discussions in Ehrlich 1953: 27-28; von Rad 1987: 283; and Gnuse 1984: 67). Moreover, Rendtorff (1982) has called into question the validity of making the divine name the ultima ratio by which the division of material into two parallel sources may be approached, a damning indictment in the light of Blum’s assessment of the normative means by which this narrative has been divided: ‘[i]t may be doubted whether this shattering of the narrative would have been seriously discussed, if the divine name criterion had not been unquestioningly accepted as a primary datum’ (Blum 1984: 23).…”

“…Nevertheless, literature on this topic is rather scant, perhaps due to the methodological incongruence in the ways in which scholars have treated descriptions of dreams in the Hebrew Bible. Originally studied in the context of source criticism, with dreams couched as the favourite revelatory method of the so-called ‘E’ or ‘Elohist’ source (Ehrlich 1953; Richter 1963; Whybray 1968; Lichtenstein 1969), more recently form criticism has been making headway into study of the biblical dream reports (Gnuse 1982, 1984; Husser 1999; Flannery-Dailey 2004). A number of shorter treatments have also been developed, focused on the smaller units in which dream phenomena occur, for example the dream of Solomon (Fensham 1967; Seow 1984); Jacob’s dream at Bethel (Millard 1966; Houtman 1977; Henderson 1982; Rendtorff 1982); the dreams of the patriarchal saga (Lipton 1999); and dreams in the Joseph novella (von Heijne 2014).…”

The Levites in the Hebrew Bible

“…It is also notable that before Samuel has his direct encounter with YHWH, he is presented as asleep in the sacred crypt where the Ark of YHWH was kept (1 Sam 3:3). Some scholars view this as evidence that Israel's priesthood attempted to incubate dream theophanies (Gnuse, : 379–390; Seow, : 30–31), a characteristic of prophetic experience (see Num 12:6; 22:9–12, 20–21).…”