01_Biblica_Hong_Layout 1 08/07/13 12:54 Pagina 330 330 KOOG P. HONG or from a distance instead of J’s direct revelation 34. R. Gnuse, for in- stance, argues that the dream report was E’s distinct motif; he also sim- ply presumes its northern orientation 35. It is difficult to prove, however, that the motif was available exclusively to the northern Israelites. That a supernatural being reveals itself in dreams is one of the most common ideas in ancient civilizations. Not incidentally, at the heart of southern historiography one finds Solomon’s famous dream report (1 Kgs 3,4- 15). E’s more developed theological view by itself does not point to a northern origin, either; it does so only when it is interpreted in an evo- lutionary perspective that posits the more developed evidence as the later evidence. As I discuss below, this is largely rejected today. 3. Prophetic Quality Provides Inconclusive Evidence The fact that Abraham is called nābî’ in Gen 20,7 has been re- peatedly used, despite occasional objections36, as a critical piece of evidence of this section’s northern origin 37. While early source crit- ics had limited interest in this aspect, the equation of “prophetic” (or levitical) with Elohistic has become increasingly popular, and more so among nonspecialists, specifically in the field of prophetic literature 38. Yet this point is not critically supported, either. J. WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. With a 34 Reprint of the Article Israel from the Encyclopaedia Britannica (New York 1957) 361 [German original: Berlin 1878]; SKINNER, Genesis, lii; G. VON RAD, Genesis. A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia, PA 1972) 26-27 [German original: Göttingen 1961]. R. GNUSE, “Dreams and Their Theological Significance in the Biblical 35 Tradition”, CurTM 8 (1981) 166-171; ID., “Dreams in the Night-Scholarly Mirage or Theophanic Formula? The Dream Report as a Motif of the So- Called Elohist Tradition”, BZ 39 (1995) 28-53; ID., “Northern Prophetic Tra- ditions in the Books of Samuel and Kings as Precursor to the Elohist”, ZAW 122 (2010) 380. For a critique of using dream theophany as a source criterion, sec M. LICHTENSTEIN, “Dream-Theophany and the E Document”, JANESCU 2 (1969) 45-54. E.g. GUNKEL, Genesis, lxxviii; C. WESTERMANN, Genesis 12-36. A 36 Commentary (Minneapolis, MN 1985) 324 [German original: Neukirchen- Vluyn 1981]. WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena, 361; SKINNER, Genesis, 315; VON RAD, 37 Genesis, 27, 228-229; JENKS, Elohist, 104. E.g. R.R. WILSON, “Early Israelite Prophecy”, Interpreting the Prophets 38 (eds. J.L. MAYS – P.J. ACHTEMEIER) (Philadelphia, PA 1987) 9. © Gregorian Biblical Press 2013 - Tutti i diritti riservati