196 Ruth Fidler some of the ordeals and judiciary procedures included in other hypotheses within the ‘ritual’ approach (15). Moreover, it has been argued that the text of Psalm 3 does not even support a temple (incubatory or other) setting, because God’s response is said to come “from his holy mountain”, implying that the psalmist is somewhere else (16). To be sure, v. 5 can also be read in a way that is consistent with the psalmist’s presence in the temple (17), although admittedly it does not prove such presence. The supposed break in v. 8 (V above) has attracted other ‘ritual’ explanations, such as a priestly oracle or a divine verdict presumed to have stood between the call “Arise, O Lord! Deliver me” etc. and the sequel that refers to the smiting of the enemies with perfect verbal forms (18). The ‘spiritual’ approach, typically takes the sleeping and waking as peaceful sleeping and waking, a sign of Yahweh’s grace and protection with which the poet encourages himself, as in (15) E.g. the sleep ordeal proposed by H. SCHMIDT, Das Gebet des Angeklagten im Alten Testament (BZAW 49; Berlin – New York 1928) 21-26 and DELEKAT, Asylie und Schutzorakel, 51-53; the temple judicial procedure culminating with a cultic theophany in the morning proposed by W. BEYERLIN, Die Rettung der Bedrängten in den Feindpsalmen der Einzelnen auf institutionelle Zusammenhänge untersucht (FRLANT 99; Göttingen 1970) esp. 75-84; the nocturnal wine drinking ordeal proposed by K. VAN DER TOORN, “Ordeal Procedures and the Passover Meal”, VT 38 (1988) 427-445. VAN DER TOORN, “Ordeal Procedures”, 427-429 and SCHROEDER, “Psalm 3”, 244-245 review the proposals mentioned in this and the following two notes with more detail. (16) E.S. GERSTENBERGER, Psalms. Part I. With an Introduction to Cultic Poetry (FOTL 14; Grand Rapids, MI 1988) 53; SCHROEDER, “Psalm 3”, 249. Gerstenberger defines the setting as “a prayer service on behalf of a suffering individual” arguing that the ceremony did not take place in the temple precinct itself, and “must have been more private in nature, although supervised and conducted by a recognized liturgist”. (17) BEYERLIN, Die Rettung der Bedrängten, 81 understood v. 5 in terms of the distance between the source of the divine oracle (in the holy of holies with its sacred rock) and the position of the petitioner (the forecourt of the temple). Cp. LINDBLOM, “Theophanies in Holy Places”, 104. (18) J. BEGRICH, “Das priesterliche Heilsorakel”, ZAW 52 (1934) 81-92, esp. 84 and 88 where the change of mood in v. 7 is also attributed to the same priestly oracle; BEYERLIN, Die Rettung der Bedrängten, 77-78 put forward a more judicial type of intervention between the two parts of v. 8, namely the announcementof the divine verdict. Others took v. 8b figuratively: DELEKAT, Asylie und Schutzorakel, 52-53; cf. VAN DER TOORN, “Ordeal Procedures”, 431, n. 14.