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 dream”, 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) wept”. 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.