[b-hebrew] g(r Psa. 106:9 - exorcism?

Dave Washburn dwashbur at nyx.net
Tue Dec 14 13:41:13 EST 2004

On Tuesday 14 December 2004 11:25, C. Stirling Bartholomew wrote:
> Harold and Bryan,
> On 12/13/04 1:40 PM, "Harold R. Holmyard III" <hholmyard at ont.com> wrote:
> > Did he give proof of his first assertion, that g(r functioned as
> > a t.t. for exorcism?
> Oh no! Not proof. No attempt was made at proof. Look at what I said. Note
> how tentative this is, the word "suggests" and "sometimes"

Ah yes, the scholarly equivalent of "I want to toss out an idea."  My 
checkbook register "suggests" that I "sometimes" have money (in Greek, that 
would be known as a "contrary-to-fact" condition!).

> On 12/13/04 1:09 PM, "C. Stirling Bartholomew"
> <jacksonpollock at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > J.A. Fitzmyer* suggests that g(r is sometimes used as a technical term
> > for exorcism ...
> Fitzmyer talks about a "more technical" usage of g(r in 1QapGen 20:28-29
> for exorcism as background for EPITIMAW in the NT which is a topic for
> another list. So g(r as a T.T. is not what he is claiming, that was my
> mistake.
> Bryan Rocine wrote:
> > Some Aramaic, Greek or Qumran documents which express the verbal
> >activity of rebuking in the context of exorcism do not a technical term
> >make,
> I totally agree.
> >Calling rebuke technical smacks of the ancient criticism against
> > oppressors and deliverers alike, that they were magicians.
> There was no intention to make Moses a magician.  Lets forget T.T. and go
> on to discuss the main issue.
> Harold said:
> > Even if he did, I see no particular relevance
> > for Psalm 106:9. Practically speaking, what would lead one to think
> > the sea needed exorcising? It was just sitting there being a normal
> > sea.
> Well that is exactly the issue I want to discuss.
> Bryan Rocine wrote:
> > First about yam:  Does he mean that there is *not* a literal reference,
> > by name, to a body of water?
> Yes, no one is questioning that YAM points to a real body of water in Psalm
> 106:9. But what does this body of water represent in the mytho-poetic
> language of the psalmist? Is it just a dead thing? Does the psalmist see
> this body of water in the same way as a modernist, a 20th century
> materialist?
> Bryan Rocine wrote:
> > If Fitzmyer means, on the other hand, that the rebuke of the waters of
> > Yam Suph typifies the Lord's supremacy over the dark powers of chaos in
> > the tradition of Gen 1, I can accept the explanation.  I imagine,
> > however, that such an explanation is so generally accepted, it would not
> > have prompted your query.
> What prompted my query is the notion that monotheism of the Psalmist
> reduces the physical universe to dead matter of 20th century materialist.
> That Psalm 106:9 is just talking about moving some water aside to make a
> path and there is no other dimension to this. No cosmic conflict between
> spiritual beings represented in this event. This "flat" reading of the text
> is really quite common.
> Psa. 106:9 wyg(r byM-swP
> Bryan, I take it that you would have no problem with the suggestion that
> g(r with yM-swP as an object involves subduing a hostile spiritual force,
> not just the physical event of making a path through the sea.
> greetings,
> Clay Bartholomew
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

Dave Washburn
"No good.  Hit on head."   -Gronk

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list