b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
- From: "B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>
- To: "hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] g(r Psa. 106:9 - exorcism?
- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 21:48:49 -0500
Hi Clay,
Interesting question. I haven't read Fitzmyer ont he subject, and pardon my naivete, but it seems to me he has taken on an excess burden in such a claim. I am probably misunderstanding.
First about yam: Does he mean that there is *not* a literal reference, by name, to a body of water? What about the rest of the context, which contains a clear allusion to the Exodus story with all its watery detail? What about Nahum 1:4 go`er bayyam vayyabshehu vekol hanneharot, "one rebuking the sea, and he made it dry, and all the rivers." Is hanneharot also an ancient reference to a spiritual power? To me the plain reference in Ps 106 is to the miraculous turning of a wet place to dry.
As for the verb g`r, though we see expressions such as yig`ar yhwh beka "may YHWH rebuke you," or in Greek, EPITIMHSAI SOI KURIOS, I think it is an unecessary stretch to call such "rebuking" technical. Are we to think that Greek EPITIMAW is also a technical word for exorcising? We can come up with numerous contexts where both the Heb and Gr. words are used for mundane scolding. Some Aramaic, Greek or Qumran documents which express the verbal activity of rebuking in the context of exorcism do not a technical term make. Calling rebuke technical smacks of the ancient criticism against oppressors and deliverers alike, that they were magicians. 'Pharaoh was a magician' can be convenient when it opens the door to 'Moses was a magician,' which in turn opens the door to 'Jesus was a magician,' all of which are debasing. Nowhere in Old or New Testament is deliverence understood as technique. It is always presented as power.
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.
The Fitzmyer proposal sounds over-zealous to this simple guy.
Shalom,
Bryan
You wrote:
Psa. 106:9 wyg(r byM-swP
Psa. 106:9 He rebuked the Red Sea
J.A. Fitzmyer* suggests that g(r is sometimes used as a technical term for
exorcism. I am specifically focusing on the use of g(r with YAM (sea) as an
object. Fitzmyer** suggests that the verbal address is not directed at what
a modern would think of as the sea but rather at some spiritual entity and
that the verbal address functions as an exorcism.
Comments?
greetings,
Clay Bartholomew
*A Wandering Aramean, J.A. Fitzmyer, Page 97.,
**Luke 1-9 (AnchorBible v.28) J.A. Fitzmyer, pages 546,730.
B. M. Rocine
Living Word Church
6101 Court St. Rd.
Syracuse, NY 13206
ph: 315.437.6744
fx: 315.437.6766
-
[b-hebrew] g(r Psa. 106:9 - exorcism?,
C. Stirling Bartholomew, 12/13/2004
-
Re: [b-hebrew] g(r Psa. 106:9 - exorcism?,
Harold R. Holmyard III, 12/13/2004
-
Re: [b-hebrew] g(r Psa. 106:9 - exorcism?,
C. Stirling Bartholomew, 12/14/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] g(r Psa. 106:9 - exorcism?, Dave Washburn, 12/14/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] g(r Psa. 106:9 - exorcism?, Harold R. Holmyard III, 12/14/2004
-
Re: [b-hebrew] g(r Psa. 106:9 - exorcism?,
B. M. Rocine, 12/14/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] g(r Psa. 106:9 - exorcism?, C. Stirling Bartholomew, 12/15/2004
-
Re: [b-hebrew] g(r Psa. 106:9 - exorcism?,
C. Stirling Bartholomew, 12/14/2004
-
Re: [b-hebrew] g(r Psa. 106:9 - exorcism?,
B. M. Rocine, 12/13/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] g(r Psa. 106:9 - exorcism?, C. Stirling Bartholomew, 12/14/2004
-
Re: [b-hebrew] g(r Psa. 106:9 - exorcism?,
Harold R. Holmyard III, 12/13/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.