Biblical Hebrew Forum

["C. Stirling Bartholomew" <jacksonpollock AT earthlink.net>]

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"

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