The Terminology of Mark's Exorcism Stories

The fact that §Trmnav in the synoptic exorcism accounts is the equivalent of the Semitic root, IB), as found in several of the Qumran texts, has been noted by several scholars. Others have drawn attention to the similarity between the mode of healing described in the Genesis Apocryphon as performed by Abram and that attributed to Jesus in the gospel narratives. In both cases, the healing is effected by the laying on of hands. For the most part, however, the translators of the texts from Qumran have failed to understand the import of ns» in these contexts, and have therefore obscured both the meaning of the Semitic word and its connexion with the New Testament term, eirmnav. The scholars who have seen this link between the Semitic term (via the Qumran texts) and the gospel exorcism accounts have not explored the use of the word in all the texts where it appears at Qumran, nor have they examined its appearances in the Old Testament and other ancient Semitic literature. Neither does there seem to have been any comprehensive attempt to check the use of ^TTITIHSV against the background of other appearances of the word in pagan and Jewish literature of the hellenistic period, or to demonstrate the correlation between eirmnav and its Semitic equivalent, "15J1. The implications of such a study move beyond merely lexical considerations, and point toward the solution of the problem of the background against which Mark's exorcism stories are to be understood. Bultmann has expressed the view—so widely held as to be considered by some scholars as self-