'3--

1%

JESUS THE EXORCIST: A HISTORY OF RELIGIONS STUDY

by -

Graham H, Twelftree,

B. A.

Thesis

submitted

to the University of Philosophy,

00

of Nottingham May,

for

the degree

of Doctor

1981.

r t4o

CONTENTS Page Abstract Preface Abbreviations I INTRODUCTION iv vi viii

BACKGROUND AND SETTING (Exorcism 2,2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 in first century Texts Palestine)

The Babylonian Egyptian

12 17 33 36 38 43 50 52 61

Material

The Old Testament Tobit Jubilees The Dead Sea Scrolls Pseudo-Philo The New Testament

2.10 Josephus 2.11 The Rabbinic 2.12 2.13 Lucian Material

71 74 77 83 88 99

of Samosata of Tyana of Solomon

Apollonius

2*14 The Testament

2.15 The NT Apocrypha 2.16 Conclusion

III

JESUS-THE-EXORCIST (the data)

lo4

3.2 The Demoniac in the Synagogue 3-3 The Gadarene Demoniac 3.4 The Syrophoenician 3-5 The Epileptic 3.6 The Beelzebul 3-7 The Temptations 3.8 Jesus' Answer to John Mission(s) Boy Controversy Woman's Daughter

108 135 166 178 2-04 226 432 237

3.9 The Disciples'

IV

JESUS-THE-EXORCIST

AS OTHERSSAW HIM -In the Gospels?

286

Magician? -A Necromancer? -A -A-Ijasid?

I

-Conclusions

VI

OFMS-THE-EXORCIST (His Self-Understanding)

347

-Ali

VII

CONCTIJSIONS

357

Notes Bibliography

363 418

ABSTRACT This quest for study attempts to make a contribution The Synoptic important studies to the Gospels give the

the historical-Jesus. that exorcism

impression of Jesus. not only especially Is this

was very current

in the ministry on Jesus there stories, with but Jesus. part way is

Yet when we note a general neglect

of the miracle stories

of the exorcism neglect justified?

associated

Was exorcism stories

an important found their

of Jesus' from these material exorcism to Jesus' other

ministry? traditions

Have exorcism into

the Jesus material? by surveying question probably century

To answer of of

questions

we begin

a wide variety - what notions

to answer the prior and exorcists audience would

have been available Palestine?

in first

Having data in

answered

this

question relating

we e=ine

the principal

the Synoptic to ascertain

Gospels which

to Jesus and exorcism. of the material to the reports and, how the can,

We attempt with

elements

reasonable

confidence,

be attributed

of those early

who witnessed

Jesus as an exorcist this material.

Church handled

We are then

in a position

to make our sketch which includes

of the

historical-Jesus-the-Exorcist into early how Jesus' audience

an enquiry him and how the of our sketch on how he

may have assessed him. there Finally is as part

Church understood

of the historical-Jesus

a brief

chapter

may have =derstood

his

exorcistic

activity.

As a result we are able exorcist, Tradition this aspect

of our examination at least, time, that

of the Jesus tradition that Jesus was'an

to conclude, his

at one with is correct of Jesus' exorcism

the Synoptic emphasis to

to give ministry,

considerable and that

Jesus was the first

to associate

and eschatology.

PREFACE

Although contents

I=t

take study

full

responsibility conscious

for

the

of this

I am very

of the debt introduced

I owe to others. me to the world and I thank with,

Professor and critical his

George B. Caird study

of the New Testament ofand patience Dr. three and James

him for

encouragement

a beginner.

I cannot

say how much I appreciate over the last

D. G. Diinn's and a half his both for time.

supervision years. His love

of my research

He has given of the text

generously

of himself for

and enthusiasm writers

discovering

the intention the present

of the ancient

and their-meaning impact on me. I and critical

has had a considerable his scholarship,

continue Christian

to value faith.

friendship

The Ministerial of South Australia Britain presently and I thank responsible,

Education has kindly

Board of the Uniting granted me leave

Church

to come to

them as well Prebendary

as those Michael

to whom I am A. Baughen and the

Revd. Andrew C. J. Cornes for allowing me time

of A1.1 Souls this stages

Church Langham Places thesis. Thankyou also Sue -

to complete various

to those Aston, Lawson,

who have typed Blake,

of the thesis Haworth,

Linda

Sue Debenhaml Cheryl Liz. this Scott project

Robin I could support

Sue Radford,

and Sarah Shephard. without the complete

not have undertaken of my parents

thankyou -

Mum and Dad.1

Finally, her love, help

to Barbara

my wife

I offer

my gratitude 'Uni. Paper' with

for is their

vii

and patience.

And now the be able

finished Dad again.

Catherine

and Paul will

to play

Easter

1981

Graham H. Twelftree

ABBREVIATIONE AJP AQ AP ARW BA BASOR American - Journal Archiv of Philology

fUr Orientforschung

.... ..... Archiv ... Mr . Papyrusforschuna Archiv Mr Religionswissenschaft

Biblical-Archoiogist Bulletin of Oriental of the American Research Lexicon Schools

Bauer

W Bauer A Greek-English

(1952) tran o New Testament the of W. F. W. Arndt by F. and and adapted Gingrich Chicago, BeginninLa
(eds.

(University 1957)

of Chicago, and K. Iake

of Christianit

F. J. Foakes-Jackson
)'The BeginninRs

Part

I The Acts

(Macmillan, BHH

of the Apostles London, 1920ff. ) Handw8rterbuch und L. Rost 3 BHnde:, GUttingen,

Biblisch-Historisches (hrsg. ) B. Reicke

(Vandenhoeck 1962ff BHM BJRL BL BMP BR BS BT BTh CBQ cc Bulletin Bulletin

Bibel British Biblical

und Ruprecht,

of'dicjine the__H_istoy of Vlands of the John R.

und Leben Museum Pa Research

Library

Bibliptheca Bible Biblical Catholic Tran

Sacra lator

Theology Biblical Origen: Universityq

d'Egypte Biblio-Theological. Greek (1886, 1895) Lexicon ET,

Quarterly Contra Celsum 1953)

H. Chadwick (Cambridge

Cambridgel

CdT Cr6mer

Chronique H. of Cremer

New'Testament

T&T-Clark,

Edinburgh,,

CSNT

Christ Studies

and Spirit

in the New Testament:

in Honour of C. F. D. Moule(eds. ) Be Lindars and S. S. Smalley (Cambridge

Universityl DNTT

Cambridge, 1973) Dictionary Exeterl Journal of (ed. ) C. Brown 1975ff-)

The New International New'Testament'Theoioky 3 Vols. (Paternoster,

DUj-. EbO

The Durham University

The Ebers Papyrus, -see B. Ebbell The Papyrus_Ebers (Oxford University, London, 1937)
The Edwin-Smith Breasted University Papyrus, see J. H. Papyrus 2 Vols. 1930) Chicago, Jerusalem on New Testament 1964)

Ed. Smith P

The Edwin Smith of Chicago, Judaica

Enc. Jud ENTT'

Encyclopedia

Es Kffsemann Essays Th_emos (1960,

ET, SCM, London,

Ep. R EQ ER ERE

Epworth-Review Evangelical Ecumenical Encyclopaedia Quarterly Review of Religion 1908ff. ) and Ethics 13 Vols- (TO Clark,

(ed. ) J. Hastings Edinburgh., ET ETL English

Tran lation Lovanienses

Ephemerides Theologicae . ..... ..... The Ex_positor Expository Times New. Tesiament'Aj)crha

Ex P_. Hennecke

(eds. ) E.

Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher-2 Vols. 1959 and 1964, ET, SCM, London, 1973-4) HR_ HSE History of ReligionsL. Gaston Hora6 Synopticae .......... Electronicae (Scholars, HTR IB Harvard 'Missoula, Theological 1973) Review Bible

The Interpreterb

x (ed. N. B.. Harmon 12 Vols.

(Abingdon-, Nashvillej
IDB The Interpreter's Bible

1952ff-)
of the and K. (Abingdon,

Dictionary

(eds. ) G. A. Buttrick and Supp.

Crim. 4-Vols.

Nashville,
IEJ _Interp. IN JAOS Israel Interpretation Irish Journal Society JBL JBR JEA ;jH_S Jis JPOS Journal Journal Journal Journal Journal Journal Society JQR JR_ JRS iss JTS Lampe Jewish J-ournal Journal Journal Journal

1962ff. )
Journal

Exploration

Theological of the

Quarterly American Oriental

of Biblical of Bible

Literature and Religion Archeology Studies Studies ian Oriental

of Egyptian of Hellenic of Jewish of

the Palesti

Quarterly of Religion

Review

of Roman Studies of Semitic Studies

Studies of Theological G. W.H. Lampe (ed. ) A Patristic Lexicon (Oxford University,

Greek

Oxford,

1961)
LCQ
Liddell and Scott Lutheran Church Quarterly R. Scott revised A GreekH. S. Jones 1940, H. G. Liddelland English (Oxford Lexicon, Universityt

Oxford,

Supp. 1969)
LXX Miracles SeptuagintMiracles. Philosophy Mowbray, Cambridge Studies in their

and Histoi- London, 1965)

(ed. ) C. F. D. Moule

xi
Moulton and Milligan J. H. Moulton Vobabulary (Hodder Nov. T NRT ... NTQT and G. Milligan The of the Greek Testament London, 1930)

and Stoughton,

Novum Testamentum Revue Theologique . .......... E* K. 4semann New Testament Questionsof Today (19659 ET9 SCM, London, 1969) Nouvelle

NTS P, par(s). PBAPGM

New Testament Papyrus parallel(s)

Studies

AcadeMI of the British 'bi*griechischen apyri'Graecae'Magicae: Zauberpapyri (hrsg. ) K. Preisendin Leipzig und Berlin, 3 Bffnde,,. (Teubner,

Proceedings

1928ff. ). The papyri are cited papyrus and line numbers. PSB PSBA RB 1; E
RGG3

by

Princeton Archeology

Seminary Bulletin of the Society of Biblical

Proceedings

Revue Biblique Review and EXPositor

Die Religion (hrsg. in Gesc hi ) K. Golling te und Gegenwart 6 Bffnde- (Mohr,

TUbingen'. 1957ff. ) RQ
SB

Rdvue de Qumran
H. L. Strack und P. Billerbeck Kommentar zum Neuen*Testament aus Talmud und Midrash 6 BUnde,, (Beck, Mttnchen,, 1922ff. )

SBL SESEA SEAJT SJTSR St. Phil St. Th'*

Society Studia

of Biblical Evangelica

Literature rsbok Journal of Theology

Svensk'Exegetisk South East Scottish Studies Studia Asian

Journal

of Theology

in Religion Philonica

Studia_Theologica

xii
Supp.

Supplement Tyndie*Bulletin Theological Dictionary Testament,, lo Vols. Rapids, 1964ff. ) ET o;f Theologisches .. (hrsg. ) . Wrterbuch Neuen Testament ...................... zum
G Kittel und G. Friedrich Berichte Revue
. . A .......... ..... W8rte uch zum Neuen

T. Bull TDNT

of the New (Eerdman Grand

9 Bndeu

(Koh1hammer, Stuttgart,
th. B Th. R Theologische Theologische
Theology

1933ff*)

Today

ThWNT

Theologisches

Testament TPAPA

(see TDNT above) and Proceedings of the in Matthew and H J. 1963) Philological Association

Tran actions American Tradition

Tradition

and Interpretation ET, SCM, London,

(eds. ) G. Bornkamm, G. Barth Held Tradition und Glaube (196o,

Tradition

und Glaube: Festgabe fr K*G. Kuhn (hrsg. ) G. Jeremias, H-W. Kuhn und Ho Stegemann'(Vandenhoeck Ruprechtl Ottingen,
Zeitschrift uarterly (; Review

und.

1971)

TZ ZSQR VC VT WANT

Theologische Union Seminary

Vigiliae'Christianae Vetus Testamentum the of New Testament? Evans Essays (eds. )

What About in Honour

Christopher

M. Hooker London,

and C. Hickling

(SCM, -

ZA

1975) Assyriologie ........... fUr....... Zeitschrift

Zeitschrift"fdr'Xgntische und Alterumskunde Zeitschrift Wissenschaft fUr die
...........

ZAS ". ZAW

- '7 .

. Sprache

alttestamentliche

ZKT ZNW ..... .. ZTK ZWT

Zeitschrift ZeitschriUtWissenschaft Zeitschrift Zeitschrift Theologie

fr Katholische i- ehtestamentlidhe kundeundcit*. 9fr fr

Theologie

Kttch-g-

Theologie--und-. Kirche Wissenschaftlidhe

In abbreviating (not the-Dead Sea Scrolls (Scholarsj and ancient. no explanation

texts I have followed Rabbinic London, 1976) but G. Vermes Jesus . the . Jew (Fontana, ) for y. the Jerusal6m'Talmud, I have followed In abbreviating J. A. Fitzmyer for Studv for

using

Sea Scrolls Malor Missoulal texts

The Dead

Publications 1977). should

and Tools Other

abbreviations clear

biblical

be sufficiently

to require

here.

INTRODUCTION

"Men kicked court told,

woman to death

in attempt

at exorcism,

A preacher a mentally rid

and his

friend

went berserk as they

and kicked tried to

unstable

woman to death evil yesterday.

her of Judas Iscariot's Court the was told 'exorcism'

spiritj

the Central

Criminal

During Strover

John Sherwood and Anthony Rutherford, aged 31,

punched Miss Beatrix and then kicked

unconscious it

and jumped on her stomach,

was alleged. Mr Strover was said to have told the police that

as they tried
Rutherford be the spirit

to chase the devil

out of her,

Miss
to

spoke in a strange of Judas Iscariot".

voice which (1)

claimed

Reports

like

this,

(2) popular

interest exorcism,

in (4)

the occult,

(3)

and renewed interest considerable there is discussion

in Christian on exorcism a consensus report

has generated However the Church.

in the Church. within

by no mean of Exeter's

of opinion

The Bishop

on exorcism

recommends -

"It

is much to be desired
appoint a priest

that

should

as diocesan

every diocesan bishop (5)

exorcist". the bishops and

But in an open letter

to the Archbishops,

the members of the General Don Cupitt and-,. ----

Synod of the Church G. W.H. Lampe say

of England

1106. we believe

that

the Church of England error of judgment...

is

in danger

of making a serious

We believe

exorcism should have no official (6) Church at all... ,,9

that

status

in the

The different usually

views

represented

in these

two quotations the activity of the NT, has a the Gospels.

seek the support of the NTj especially (7) In the current debate the student of Jesus. of Jesus and the Gospelsq to elucidate therefore in

particularly weighty

responsibility

the data

for

Even a brief I the Synoptic

survey Gospel

shows how important'exorcism writers. For example, of the

was

thirteen
40-45;

healing
2: 1-12;

stories
3: 1-6;

of Jesus in Mark's Gospel - 1: 29-31,

7: 31-37; 8: 22--26; lo: 46-52, four

5: 21-43; 7: 24-30; stories,

and 1: 21-28; mentioned category

5: 1-20;

9: 14-29 - the last thus being

are exorcism of healing

the most numerous (apart and Luke like of Jesus' dealings in under-

story

in Mark.

And though

from Mtt. 12: 22ff. /Lk. 11: 14, seeFp6206ffbelow) Matthew provide Mark, ministry with no extra agree that detailed exorcism stories of exorcism they,

was an important that

aspect Jesus'

and go so far

as to suggest is of central

the demon-possessed Jesus and his

significance

standing

ministry

(Mtt. 12: 28/Lk. 11: 20, see pp-

Ff. below). :Z-V

The importance

of the miracles

for

the Evangelists'

portrayal eighteenth with

of Jesus

and the Gospel century 'lives'

was reflected

in

and nineteenth in their

miracles

scholarly (8) of Jesus. early

preoccupation But in various for the

ways the major historical-Jesus centre all

contributors sought

to this

search

to remove the miracles stage.

from the dismissed (9) writers. approach for

of the theological

Hermann Reimarus of the Gospel the rationalist

the miracles Paulusl

as inventions who exemplified offered

Heinrich

in NT scholarship, the miracles so that

rationalistic

explanations

of the NT witness

they were no longer an important part (10) In his Das Leben Jesu to Jesus.

lectures

of 1832 Riedrich
acts, not

Schleiermacher
contrary

saw the miracles

"but only a

as humane moral potential uent

to nature part, which

ascendancy peculiar pointed

on Christ's nature out this

was a constitBut as oi the

of his

and disposition.. solution

Schweitzer miracle life.

to the problem the sphere

stories

places

Jesus outside

of human

The turning publication

point

came in

1835 and 1636 with of proceeded

the

of D. F. Strauss' of miracle,

Life

He faced not by seeking the na ratives, the miracle

head on the problem 'what actually

happened' that

but by examining

and postulated

much of the NT, including

stories,
of

should be understood
Strauss' Life

asq and put in the category h

unleqed a torrent of criticism (15) and myth.

tmyth 1.04)

directed

primarily

at the problem

of miracle

If

But "with view Strauss begins the period of the non-miraculous of miracle

of the Life falls

of Jesus...

the question

constantly

more and more into

the background.

In the early Harnack(17)

miracles.

part

of What is Christianity? a protest at the fear

under "not

Adolf of treating
of Strauss

attempted (18)
that

the

But was he still miracles if they did

the spell possess they not

when he said for that

the significance possess that for

age which, and "that to his

existed, did

would assign

ourd419) importance

Jesus himself miraculous all

critical

deecb which

Mark and the others

attributed

even the evangelist (20) to them',?

Richard times

He Hiers

has pointed

out

that

in more recent

in scholarly exorcism in the NT has been neglected 21 ) NT work Hans Conzelmann's famous RGG3 article(22) which Jesus reviewed research the then offers current position in the life or of

no treatment

of the miracles

exorcism traditions
this neglect in the

associated
'lives' is

with Jesus. Noticeable

is

of the New Quest.

For ex=ple and his of Jesus'

Bornkamm's authoritative

emphasis ministry. (23) but

on the words of Jesus There is a token

mention

activities significant recently, only part

the works,

miracles

in Bornkamm's Jesus to the

or exorcisms play no (24) Jesus. And now even more the Man and the Myth-gives treatment of Jesu miraclese(25)

James Mackey's small place

a very

I5
So despite activity present for state the apparent importance of Jesus' exorcistic the

the Synoptic

tradition

(see p. 2 above)

of NT research. that it is aspect still

on the life under

of Jesus gives of Strauss

the impression when it ministry.

the spell

comw to this (26)

of the reports

of Jesus?

Over against number of specific miracle is that

this

general that

neglect

there

have been a up the theme of studies

studies

have taken

in the Gospels.

One of the most formidcLble

by Van der Loos in which he has a significant section (27) However it is mainly a on 'Healing of the Possessed' . compendium of the views of others with little analysis from

a historical-critical
of the miracles (28) stories.

perspective.
have given only

Many of the other

a low prir#y

studies

to the exorcism

James Kallas the miracle the stories of

has recognized in the Gospels

the central and has in

significance turn seen cosmic e of

of

importance (29)

the exorcism

stories

in Jesus' critically

struggle. the exorcism

Nevertheless stories

Kallas

does not

ine

nor does he clarify

our knowledge

the historical-Jesus-the-Exorcisto(30)

Geza Vermes(31) exorcism However stories his very

also

recognizes

the

importance

of the

in understanding brief treatment

the historical-Jesus. of this aspect of Jesus'

6
does not do justice (Chapter a asido to the Synoptic V below) Vermes' data. We will

ministry also that

need to examine Jesus was simply

suggestion

John Hull(32) exorcism magical Synoptic stories traditions Evangelists, in

gives

considerable

attention using

to the Hellenistic on the as a in

the Synoptic in an attempt portrayal

Gospels to throw of Jesusq is

new light especially

miracle-worker. that

The present behind

study

an advance on Hull portrait than all

we want to press

the Evangelists' on exorcism work raises as whether rather

and we want to concentrate the miracle definition legitimate stories stories. of 'magic' Hull's

of of the

the question or not it is

as well

to See the background in an exclusively we will folk

of the Synoptic light. is

miracle

Hellenistic if

In this correct in have a

connection saying that

be asking stories

Bultmann

of miracles oral tradition.

come into

the Synoptic

and miracle (33)

motifs

....... the .I-. In Jesus Magician

Gospel material to try

(34) Morton Smith exami

Jesus'

s the

and show that Because it be discussing

contemporaries cuts

considered across length

him a magician. we will

so directly this

our study in chapter

book at some - would those

V where we will an exorcism

be asking

who saw Jesus perform magician?

have thought

him to be a

7
In the light of what we have said so far we need to do the only

two things.

We need to make an attempt This of this

at recovering not

historical-Jesus-the-Exorcist. trying Jesus, himself see if to sketch but also a picture endeavouring to his

involves aspect

of the historical-

to see how Jesus understood exorcism audience We will . also need to Church

in relation

we can say how Jesus' and understood

and the early

assessed

Jesus as an exorcist.

In order by addressing exorcists audience

to do this the

we will

begin

(in

Chapter

II) and

question probably century

- what notions have been available Palestine?

of exorcism to Jesus'

would in first

Then ( in Chapter on Jesus and exorcism for

III) will

the principle be examined. three chapters

data This

in the Gospels analysis provides

the basis

the next of (in

where we will

be sketching (Chapter

out a picture IV), then

the historical-Jesus-the-Exorcist Chapter V) we will see if

we can say how his (in

contemporaries Chapter VI), to his

and the early very briefly

Church

saw him and finally himself

how Jesus understood

in relation

exorcisms.

Two themes that demonology

are closely

allied

to our own are to exorcism,

and demon-possession*

In contrast

both in the ancient

world and in relation with, relatively

necessary

to Jesus, well. '(35)

we will

these themes have been dealt

Therefore, apart

from occasional

references

I.
not give our attention to demonology and demon-possession.

Another

area

that study

is is

arguably exorcism

related

to,

but

outside Though

the scope of this in view

in our own time. of the

of the present

debate

in some quarters

Church on the validity

it is possible that

and form of Christian

the results in

exorcism,

(36)

of our historical-critical might have some

analysis bearing

of exorcism on that

the Jesus tradition

debate.

ii

BACKGROUND AND SETTING

(Exorcism in first century Palestine)

2.1 According is to set

to the programme we outlined against which

our

first be able

task to

out the background

we will Before

examine the NT exorcism we will want to know: should

stories

of Jesus.

going

further

(a) What we mean by exorcismwe use as an appropriate

(b) and to

What material the Jesus

background

stories?

(a) As we require provide following a background definition. was the

a definition to the stories

that

will

enable

us to the

of Jesus we furnish

Exorcism
evil Our

attempt
from reference

to
their to

control

and cast
habitat. (2)

spirits/demons omits

out/expe (1)
'- for as we

present 'technique',

definition

vill

see in this at times

and the it

next

chapter, not

the techniques to exist

vary

so

much that words

might

be said

beyond a few

of command.

The notion in 'demons'

and practice

of

exorcism

presupposes the

a'belief

and 'demon-possession'.

Although in particular,

NT in

general, interest

and the Gospel writers in demons for their

show little clear (eg. from

it own sake

is

the Beelzebul

Controversy

pericope that role

(Mk. 3: 22-27 evil is to

and Mtt. 12: 22are

30/Lk. 11: 14-23) the agents

see Fpzo4ffbelow)

spirits/demons cause illness

of Satan whose chief

11

10

through

totally

dominating

or possessing

individuals,

. (b) What material Jesus-the-Exorcist this Firstly, idea, that decision it

should his

we use in our attempt own milieu?. having to Involved do with vith

to

set

within

in making dating. each story, establish

are two problems will be important, that fact

when dealing

or body of tradition, these ideas in were century not only

we can reasonably of the intellectual it

part

currency important is

of first to deal with

Palestine. with

Secondly, that

will

be and as

material later

ante-dates for, that

contempory see,. it

Jesus but

also

literature

we will predate

sometimes

contains

themes and ideas

the literature

in whicht6oy6e now found.

But herein

lies

a problem - which we shall

which ideas

deal with

from time to time of publication back to the though with

of ascertaining 1 of the literature times evident exorcism of Jesus' the Strange exorcists We will these stories. refer&-d

belong ideas

to the time can be traced This

and which

to in the literature. is within (the particularly the NT that

problem,

elsewhere, stories activity Exorcist

apparent

when dealing

are not reported 19: 13-20),

as part and

Sons of Sceva (Acts /Lk. 9: 49f. ),

(Mk. 9: 38ff.

and the Jewish

of the Beelzebul

Controversy distinct

(Mtt. 12: 2T/Lk. 11: 19)). possibility that

need to be aware of the stories have been reshaped

in the light

of the Jesus

In our introduction

it

was noted

that

some recent

works

ii

11

related

to our theme have greatly 'Jewish' the or (4) Such a rigid premises.

concentrated of Jesus is

on either and earliest

the

'Hellenistic' Christianity. doubtful

milieu

approach objects

now seen to rest

on is

(5) " One

of the

the of

.. t. : of this chapter
against

to show the validity which we should set

'widening' stories

the background of Jesus.

Tcherikover

points

out that

"Palestine has never

has always

been a country the cultural

of transit, influences

which of

ceased to absorb lands to its

the neighbouring or otherwise, situation Tcherikover Revolt is in

and to adapt

themg successfully This was the

own original ic

the Hellenist

culture. (6) period! '.

may have overstated a clear accepted sign that not

his all

case - the Maccabean

so readily there is

imported to

Jews of the Palestinian (7) Birt as we will cultures'. see the idea that world Palestine (see pp.. ZS

ample evidence entirely insulated

support from the

was not

outside

FF. below).

The first

part

of this Material',

chapter

('The

Babylonian covers

Texts' material

and 'The Egyptian that (pp. is both ff. -6

ppa. 2, to33 below) Palestine, and apart

from outside which rather is

from the-PGM of its

below,

dealt date),

with

here because

plaae

of origin

than

predates

our period.

Literature century Palestine

that

was either OT, Tobit,

more obviously Jubilees,

known in

first

(the

and the Dead Sea

ii

12
pp. 3 j to+q below). or was actually is written then in that discussed.

Scrolls, period

(LAB and the NT, pp. 50 to 61 below)

Josephus exorcism Rabbinic a small discussed ff. later,

wrote

just

after dealt

the Evangelists with (pp. 61 ff.

and so his below). to The

stories material

are then though

arranged first before

later, century moving

purports material

contain thus

amount of relevant (pp.? / ff. below)

and is

on to Lucian

(pp. "7ef

below)

and Apollonius

(pp. 77 ff.

below)

who are both tradition.

and from outside

Palestine

and the

Jewish

The Test. material c1q below), for is

Sol.

and the last

NT Apocrypha because,

and its

pertinent (pp. 9,3to see useful material

discussed they

as we shall least -

are probably - answering and exorcists

some of the the in question first

our purpose exorcism

'what

can we say

about

century

AD Palestine?

2.2 The Babylonian

Texts

We want to ask exorcism this in first tells first

'what

does this Palestine?

material ' We will

tell first

us about ask what it is for

century us,

material

and then

enquire

how useful

understanding

century

Palestine.

2.2.1 were the the temple

The exorcists priests.

who used these reasons

incantation-texts

(9)

One of the

why the people function

went to

was to take

advantage

of this

of the

ii

13
(10) The exorcists ally do not with rely on their own strength divine

priest. or power but authority. "I

themselves

some powerful has

For example one incantation. am the sorcerer - priest of Ea,

I am the messenger To revive The great It is difficult the lord to (?

of Marduk; ) sick sent man me. the form of an ancient

Ea hath generalize from the

about

Babylonian prescribing

exorcism

enormous number of texts incantations with the and remedies, to hold

a multitude

of different begin

but many of the a tamn isk in his other branch

incantations over (12)

direction

the patient

and to hold 1

a meteorite

hand.

The exorcist

then

had to

identify

the

offending

demon.

However as Babylonian endless list of

demonology

had accumulated might exorcist upon the

an almost

demons, and as trouble or unknown devil, in order to the

be caused by recited great

some forgotten lists that of devils

impress

he was in possession

of his

dem n the fact * 03) For name or description.

example "Whether thou art an evil Spirit or an evil Demon,

Or an evil

Ghost or an evil

Demon,

Be thou

removed from before

me....

There

followed

the

equally

difficult

task

of knowing

ii

14
spiritual powers would be effective offenders. So there in combatling was an equally has 29 lines read this long

which

battalion list

of possible

of gods to be invoked. different gods.

One incantation two lines

invoking

The first

"By Ea mayest By Dankina Sometimes this elements incanation

thou be exorcisedi (1 -

miayest thou be exorcised". quite

added to gives

simple approach to exorcism had other ' (16) it. And so for curing headache an direction kid,
on the right side

the

"Take the hair

Let a wise

of a virgin
(it)

woman spin

And double : Bind twice.

it

on the

left,

s.even knots

And perform the incantation

And bind And bind And bind the head of the the his neck of the life (or sick

of Eridu,
man .

(17)

sick7man.

'soul'), round') his couchover him,

And surround And cast That It Not only to take like

(ostand

the water

of the Incantation poured out (18)

the water-lees

may go down into do these place, but actions in

the, earth".

seem to symbolise

what was thought of the (19)

some cases the transference to an object

demon from the The clearest says "Put water

sufferer

seems to be intended. is the incantation

example of transference

which

upon

the

7nnn and

ii

15
Pour forth Bring forth the water a censer trickleth of the (and) Incantation; a torch, body away.

As the water

away from his in his into

So may the pestilence Return these waters

body trickle

a cup and places,, hath brought low (his)

Pour them forth That the evil

in the broad influence which

strength May be carried avay into the broad (20) places".

The exorcism, words alone, demon's flight.

whether

attended a climax

by some activity, associated with

or of the

moved towards Most often

these'climitetle-words By (21) ,, * only because the the

are -

"By Heaven be ye exorcisedl Earth The demon leaves been terrified be ye exorcisedl the by the person-not exorcist, a ban.

demon has demon has line -

but because This is clear

been bound or put "By the Great

under

from the thee, that

mayest On this length. point it

Gods I exorcise (22) departil. is worth quoting

(or bind)

thou

R. C. Thompson at

some

the principle everything, method of both

of the ban or tapu the affection the devil of the which

underlies sick man and the him. divine For tapu

exorcising

possess to the

demons as well and it is

as-7nankind principle

are subject that

on this

the magic of the

Il

16
incantations of the it depends, drive since the priest evil invokes the help

gods to

away the it.

spirits,

and to lay exorcisms,

under

a ban and bind end with

In the Assyrian the line By

when the prayers

'By Heaven be thou Earth it lay is intended be thou that

exorcisedl exorcisedt'

the

demon under

the powers of Heaven and Earth (23) a tapu' ,.

shall

Little

or nothing

is

said

in the tablets or recovery.

about

the are

sufferers'subsequent two lines Parable of particular

condition interest

However there of the 11: 24-26)

to us in the light (Mtt. 12: 43-45/Lk.

of the Returning'Spirit

24)

"Perform

the

Incantation

of Eridu
I

That the

evil

Spirit, aside,

the

evil

Demon

may stand And a kindly be present .-

spirit, (25)

a kindly

Genius

2.2.2 background

If

this

material century to

is

relevant

in providing ideas

to first

Palestinian it

on exorcism later (26) in That

then we must be able time this and wider material,

show that

was known both in Palestine. the ideas

in area - particularly or at the very is apparent least

in this of ideas

material

survived

in time

from the

contact

11

17
it and the Rabbinic tablet texts material. For example in the habitats of demons are

between

Babylonian

the favourite

deserts,

mountains,

any place deserted

said

by man.

(27)

In b. San. 65b demons are also places Dt-32: -a cemetery. And in is

to live

in deserted Targum to demons". (28)

the Jerusalem place

10 the wilderness ideas

"the

of howling

That Babylonian cannot possible. linking it be proved.

on exorcism

were known in Palestine show that with least but trade Babylon. also it is

But-a

number of factors junction not

Palestine with route

was a road

the outside came not

world, only

routes (29)

A-long this

artifacts,

people

attending
brought

festivals
back ideas

(Mekilta
from

the Diaspora.

on Dt. 14: 23) who would have (30)

in Babylonia there for

And in Jerusalem

Maccab-eus his troops

knows of happenings of Jewish victories

he reminds (31) (2 Macc. 8: 20). ,

2.3 Egyptian

Material

The material Papyri Thereoele_and the Bentresh potentially writings material first

from Egypt from ancient stele which

covers as well contains

a vast

span of time.

as Greco-Roman Egypt information Having surveyed this in that is

relevant we will is

to our study.

these

again

need to ask how relevant understand the views

in helping Palestine.

on exorcism

century

2.3.1

Ancient Egyptian

PaPyri.

(32)

One -'medical'

papyrus

(33)

11

18
Egypt, the'Eberd Papyrus, (34) is a collection In the
-

from ancient

of incantations(35)
opening
It

and medical prescriptions.

of the papyrus
I have

incantation
, assuredly

there
Sais

are the lines

with the

come from

mother

of the gods... 'They have given have formulae order to expel

me their

protection.

I in

composed by the lord afflictions (caused)

of the universe by a god or

goddess,.. This incantation

"(Eb. P I). seems to be designed of medical to accompany any one that follow. nose-reads I have drink -

of the great One of these "Flow brought

variety

incantations

incantations, fetid nose!

a remedy for Flow out... thee,

a fetid Behold. thy

out, thy

remedy against

protecting

against
(child)y thee...

thee:

(a milk of woman) who has borne a male

gum; it LX). addressed, though in the introand those who expels thee, it removes

and fragrant ". (Eb. P XC; cf. is

Here the actual ductory

illness

incantations

the offending take

god is

confronted

so we can probably prepared practice the recipes. was for

them as being This papyrus

synonymous for

shows just

how early with

the the see

the exorcist

to identify

himself

god whose aid here

he sought

as a power-authority.

We also

of incantations a combination (36) and activities.

and supporting

remedies

In Eb. P XLVII the aching head with

there

is

the direction

to rub the side so that the

of

the head of a cooked fish

11

19
can be transferred (cf. LVII). from the person's head to that of medication or p. l, +Cabove) 37)

migraine

of the fish

Thus the combination to trnp fer

and incantation

was designed

the sickness object (cf.

demon from the patient

to some external

The Edwin Smith Papyrusl(38) as the Ebers Papyrusq in exorcism. "Another wind, ... not reach

of about

the same period for use

has a few short -

incantations

One has the lines (incantation) 'Withdraw me, that for

exorcising

the plague-bearing

ye disease those me.

demons the wind shall

who pass by may pass by to I am Horus who passes by (even) Horus, Horus, one, son of

work disaster the diseased healthy Bastet.

against

ones of Sekhmet, Sekhmet. not through

despite I die

I am the unique thee. ' Let

the words be the

spoken by a man havihg the man pronouncing he makes the circuit outside,, (Ed. Again there and thus P XVIII:

a stick

of des-wood which in his

the charm carries of his preventing 11-16). for

hand as the

house walking the winds

around

from entering'-'@

Smith

are the directions by particular activities identifies

the incantation by the exorcistI.

to be The (40)

supported

exorcist-magician(39) Horus, indicated the source the word

himself for this role

with

a god,

whose appropriateness by saying that

seems to be despite Sekhmet begins that with this

Horus. is heklthy

of the plague-winds. 'Another' (incantation).

The incantation Breasted notes

ii

20 a common beginning Breasted into fact later for a new recipe points out having that the same purpose this phenomenon "We -

is

as the last. passed have in Egyptian over this

also

Greek magical indication (41)

papyri,

saying

a clear

of the use of the old

papyri

in Greek times".

The British exorcising great

Museum Papyrus begins

10685C,

(42)

a charm for of a

headachel

by calling continues

on the aid -

numbez! of gods, It

and then

Come ye(? ) to remove that male or female

enemy, dead man or dead which is in the face

woman, adversary of N, born The exorcist to recite called linen this of M".

does not over

identify

himself

with

the gods but

is

a clay

crocodile was also

and images of the gods to inscribe it a piece on his of

upon. with

The exorcist

a drawing

of the gods and place

head.

So what do these ancientlEgypt? to give with aid, but gods. and. to ld

papyri

tell not

us about only

exorcism

in upon

We see that the exorcists The illness

were gods caUed identified

also

themselves demon was Sometimes the

these

or offending

addressed

to go out of the person.

god was asked to remove the offender. exorcist example in that his combined cited incantation

In many cases the In the last form (43) of amulet linen on

and activity.

(B MP 10685C) we see an early placed a piece

the exorc ist

of inscribed

head.

ii

21 2.3.2 The Bentresh Stele.

this stel,

(44) _ _

Last century

Rosellini

discovered the ancient of the stele

in a small

Khonsu temple is

Greco-Roman Temple near (45 ) The main feature at Karnak.

telling a 28 line inscription of the journey (46) to Bekhten to cure of the god Khonsu and some officials of demon possession (line 11), The central

a princess

section

of the stele
god arrived Then-the nobles, upon his

reads:
in Bekhten chief before belly, in a full year and five his soldiers

"This months.

of Bekhten

6ameq with

and his himself thou art

Khonsu-the-Plan-Maker. saying: us,

He threw

tThou comest to us,

welcome with

by command of the II). where Bentresh was.

King'Usermare-Seteprere'(Ramses Then this Then he wrought chief of Bekhten. Then said this

god went to the place the protection

of the daughter immediately.

of the

She became well spirit which

was in her before 'Thou comest in peace, Thy city I am thy is

Khonsu-the-Plan-Maker-in-Thebes: thou great godq smiting thy servants

the barbarians. are its peopleg

Bekhten, I will heart (But) with

servant. thy camest.

go to the place concerning let thy that,

whence I came, to satisfy on account of which thou

majesty

command to celebratea of Bekhten. 'Let this

feast-day god

me and with

the chief saying: before

1 Then this

nodded to his make a great things

priest offering

the chief spirit. '

of Bekhten While these

were happening,

which

Khonsu-the-Plan-Maker-

in-Thebes stood with

wrought'with his soldiers, offering

the spiritq and feared before

the chief very

of Bekhten Then

greatly.

he made a great in-Thebes celebrated departed

Khonsu-the-Plan-Makerof Bekhten

and the spirit; a feast day with

and the chief them.

Then the spirit by command of man

in peace to the place

he desired,

of Khonsu-the-Plan-Maker-in-Thebesg Bekhten rejoiced very greatly,

and the chief together with every

who was in Bekhten"(lines

17b-23a).

(47)

According. story is

to John Hull the oldest

who provides extant

no evidence,

this

probably

case of individual

possession century

coming from the thirteenth and exorcism, (48) But the evidence supports BC. a later the story (fourth in the reign centuries of Alexander

date. IV and

Erman places Ptolemy II

to third

BC) and Spiegelberg

says it comes from the reign of Ptolemy VI (second century (49) BC). Breasted also dates this story in-the Persian or (50) If so, what does this stele tell early Greek period. before the time of us about exorcism just a few centuries Jesus? exorcism but is not the locus in of power-authority or physical thoroughly for aids the

incantations all but not told

in a god who is

or potions, (51) anthropomorphised. for is is to

Secondly, exorcisml reminiscent told not

we have here, but a story

a mere collection to glorify story

of recipes (52) Khonsu. This of Eleazar techniques which but

at least simply

of Josephus'

to illustrate

exorcistic

ii

23

glorify Thirdly,

6 (see, Solomon and his God given wisdom p. 3 below). there is the speaking of the demon or spirit feature
below).

which

is also a familiar
NT period ( 81. Pe73 which

of exorcisms in and around the

Fourthly, the spirit 22). departs This reminds

to the place

the god commanded (line story (Tobit

us of the end of Fifthly, in the story

the Tobit ends with

8: 3) and Nk-5: 12f.. and people is. also rejoicing paralleled

the chief This

the cure

of the Princess. in Life the NT (for lv: 20. (53)

ending

in our period, Philostratus'

) Mk. 1: 27f. example and in

But how useful

is

this

ancient

material

in understanding

exorcism in first

century

Palestine?

That ancient

Egyptian

ideas about exorcism continued first century is not difficult

to be Imown, even beyond the to illustrate. civilization To be noted from before

(54)

ihe is basic stability

the second mil-lenium This is born out in that in

of Egyptian
through until

the coming of Christianity. of exorcism in that papyri of the in the with some are

the practice are found

of the features still

irL the ancient papyri

to be found

the Greek magical centuries the exorcist AD.

second and following Edwin Smith Papyrus Horus and says "I

For example,

identifies

himself

am Horustt

(XVII3:: 13-15).

And in the PGM

we often

meet the same identification

and phrase.

PGMIV: 2999 has the exorcist

C- cF. p. that -3/ below).

say "I am Hermes"

just mentioned the fact

We have also papyri

the much later

sometimes

began one of a series

ii

24 with "Another" (incantation) (55) : Egyptian dide just as the

of incantations
ancient

But not survive country (b) from

only

did

ancient they also

Egyptian spread

notions far (a)

about

exorcism

in tiie, of origin. the political period,

beyond their from the literaturej of the in Palestine itself.

We can show this and social (c) and

conditions

Hellenistic

from evidence

(a)

In

the second century the Greek satirist

AD Lucian

(see Samosata of who was Egypt was

P- 7Z/ below),

and rhetorician, thought that

known throughout the fount one of his great

the Roman Empire, iiterature

of magical characters

and practice. say that

(56)

He has

............ in Philopseudes works Celsus, in

he had a demons who

number of Egyptian 31; cf34).

on controlling

(Philops. wrote second

the pagan philosopher the last quarter

against century,

the Christian probably

of the the the

from Rome(57) considered of magic.

Egyptians Egyptian

important as those

teachers

He describes

"who for the middle

a few obols

make known their place

sacred

lore

in

of the market

and drive

demons out

of men and blow away diseases

(c C 1: 68; cf TII: 36).

(58)

But what of Palestine data indicating BC found that

in particular? religion had,

Hengel, has collected by the third a whole

Egyptian

century

a footing

in Palestine.

Notably

11 series of towns were centres of the Isis cults possibly

25

even Jerusalem.

(59)

(b) evidence) Egyptian the period that

Not only indicate ImagicIt before

does the literature how widespread but the political first

(and archeological was the knowledge and social century of of

conditions AD indicate of

and around-the

there

was most probably lifel literature

a considerable

knowledge

Egyptian

and religion

in Palestine.

There

is plenty
population returned Not only etween as well

of evidence that (60)

in Egypt. _ to Palestine was there

there was a 1,arge Jewish

large number of these Egyptian political there ideas Jews With them. (61)

_A and carried

the inevitable but

relationship connections (62) Palestine*

the two countries, during the Ptolemaic

were social

hegemony over

The brother
marry

a Jew in Egypt.

of Tobiad Joseph even sought to have his daughter (63)

_ _ itself that

(c) Egyptian For

There

is

evidence in

from Palestine

practices

exorcism

were known in Palestine. published three, second to

example James A. Montgomery

fifth

century Hebrew amillets

from Irbid (64)

(65)

which lies

east of

the southern published

end of Iake Galilee. from Palestinel

Goodenough has also and as we shall see

amulets

later

(P-7, Z below),
exorcisms

first
like

century
those

PaJeatinian

Rabbis

performed

represened in the magical

papyri.

(66)

26
Thus it on exorcism most probably In turn is reasonable for us to conclude not only survived that these ideas

in ancient spread

Egypt widely

in time Palestine. as part

but

in area to include ideas on exorcism stories.

then we. can use these to the Synoptic

of

the background

exorcism

2.3.3 material

The Magical being

(67) -j' Papyx

._ at least

Despite

much of this use (69) Hull papyri its only

known for

has been made of it has drawn attention in providing cosmology proceeds -but his

in NT studies.

a century little (68) Recently

to the importance

of the magical particularly

a background and healing

to some NT ideas, But Hull's of 'magic'

techniques.

work not

on a misunderstanding interests are wider with

(see p. 337 below) nd so we need a: in mind.

than NT exorcism exorcism

to reexarn-in

the papyri

specifically

There may be a number of reasons not been more thoroughly scholars readily recognize utilized the vast

why these

papyri (a) between

have some the

in NT studies. difference

to keep to the Gospels want seem so and and papyri ethos of (70) (b) Also the magical papyri are being the two apart. ignored lated because most of them have never into English, together. been fully trans-

collected these texts

been has in is English not and what (71) (c) And an important reason why used is inunder-

have not been more extensively

because standing

they

late be too to seen are (72) the NT.

to be useful

ii

27
Is it then legitimate toallow the magical papyri to century

contribute Palestine? this ki4d

to our picture Howevert of material

of the background

of first

we have already and its

been able notions

to show that were known this probably current in

associated

in Palestine. conclusion represent

the

And we can further by showing that

substantiate papyri

the magical which

ideas

on exorcism

were already

... .......... first century.

Firstly, scholars dated time

than some the magical papyri may be earlier (73) instances think, and in specific some can be For example PGM LVII PGM XVI is, comes from the grounds a date dated

much earlier. of Hadrian,

. on palaeo graphical

to the first equivalent

century to 6 AD.

AD and PGM XXXb carries (74),

A second indication telling us about first

that century

this

material

is is

useful

in

AD exorcism

the stability,

of the notions
the 'forward'

in this
stability

material.
of ideas this century.

Hull

in the papyri. stability

has been able to show (75)

What extends

we have to do is 'backwards'

show that

to the first

In PGM V: 110(76) prophet% Further

there

is

the line

"I

am Moses your "I am Thouth

on there

are also

the lines

(V: letters" 249) founder and of medicines and (77) - h. 474ff. ). "I Heron This 10: 251; and am see also ... the inventor

ii

28
assuming the role of another more

phenomenon of the exorcist

powerful

P. 19 above)

being is known in earlier (78)

as well and stable

Egyptian
texts aspect

papyri

(see

as Babylonian this

(seepp. 15F. above). of exorcistic

So we see how ancient (79) technique was.

The use of astrology example P. Warren; P. Tebt.

in

the magical 276) is

papyri,

(see for (80)

a legacy

of the Persians. Egyptian this

We have alr eady seen that used plants also and stones its etc.

the Babylonian in their cultic

and ancient techniques; (for

has found

way into

the magical

papyri

example

PGMIV; 30008f. ).

The use of apparently

meaningless-names Egyptian material-

was encountered. in our survey of ancient (see p-zo *x above) and it n. example XIII. passim*

is found again in the PGM, for

A third,
represent

factor
of

which
earlier

indicates
times is

the magical
the

papyri
....... nature

do'
of

ideas

. .... composite

the material. been included,

That

is,

it

seems that upon. for

older

material

has

and relied practice

PGM IV: 1227ffcasting (the

reads An head. him

"An excellent incantation, Put olive saying

out demons. sufferer. 's)

to be said branches

over his

in front

of him and stand

behind

Here we see the use of a very branches, which we came across

ancient in

practice

of using texts

tree

the Babylonian

(see po/3

above) which indicates

a geographical as well

ii

29
spread of these ideas.

as a temporal

Direct in

inclusion

of older

material

can also takes

be detected up numerous

thesepapyri.

For example PGM IV: 3019ff. traditions about

details

from Jewish

Yahweh. The god which

is adjured in lines 3033-3037 is

"him who appeared and in the cloud from the taskwork unto Osrael in the pillar of light his word

by day and who delivered of Pharaoh and brought not".

upon Pharaoh

the ten plagues

because he heard

The very structure for example PGM of some of the papyrij (82) . V_ with its ten sections for various effects simply juxtaposed, together within shows that material was probably collected (83) And importantly and preserved. it is clear that older

from older'sources the sections of this

papyrus

material
begin in with

is being used for where lines

"This line is It the writer ... - an error best

136,1379

138 all
out "lord"

has crossed explained if

the centre another

he was

copying

earlier

papyrus.

What these that after even though the first

last

few paragraphs

have tried papyri

to show is

much of the magical centurythey

comes from that for the

are of such a nature material

we can legitimately background

use them to provide century.

to the first

So we ask our question

What this can -

material

tel-I

30
us

about exorcism?

to 84

(a)

Many of the texts is sought

begin

by calling

up the aid "I

of the call

god whose help

in performing

the exorcism.

You, the headless This god is usually

one ... 11begins carefully

the incantation

PGMV: 11.171. 6f .

identified.

So PGM VIII:

shows the importance is addressed "I S.

of knowing

the name of the being was received PGM IV: 3075 looketh (see in

that

Imow your name which formsl ......

heaven, identifies earth

I know you and your the invoked

god as "him that the foundations

down on (e) below).

and maketh tremble

(b)

The description

sometimes

extends

to a brief

history

(ego the of god see PGMIV: 3033ff.

quoted aboVe, cf.

V: 110ff. ). Knowing the origin important, for

of a god seems to have been 13 has "I know you Hermes,

is your city".

example PGMVIII:

who you are and whence you came and which

(c)

The users

of these

incantations the help

seem to have had Thus

some difficulty

in gaining

of the gods.

in PGM V: 258ff.
tell the enquirer "will into over

the text says that if

what he wants the blood

the god does not

to know he dog-eared place shall it one

Pour out

of the black

a new unpolluted

vessel,

and I will Your belly

a new cha0fing-dish... and also your

be eaten not

by the fish, stop the fish

body, it with

and I will their

from gnawing

mouths,

31 indeed the fishes shall not shut their mouths..

(d) into get

The demon also

had to be frightened

and brought to

submission.

Thus PGM IV: 3039ff.

has an incantation

the demon to talk. I adjure the tongue you by the seal of Jeremiah continues which Solomon laid upon

and he spokeP.,'to adjure the demon to speak of all silence lifell is to

The incantation

by the god "who knows what is presumably dven the demon's

in the heart as his

name so,

no avail

he may as well

speak.

(86) _

(e)

These points

so far

directly

lead

to a related

characteristic this material;

of the exorcistic the importance

technique

evident

in

of knowing the name or names is sought. PGMIV:

of the power-authority 3019ff.

"I

whose involvement

has
adjure you by the god of the Hebrewsq IUSOU, Iae,

Abrat5th, Aial
Abarmas,

Thothq Eleg E13, A-e3qEul Iiibaech,

Abelbell Mnal Abraq Maroiag.. .. *

Iabarau,

(87)
.

(f) the role the

A very

common part

of

the technique identity.

was to assume In PGM V: ggff.

of another is

more powerful directing

incantation

the exorcist

to first

call later

up the god then the exorcist

say "I

am Moses your

prophet!. -' A little

says "I

am the angel

of Phapro Osoronnophris". himself with

Then the exorcist

goes so far

as to identify

II

32
he seeks to use.

the god whose power-authority

(88)

(g)

In many of the incantations but activities

there

are not only

words

to be repeated

to be performed

in an exorcism.

PGMIV: 3007ff.
"Take oil plant

has
made from unripe and lotus olivesl pith, together it with with the

ma tigia

and boil

(very marjoram colourless) - (89)

person ... "o

saying

...

come out of this

(h) Many of these directions

Thus for on a plate example in PGM XXXVI: 1ff; with a bronze the

cited

involved

(90) amulets.

of lead

is written the incantation 0 pen. One of the purposes could be carried with

of the amulet the sufferer. ... write

was that

incantation says

Thus PGM IV: 3014ff. . this phylactery(91) the sufferer: at,

upon a piece it is

of tin... demon a

and hang it thing Another

round

of every

to be trembled

which

he fears". to reproduce ).

purpose

of the amulet texts

was to be able (eg.

the figures

of magical

PGM XXVII: 69ff.

(i) including (e)

In virtually

all

incantations

of every

kind, (see used -

exorcism, special (92) A word which above). Its origin is is

words and soundslare is particularly the oldest

common is

Abrasax. agreed

unknown but found

and generally

explanation

in Irenaeus value

(Ilr--aer. 1: 24: 7) where the number -

h6 says the letterst

numerical

is-365

33
of heavenly Palindromic intelligencZes in Basilides pleroma.

(93)
_ _

words were also popular - especially (94) The vowels were also used in a variety Alanathanalba. (96) of ways(95) often to produce a geometric shape.

Although ing, it is special also

perhaps

belonging

under

the previous because PGM IV in

head-

mention used in

should

be made of

*Pxfcj

the Gospels

( see p. maf-below).

in particular which

has the word many times. found is "I 'binds to get adjure

The formula

the word is

you by ...

The meaning

+xt'5w. of

seems to be to in order

the demon by some other the demon to leave the person.

.............. power-authoriZ

These seem to be the most important techniques magical of the exorcists that

features

of the by the

are represented

papyri.

2.4 The Old Testament

the OT was an important (97) theology, Christian as well as source for earliest (98) There informing the Jewish mind of the first century.
are two passages in particular which contributed to

There is no doubt that

first

century

Palestinian

thinking

on exorcism:

1 Sam.

16: 14-23 (see Ant,. 6: 167f-;

below; which cf.

p. 49 below;

LAB 60, see p. 5o

4: 29-34 all future

1 Sam. 18: 10; 19: 9),

and 1 Kings the basis for

seems to have provided

ii

34
with regard ). to Solomon's prowess in magic

speculation (cf.

Ant. 8: 46ff.

2.4.1 actually Regardless

But a third played a part

passage, in

Psalm 91

seems to have

the exorcisms

of the psalmisl! s original used, perhaps

as an incantation. (99) intentions this as a means of

psalm was later combating

extensively,

the onslaught

of demons.

In 1971 van der Ploeg published

a Qumran scroll of Ps. 91.

from cave 11 (11 QpsApa)(100) which is a recension The roll is severely it

suggest that

damaged but a number of. expressions (101) Thus contained curses against demons.
appears to have used, Ps, 91 for the (102) (Ploeg goes so far as demons. have here in 11 COPsApathe

the Qumran community purpose of exorcising that

to suggest

we might

'Davidic

by J. A. Sanders, the stricken" (p. 6q below) in exorcism. in exorcism when relating

Compositions' (103Y

refered
which

to in 11 QPsa, published
making music also over see

were "for

(11QPs'l XXVII: 10)). JosephusIsaw In view

As we will

the Psalms of David. as useful importance of Ps. 91 in mind oF

of the apparent Josephus

in our period the cure

may have had it playing

of Saul by David

and singing

Psalms in Ant. 6: 168 (cf.

Ant-7: 305)-

These tentative use of Ps. 91 in

conclusions

are strengthened

by the

the Rabbinic

material.

The psalm is

ii

35
called 'Song for Demons? (J. Erub. 10: 26c), and 'Song Referring literature 'Song to Evil

actually for

the Stricken'

(j. Shab. 6: 8b),

Spirits'

(b. Sheb-15b). used for (eg.

Though in the Rabbinic protection against OW b. Sheb-15b).

salm-is the than for

demons rather

exorcism

What of the early with story

Church's

use of Ps. 91 in use is Lhe

the combat

demons? The most obvious

Temptation )(105) Luke and

4: 6/Lk. (Mtt. 4: Ps. 91: 11 12 lof. where and are used interesting and appropriate context

'In a particularly probably told alludes that

to Ps-91: 13. The Seventy even the demons are subject

have returned

Jesus

to them in his

name. As part

of the reply

Jesus

says -

"Behold,
serpents

I have given you authority

and scorpions

11 (Lk. 10: 19). ...

to tread upon Oo6)

And Ps-91: 13 has "You will young, lion This the is idea clearly tread on the lion and the adder, you will but trample and under I foot". and

and the serpent not a quotation of

the common details in both

of protection a firm

the faithful (107)

the Psalm and in the

Luke suggest Qu-mran scrolls, evidence cases that

allusion.

We have then Josephus, evil,

the INT, and perhaps

clear and in some

Ps. 91 was used in combating exorcism in first century

in actual

Palestinee

36 (lo8) 2.5 Tobit

Although diaspora(109) as part because being

this

book may be from

the second century

BC

we can legitimately background place in

use the book of Tobit to first century Palestine

of the literary of the book's

known to the Q=an

the LXX and becaii (110) community. _

e of its

In'the large

book Tobit

sends his

son

Tobias

to recover

sum of money from relatives of healing, posing

in Ecbatari% Raphael, relativexho One night a fish foot. during jumped Raphael

the angel

as a reliable Tobias.

knew the way was employed to guide the journey, while

camped by the Tigris and attempted the fish

river,

out of told and

the water

to eat Tobias'

Tobias iiver this for

to catch a useful

and keep the gall., (6: 5)On being

heart questioned

medicament -

about

he was told the heart gives

"As for spirit

and the liver,

if

a demon or evil

trouble before

to any one, you make a smoke person

from these will ahoint never with

the man or woman, and that again. And as for films

be troubled it

the gall, in his eyes,

a man who has white 7f. ).

and he will

be cured"(6:

The ga3l was eventually

in the mean time Tobias

used on the eyes of Tobit,

ma ries a certain before, Sarah.

but
However

Sarah has been married demon Asmodeus (the

seven times

and as the in Tobit) is in

only

demon mentioned

ii

37
with her, each of the previous night. husbands Raphael had been killed Tobias take -

love

by the demon on the wedding "When you enter live heart

instructs

the bridal

chamberg you shall

ashes of incense and liver

and lay

upon them some of the

of the fish smell it

so as to make a smoke. Then away, and will never

the demon will

and flee

again return"(6:
Raphael they also tells

17f. ).
Tobias All to pray this with his does, to remotest new wife before

sleep

together.

Tobias

"And when the demon smelled

the odo he fled

parts
The prayer

of Egyptj
which

and the angel bound himll(8: 3).

was. to be for grace and

Raphael'said

protection
for God's

(6: 18) turns

blessing

out in fact

to be a simple prayer
(8: 5-8), and has little took fish,

of the marriage the defeat

or nothing place

to do with

of Asmodeus - that the burning

as a result

of the demon smelling

This

story

is

clear

evidence

that aids.

Jewish

healings

invblved

the use of mechanical Jewish Persian healing origins

or physical is

The source but'it

of this

technique

disputed,

may have in

as the reference

to the use of fish

exorcism may indicate. _

However the effectiveness least defeat of the exorcism, seen to lie or at entirely in

of Asmodeus, was not performance, for

the cultic not only

the angelts but also

direction the charge -

included

the use of

the fish

38 "When you approach her (Tobit's

of you, and cry to the merciful

wife)

rise

up, both

Godl and he will 1'7)Palestinian and prayero notions

save you and have mercy on you"(6: So this about text exorcism tells us that first century

included

the use of incense

2.6 Jubil ees

(112)

Three survey

factors,

compel us to include background material;

this firstly

book in our its date

of relevant

of composition
and se co ndly means that it its

(the middle of the second century

use in the Qumran community Not only

. (113) BC
which

was known in Palestine.

because

fragments material similarities

of Jubilees

have been found. among the Qumran and cultic

but also because of theological notions

about cleanliness and separateness(115) (116) been Jubilees has and the solar calendar considered _ (117) However B. Noack a product of the Qumran community. and more recently in pointing James C. VanderKam are probably dissimilarities are differences
the Holy Spirit,

correct

out significant

between Jubilees on matters

Messianic Community

and Qumran. For example there

relating expectation, Rule, to the New Covenant,

the Temple,. the Jerusalem baptism interests. justify

priesthoodq

communal meal,

sectarian/national that reasonably

bathing, wars, and or ritual (118) These are differences that Jubilees is but not

the conclusion of

to be regarded

as a product

the Qumran community

11

39
a document which they it took into their library, their for ally.

simply

as we have noted,

at points

would have proved

The third our background th4f-g

reason

why we should stories

include in

Jubilees the Gospels

in is

to the exorcism

some of the NT writers may have been aware of this (119) book. And there are in fact several points of contact (120) between the demonology of Jbilees and the NT.

2.6.1 interest blind

It

is

part

of chapter

10 which

is

of particular astrayl made

to us.

The sons of Noah are being Noah prays of all flesh, me, who

led

and destroyed. "'God

of the spirits hast

shown mercy unto

And hast

saved me and my sons from of the flood, as

the waters And hast not

caused me to perish

Thou didst For Thy grace And great

the sons of perdition; has been great towards me,

has been Thy mercy to my soul; be lifted spirits destroy up upon my sons, rule over them

Let Thy grace And let Lest

not wicked should

they

them from

the earth. But do Thou bless and multiply knowest me and my sons, that we may increase And Thou of these spirits,

and replenish

the earth. the fathers

how Thy Watchers,

40 in my day: and as for acted .

living, imprison

these spirits
them fast

which are
in the place destruction on

them and hold and let servant,

of cOndemnation, the sons of thy and created the spirits dominion

them not bring my God; for

these

in order

to destroy. for

And let Thqu alone

are malignant, n0i them4rule over canst exercise

of the living; over them. And let

them not have power over from henceforth and for ever-

the sons of

the righteous

more "'(10: 3-6).

In response to Noah's prayer all God bids the evil the angels spirits. (cf. 1

Enoch 10: 4,12)

to bind

However

Mastemal, the chief "lord, let Creator,

of the demons says let some of them remain and do all before that left me, and I shall to me,

them hearken them; for

to my voice, if

say unto I shall

some. of them are not to execute these

not be able

the power of my will are for for corruption great is and

on the sons of men; for leading astray before

my judgment,

the wickedness of the sons of men

So the Lord permits Mastema and Raphael a tenth is told of the spirits to teach

(10: 8).
to remain with

Noah all

the angel'3

medicines
"for

he (God) knew (the sons of Noah) would in righteousness" the ange2s not walk (10: 10). on

in uprightness, The story "every spirits ends with

nor strive Noah writing

intrUCtions

kind

of medicine"

in a book thus sons. This

preventing book,

the evil

from hunting

Noah's

Noah handed

41 (10: loved Shem the 13f-). to son eldest and most on

2.6.2 (a) Although

From this this is healer

story not

we make a number of observations. an exorcism story involving a

single in for

patient,

and evil

spirit(s), it

such as we encouAter has to do with

(see I QapGen P-4-3below), example of demons. one holy by which

the control and rehabilitation I (b) The story centres around cf-10: under 3,17). control And the mean is not

individual

(5: 5;

the demons are brought performances,

incantations

or cultic

but Noah's (c)

prayer. of Noah begins (10: 39 see above) activity with w4ose sons. in This a brief

he prayer

recitation aid

Lstory of the

of the God's

Noah seeks in removing of an exorcism

the demons from his already part should

feature

has been found This ... introductory Lest

the MeVcO

Papyri (see p.. Z? above). ends with from is a mild threat (10: 3)-

of the prayer destroy them

they

the earth"

The threatening in

of the god whose aid

sought

has also

been found Papyri

the Magical (d) Towards

(see p. 30[above). (10: 5) Noah says ItImprison of condemnation". is familiar This

the end of the prayer them fast in

them and hold is a notion

the place

on the end of demons that

in the

NT (mtt. 8: 29; Jude 6, see p. 140below). (e) The plea with which Noah ends his prayer "And let them

not have power over and for evermore"

the sons of the righteous an element we will

from henceforth find in ;

(10: 6) is

TT

42
other exorcism stories where the demon is expelled

and told (f)

not

to return

(see pp. 64, cF9obelow). to be done, not directly

The 'bindingt by his

of the demons is angels that (10: 7)in

by God, but (g) It is

to be noted

response

to the impending demons. We will, demons' and not the in

binding the next defence

Mastema. speaks chapterg

in defence with

of his

be dealing

the reported is Satan

in the Synoptics.

Though it

demons who attempt to my knowledgel it

a defence is

in the face extant is

of being story not for

rehabilitated, that includes

the earliest The request literature,

such a 'demonic-defenc6le immunitY9 the other (h) face but as in other

complete in the

fo4eniency

of a superior this could

power is

(. cF. p. -7.3 below) As in e granted. 10: 9 with

stories The story

leniency

have ended at

most of the like an after the madicines how he So Jubilees

demons being thought of their might is

condemned, however the mention

what appears

of Noah writing with of their

down "all seductions, It (10: 12). effected also

diseasesq them with not only

together herbs

heal

the earth being

witnesses special

to exorcisms (see (b) But

by particular to the use He

individuals

above) in view Noah

but of all

of medicines commanded that for

and herbs, we should would ") upon,

10: 10 ("*.. their

teach not walk

medicines; nor strive if not

He knewthey

in uprightness,

in righteousness. being frowned

in view is certainly

of thisl-such considered

healing,

a second best

method of exorcism.

11

43
In concluding life the section on Noah with the children wherein is (v-17) "And -

(i)

in his

on earth

he excelled

of men save he was perfect; -to " -

Enoch because the purpose

of the righteousness, 'exorcisms story

of the

maniiest

enhance the reputation (j) Finally,

of Noah. that the control of the demons by repercussions of the point attrib-

we can note thought

Noah was not

to have any cosmological That is, the

beyond the actual demons, is will not

'event'.

'exorcism' This

given

a meaning beyond itself.

be bornein

mind when we examin

the significance

uted to Jesus'

exorcisms

(seepp-22IFF. below).

2-7 The Dead Sea SCrolls

(121)

Though the dating placed quite late

of this

material

has at

times

been consjus

and out of our period, is that there is

the general justification

of scholarly for the time thinking

opinion that this

every

literature

arose

in the middle

of

second century of Jesus.

BC and was being

used right

up to the

There

are

two

passages

in

particular

in

this

I literature

which

we need to examine.

2-7-1 Genesis Apocryphon XX (1 QapGenoXX). This section

particular

of the Apocryphon is devoted to Gen. 12-15- Incolumn XX recounts the courtiers' description

11

44
and his for Sarah's night taking of Sarah as his Then a spirit his wife.

Pharaohl to Sarah of Abraham then prays during to scourge household; that

protection.

the Most High God sent an evil spirit

him (Pharaoh),, and it scourged

to all his

him and all herl

househbld. he was

And he was unable with Eventually it necessary out, her two years

to approach

he knew her not reaches a point

and although (122) where Pharaoh

the illness to call are unable all

finds

the

sages and magician him. Finally

it who that

turns

to help sister,

on hearing to

Sarah was not Abrahamts believe, but his wifel

as he had been led

Abraham was summonedo He was told from all the land this of Egypt; evil spirit and

"'Depart now pray

and go-hence for

house that me and my from (for it. '

may be expelled So I prayed his (head);

him)...

and I laid departed (from

my hands on

and the scourge was expelled

from him and him), and he

the evil lived".

spirit (1235

This because, story with find in that

is

an important as I know,

and interesting this is

story

not least extant demons

as far

the earliest

relates-the

ability

to control (Abraham) in

and expel

a particular in material the NT.

individual a little

the way that-we - particularly

later

in our period

11

45
It is also to be noted in cultic that the source of power-authority incantations

is

not

to be found

traditions

of amulets,

or special lies in his

words or ceremony. own prayers.

The success

of the exorcist

Along with This is probably

the prayer the first

went

the

flaying

on of hands'. through the

instance

of healing

laying

on of hands to be found in Jewish material..

(124)

In this the-evil spirit

document

the exorcism

is

described Primarily

as - "and from the spirits

was expelled in

use of 'j. Vj from

1 QM. XIV where God 'expels' H. C. Kee says that a technical te= for

Satan's

the elect, is uttered

the commanding word, by which evil

by God or by his into for in

spokesman, submission,

powers are brought thereby righteous prepared rule

and the way is of GoVs

the establishment (1 25) the world"O

But Kee is nificance it is not of'I-V clear evil

probably A in in

introducing

too much into story. that the (a)

the sigwith

the exorcism

To begin

the War Scroll results the world.

'driving able

away' to establish

of Satan's his righteous

spirits rule in

in God being

"Blessed

be the God of Israel His Covenant,

who keeps mercy towards and the appointed times

of salvation

ii

li, < r%j

with
Quo

the people

He has delivered!

we, the remnant shall

Cof

Thy people,

7 Thy name, 0 God of mercies, praise. the Covenant with our father.

who hasLkept In all

our generations Thy wonderful under

Thou hast

bestowed Z-of Thy people_7

favours

on the remnant

the dominion the mysteries

of Satan. of--his .7 Malevolence from Thy Covenant;

During

all

fus he has riot made Thou has driven--his far Rather plan evil Satan than from Z"Thine this portraying in spirits

stray

Z. -of destruction2 7 110m xiv:,; F). of the redemptive of Belial 'destruction' the people out is and the of of not

elect. the

triumph

of God culminating (126) the spirits, is simply his

the overcoming out' for or

'driving

one of the things name. Just

which is

God praise made clear.

how Belial I

driven

(b) with is

What Keels

interpretation in

does is

to equate

exorcism

the defeat a connection passage interpretation significance

of Satan that

the Qumran material.

But this

Qumran does not

seem to have made, for (apart from of any from

in this Keels wider

in the Genesis of

Apocryphon, ) there is

no hint

of the exorcism. which it is we have just through

And in quoted, that

the passage there is no

the War Scroll, indication that

exorcism

God drives

the

ii

47
of destruction from the elect.

spirits

(c)'I-V

I has a range of meanings of 'rebuke',

(127)

that

extend

beyond Keels alternatives enemies of God'.

rightly rejects

and 'to overcome the

On the basis
the tra33 lation

4 1 QH IX: Fr. Kee 11 of and

'rebuke'. also 'to cast But in the last doubt on Kee's

two paragraphs interpretation God'.

we have in effect of -UV'A as -

overcome

the enemies of

As Kee himself, equivalent account

and others,

the Semitic to take we take into note

have noted, 'jSla is (128) Thus we need of elf(Ird ORY 'OV4, 'to exorcise 1.029) If

some sense of

of the lines-previous

to line

29 we come to

a clearer
should

understanding

of exorcism at Qumran and how *1_VA

The reading of XX: 26 has been Fit=yer, will it depart should from the 29 is

be translated. debated lated then

considerably

but,

following plague is

be tran probably (130) This you,,. exorcism. probably

"the is what said spirit

expected

to happen in in line

Thus what is that the evil

to have happened left or 'departed'.

One of

the possible
As this well suits

tran

lations

of
of 'rebuke'

would be to expel.
in the word, spirit

(131)

the element

(132-)as we

as describing

the expulsion

of the evil

suggest it
thought

as the correct
in

understanding
exorcism.

of what Qumran

was*happening

2.7,2 the Prayer

The second passage of Nabonidus

that

is

of interest

to us is fragment

(4QPrNab. ).

(133)

The entire

ii

48
"The words of the prayer pttered by Nabunai king of

reads

Z'the Babylon,
with an evil

7 king, great.
ulcer

Z-when he was afflicted

fMost the of

in Teiman by decree

High God_7. I was afflicted years... fwith an evil pardoned ulcer'7for my sins. seven He was a of Judah,

and an exorcist 2-children Jew from among the and he saidl, and exaltIthe I wrote 'I this: 'Recount

of the exile in writing

this.

toCglorify And

Z-Most Name of the ** with of an fevill

High God'.

was afflicted decree Prayed

ulcer

in For seven

fby Teiman Years Z-Ij

the Most High Godl. gods of silver

to the

and gold, because

Cbronze Z-I

and iron'71 that

wood and stone they were gods

and clay, 0

believedl

The book of Daniel I Nebuchadnezzar the story later there and it

relates

a similar

story that

of originally

has been suggested Nabonidus,

concerned by that

replaced

and that his name was (135) This Nebuchadnezzar. prayer of of Danielic stories and the unknown

then may belong

to a cycle

(136)

exiled

Jew may have been intended

to be Daniel..

In the Prayer Vermes(137) has translated as (138) While as Dupont'exorcist' rather than Idiviner,.

Sommersays, this might be irreproachable

linguistically,

(139)

ii

49
is not the most natural tdiviners, this is translation translation occurs that in There there of the term. (140) in Dan. 2: 27, is to be preferred that that The and it here.

it

noun, is

literally

probably there

Also

no suggestion, in mind. but

the Prayer is is that no doubt

the writer the gzr of an evil exile not an is

has an exorcism involved spirit pardoned exorcism

in a healing, or its departurej

no mention the Jewish

the king's story.

simply (141)

sins*

Thus 4QPPNab. is

2-7-3 It
one exorcism this kind

seems then that

story from which

the Qumran material

has only
about

we can draw conclusions in the first individual century.

of healing is related

in Palestine

The healing

to a particular of AbrahaM for to have given

and is

told

to enhance the reputation healing the King is said

as a result to

of the

many gifts

Abraham (and Sarah) uses no mechanical the practice no significance healing. an evil

and an escort or physical

out of Egypt. in his

Abraham save

aids

exorcism,

of laying in

on of hands.

The document sees the particular exorcism as expelling we also to a see

the exorcism

outside

The Qumran people spirit. without

understood

(From the Prayer 'aids'

of Nabonidus

a healingg

or incantations,

related

particular

individual,

) Daniel. perhaps

50 2.8 Pseudo-Philo (142)

The Liber interest probably

...

.............

Antiquitatum

Biblicarum

........

is

of some considerable to quote as the

to us for

the passage which

we are about

comes from Palestine (143) NT was being written. "And at that from Saul, time

and from

the same time

the spirit spirit

of the Lord was taken oppressed (lit.

away

and an evil

choked him). a psalm

And Saul sent upon his which depart harp

and fetched in the night. Saul

David,

and he played is

And this the evil

the psalm might

he sang unto from him*

that

spirit

There were darkness was, and the silence visible. drawing

and silence

before

the world became

spake,

and the darkness name created,

And then was thy together of that

even at the out, whereof

which

was stretched

the upper was called earth. rain should And it according bring that

heaven and the lower

was called that it that should it

was commanded to the upper to its forth season, for

and to the lower man that of your (should spirit

food

be) made. made. thou art

And after

was the tribe be not but if

Now therefore', a second creation,

injurious, not, then

whereas

remember Hell

(lit.
Or is

be mindful
it not

of Tartarus)
thee I sing

wherein-thou
to hear unto that

walkedst.
by that which

enough for thee

resoundeth thou that

before out

many?

Or forgettest (or chaos)

of a rebounding

echo in

the abyss

ii

51
thy thee, a time creation whereof Vorn? was I aM born, he that But that new womb shall rebuke

of whom shall shall

be born after

of my loins

subdue you. the spirit spared

Sau'

And when David P44) (LAB 60)

sung praises,

2.8.1 attention (a) Saul It is is

For

the purpose

of our study points. the evil spirit

we should

draw

to the foUowing noticeable that

that

oppresses

not said

to be sent

by God, as in 1 Sam. 16: 14.

(b) However, the evil

God, on the second day. (c) is As we have seen, an important

is still spirit (145)

said to be created by

and will

see again

(p. 6q 'below), technique of the

music

feature

of the healing

period.
(d) Whht was sung by David is said to be a psalm. I

(e)

According

to LAB David's

singing

and playing to live

took in the

place

at night. darkness In

Demons were thought but also

not only

to be -particularly Kid. 20b)-a school

(146) active at night. also house is

the Talmud (b. at night.

exorcised (f) this psalm

The most interesting story is is the 'psalm' or history

contribution that David

of Pseudo-Philo is said which to sing. climaxes

to The by

a story

of creation of evil spirits.

focusing not

on the creation

The psalm is but to the evil

directed

to any invoked

power-authority

spirits.

ii

52
The third spirit paragraph that of the chapter begins by reminding creation he

(g)

the evil
I

as he is

a second order

created
should

out of a rebounding
not be injurious.

echo to walk

in Hell

(h) line

The incantation "Or is it not

if

we may call enough for thee

it

that, to hear unto

has the that

intereiting

thee

by that This gives

which the

resoundeth

before that the

I sing

many? "

impression

'psalm'

or paragraph

was commonly

used in exorcism. (i) The concluding words against the demon are to be noted. prophecy rebuke that the demon. identity

The ultimate

weapon against

the demon is

someone born of the same womb as David Various suggestions

will

have been made as to the intended

of this

most likely

person who is to. have power over demons, but the (147)
candidate is Solomon.

2.9 The New Testament

In seeking exorcists in first

to build century of

up a picture Palestine information. it

of exorcism

and to

may be possible That there were

use the NT as a source

exorcists

who were Jesus'

contemporaries,

Q, (Mtt. 12: 27/ We will

Lk. 11: 19) and Mark (9: 38; cf. Lk. 9: 49) agree. consider three passages:

Mtt. 12: 27/Ik. 11: 19; Mk. 9: 38-40/ (148)----

Ik. 9: 49-50,

and Acts lgi: 13-.19.

ii

53
2.9.1 Mtt. 12: 7/Lk. 11-09 has the saying, by whom do your ... If I cast

out demons by Beelzebulq As this it in mean first saying that probably we probably

them out? ". (149) goes back to the historical-Jesus sons cast have here some evidence of exorcists

century

Palestine*

Exactly

who at Am'

were

has

been

a matter

of

debate.

Some commentators general sense of

think "your

that people".

the term is (150)

meant in the think it

But others

refers
reference below)

to the sons of the Pharisees.

to the Pharisees be certain

(151)

However, as the
(see p. 201

may be redactional

we cannot

who Jesus had in mind.

The methods beyond the hint So these technique relying demons.

of these that they

Jewish exorcise

exorcists

is

not

elaborated

-.

by someone or something.

Palestinian that ce-itred

exorcists around

may have had a simple calling upon, by which limits or at least to cast out

upon some power-authority, The context of this-verse

the source-of (seeFp. below) VIf. -?

power-authority and the latter

to either is excluded

God or Beelzebul by the context.

2.9.2 report in your following arose in

In Mk'9: 38'(cf*tk.

q: 4q)(152)

John is

said

to

to Jesus -11eacher

we saw a man casting him,

out demons

name, and we forbade id. -

because he was not propose This is that this story matter

Not a few critics (153) the ear]iy Church.

an important

ii

54
if the story arose in the early Church we may not have but in another part of

for

evidence

of exorcists world.

in Palestine

the ancient

The case for

centres

the early Church origin of this story (154) -1 by the that the supported notion vocabularys on is assembled around the catch phrase fin my
While the pericope it still may indeed have coalesced

the pericope (155)

names. around source

a catch has its

phrase, origin.

has to be shown where the which

arov-

The vocabulary
t 7 0v,OIA -cr ev -rc.

is

of particular
and Z0 l<

interest in 9: 38 is
ly

And the question was more likely

is whether in

or not the postthat

this

vocabulary

to have arisen it is qu#e

resurrection

communtiy

or whether

plausible

such terms would have been used in the pre-Easter

situation.

(a)

The phrase

*YZWR-r(

(156)

denoting

'? that which

characterises

or accompanies

the act,

the sphere (according is performed' I However, this

was shows that

to the Greek manner of thinking) been found has not does not mean that a Christian independently in secular, notion Firstlyq 'the

izi'which it (158) Greek.

of LY 6'YS'"-rrj this study

(157)

this

innovation. of the NT,

name' of someone - usually

(see (cf. 3019 PGM. 31 p. was efficatious a god, --IV: .......... J) 46f 8: (see 13F. below Secondly, Ant. above) and Fp. a . in healing Deissmann dative came across the phrase,
TI
S

without
IrSAE43S ;

&

but with

the

alone,

c'Gv-r-*v

va uct. r ,

c 0059)
k

ii

55
of this that "it Deissmann rightly rejects which etc., first ' into Cremer's introduced

In the light hypothesis

was Christianity 'in (160) the name of,

the use of the phrase occidental languages".

Bultmann exorcism the early icult

says that

"the

use of

Ovo^cc

Jesus

in

the

its of demons could hardly have antedated (161 ) The force of this argument Church". for, if Jesus was the successful material surprising

use in is diffthe

to see,

exorcist

Gospels believe

and later it would

extra-canonical not be at all took

would have us if Jesus' name in their 19: 13

contemp6rarieslquickly .h (162) Wit this exorcisms.

up the use of his

should

be compared Acts to pick

where the sons of Sceva were very'quick of Paul Acts as a possible source

up the name And in in recogniz* g

of-power-authority. was very quick

8: 18f.

Simon the sorcerer useful source

a potentially

of power-authority.

The most reasonable is that the ideas involved

conclusion in

regarding-

Iv -rca ovqaarrt av Lr

the phrase of course

were not at all the early Church significance natural

new in adopted for

the early

Church - but and it

the phrase,

came to have special have been a-quite of Mk. 9: 38.

the Church

it and -

would

way of expressing

the thoughts

(b) makes it

'Aka Xau-%z Z^ very clear

A look

at a concordance was used by the

how Q(, x-*\ovectv

il

56
Church. It its is worth use very quoting well. the concrete so strongly felt Kittel at some length for

early

he summa izes 11

the connection

of the word with of Jesus is

processes

of the history that

and retained ing

no noun ever

came into

use correspondhas

to the concept term,

of discipleship. because what it a concept.

Thq NT simply was seeking On this basis

*the active is an action

to express it is no

and not

in is the word used only Q`(KoXvv-exv accident (163) that there is agreement as to its uses the, Gospels, that in all ship four signified other Gospels, by it and that they restrict Jesus. the relationIn the in which kt%owS

to the historical

Epistles

expressions falls

(a1: are used vv 1 v)

the emphasis and his

f. ff v9 VALaL

on relationship (164) , ,.

to the exalted

Wellhausen not following

has noted Jesus but

that

"Thet with

subject.

of v-38

is

association

(165) the Apostles. ' _,

Bultmann takes this (166)

the saying.

as testimony

to a post-Easter
evidence

origin

of

However with

overwhelming

in favour

4K4; Now8r4^v being of in this instance

used of following it

the historical-Jesus, to equate

at least,

seems most reasonable with part following

'being Jesus,

one of the disciples' rather than as being

the earthly commimity.

of the post-Easter

(c) that

What we have said of this

so far

is is

leading

to the conclusion in the

the origin

pericope

to be located

11 ministry helps apply of the historical-Jesus. this to conclusion. the One further That is,. in small his point attempt Luke

57

strengthen this pericope

to

Most-Easter

situation,

altered

Mark'sus*',

40)-to-lyouI (Mk. 9,:

(Lk. 9: 50), iThus

Mark's

form of the directly

answer of Jesus was not to the origin Church

seen by Luke to be Easter and so perhaps

applicable

did not have its

there.

after (16T)

If farther all that

this

conclusion

is

right

then

this

synall pericope Palestine. the

is But name

evidence it tells

on exorcism is us that

in first the

century

exorcists

were using

of another

(poverful)

exorcist

as a source

of power authority.

2.9.3
to exorcists

The third

and most informative

is in Acts evidence is set

of our period that

19: 13-19, of

canonical reference (168)

It exorcism in first

cannot

be claimed century as the Eff

we have direct for the story

Palestine exorcists

in Ephesus.

However they

are said notions

to be Jews,

represent

on exorcism

and peripatetic, (169) in Palestine.

- The precise detain us for

involved need not of the exorcists (170) Nor do we need to deal with the moment. identity

the many textual

exorcists

difficulties

in the passage.

(171)

The
This

are described distinguish

as rVtc IX, m`vws, r them from the

(19: 13).

have would exorcists who could (.172) to the Ephesian pagan temple been attached of Artemist(173) healing. things with associated a goddess among many other be to

11

58
These 'door to door' exorcists had taken up the name of

Jesus into it

their

incantations I
This papyri

is interesting (175)

and the form in which they used (174) c. MG-XoS 'Ijo-oC-v VPqs-r; ov ov
" is by... you very comm n (176) 'albove). But I can find prior to Nk-5: T and

form "I. adjure (see p. 93 term is first the king in

in the magical no instance here in Acts. prior

of this

incantations

The term to the

of course century said

commonly used in other AD. For example to him, 'How often 1 Kings shall I

contexts

22: 16 has (LXX), "... adjure

Lord? I" implore

you,

that

you speak to me truth

meaning more 0 4atrt, w is of to

in the
clear; to

name of the
- to swear adjure by--. or (177)

The general someone, or

correctly

cause

Its

pdrti6ular

meaning

in the: context with with

of an exorcist's to earlier exorcisms that the and

incantation incantations. incantations

is made plain In dealing it was noted was very

reference

the Babylonian

(see P. 15 above) indicated

climax -

of an exorcism

often

by the line

"By Heaven be thou By Earth - by which earth shall "it'is lay

exorcisedl exorcised" that powers of Heaven and 078) ban, or a tapiP. this is the way in which the more likely placed at the in the

be thou indicated the

demon under That is

supernatural 6? kt'Yw should that climax

restriction. be approached papyri

made all is

in the magical of the

o')fktw at the act

also

incantations, is called

point

where the . of the exorcist. (179)

supernatural

upon to

on behalf

ii

59
If these conjectures in using because then what the sons of (180) the t'&J was not imploring o/OK, are correct of Jesus, but rather using Jesus' name

Sceva were doing demons to leave

to put a supernatural

restriction

on the

demons.

It

has been suggested

that

the

formula

"I -

adjure

you

by the Jesus whom Paul preaches" the to exorcist impress recited and terrify the history the

is -

of the type

in which

of the invoked God in order (181) demon*. This is an important the ancient exorcists used.

question-relating

to the methods

That beginning, worked Origen

exorcists"incantations a brief history of the

included,

usually

at the they

god under whose aegis p. So above).

can be easily says that

documented

(cf.

For example

Christians

get their the recital

power to subdue demons of the histories about

"by the name of Jesus with

him, " (LC '1: 6).

(182)

But Acts does not easily

19: 13 the fit the

phrase

"Jesus

whom Paul preaches" Notably powerful the sons

form of a history. the past,

of Sceva are not of their identifying source

said

to mention

activities is

of power

authority.

What'they

are doing

him as he is presently

known (KjP6-rircc-

present

tense).

That we are justified formula of identification

in thinking rather than

that

this

is

a can be

'glorification'

ii

6o
where the name of Jesus is mentioned (183) For example Justin phrase. along Martyr

shown from places with says an identificatory

"So now we who believe crUCified:.

on Jesus

our Lord who was exorcise bal'the demolis

-under-'Pontius-'-Pilate,

and evil spirits, P84) 76: 6)

and thus hold them subject

to us*lLgl.

Although in parts of Jesus

parts

of these of belief, best Pilate

references details

appear

credal,

or are name

statements are probably

appended to the as lidentificatory'.

understood is the for

In each case Pontius strengthens the

'reference'. early Christian

This writers

present

case,

assumed that, statements

checked in the Acts

of Pilate.

they made about Jesus could be ' (185)

So to of these 19: 13 is

conclude

this

point, than "I

it those adjure

is

probable like

in the light Acts

(rather passages. to be understood. was the

LAB 60) that

you by the Jesus whom

Paul preaches" identifying powerful this

exorcists' previously

method of unmistakably obscure, for yet recently exorcism. the And

(Perhaps) a

name as a power-authority is further

use in

understanding

confirmed

by v-15, "But

I know; 'Jesus know, Paul I them, and answered evil spirit (186)_ defence. the demons (successful) but who are you?,,,

Acts 19: 13-19 tells

us that

the exorcists

were using

11

61
to put a supernatural restriction was the-name through on demons. of a renowned identificatory self-defence.

incantations Their exorcist formula. source

'of power-authority

whose aid was sought And finally

a careful

the. demons make a successful

2.1 .0 Josephus

(18T)

Although

some of the writings close in time

the works of Josephus may be a little (188)

of the NT they considerable to the that potential

later

than

are sufficiently value in There are to us;

to be of

sketching two stories the story

a background in particular of Eleazar of Saul's

activities are of

of Jesus. some interest

the Jewish illness in

exorcist,

and Josephus' (Cf. Ant. 6: 211).

retelling

1 Sam. 16: 14ff.

2.10.1 I to ask about

Before any

looking 'Tendenzl these

in that

detail

at these

stories

we need

may have affected In the Prologue ) he wants

the way to the

Josephus; has told Antiquities

stories. (1: 15ff.

Josephus people a simple

says

to make stories His purpose for he says

of the Jewish is more than a little ".,,

known to the Roman world. retelling it is

apologetic

further

on in the

prologue of God, and do not

been excellently

men who conform

to-transgress

to the will
laws that

-venture --7-.. --..

have

laid

down, prosper

in

all

things

beyond belief,

and for in of

--their--revard proportion

are offered as they depart

by God felicity; from the strict

whereas, observance

11

62
these laws, things (else) practicable imaginary bec=e good thing they

impracticable,

and whatever

strive

to do ends in irretrievable
purpose is pagans Josephus is

disasters"

(=.

1: 14).
to Old

That Josephus' the skeptical Testament. it

to make Judaism from his s&ys

more acceptable of the

clear

treatment

of his

readers

nothing

will with

appear the

to them unreasonable, of God and his set forth

nothing love for with man.,

incongruous everything, the nature'of Thus Thackeray

majesty is here

indeeds the

in keeping

universe"(1:

24). treatment of the miraculou he he is readers

says of Josephust events

"For miraculous constantly here

.4.0

in the

O. T. narrative explanations; incredulous

suggests

rationalistic himself to

accomodating

heathen

The rationalistic treatment "... than of the wearied other

tendency story

is

seen for qiails-

example in his

of the flight

by their birds to

and withal ground,

accustomed settled

more

skim the

in the food

Hebrews' devised

camp. And they, collecting for them by God... "(3: 25).

them as the

Even though tendency the fact

we must place that (for Josephus

over

against

this

rationalizing so treat the

does not

always

the from the the water story of example stories miracle % in believe he does 33-38) that has and : no explanation rock (Iql (190) (events God's the miraculous,, providence which manifest -

li this rationalizing appeal Tendenz cannot tendency (for is be ignored accompanied example in Josephus. by the This

63

occasional 10: 218, added authority for the

to Scripture in part

9: 46,208,214; giving

281) which to his

at least,

besides

words,

does shift

the burden stories

incredibility

of some of the

of responsibility (192) he relates.

His miraculous, miraculous likely to

general

objective,

this

selfconsciousness delight

about

the

and general for create with its

Tendenz away from the

in the

own sake means that or rewrite stories that

Josephus would the

may be less be out of stories he

character relates Josephus'

his

age.

Or in other

words,

may be taken contempories

as conscious viewed

representations With

of the way this in

the miraculous. stories.

mind we can turn

to his

exorcism

2.10.2 relates purpose given is

The best that

known exorcism exorcist is to

story

that

Josephus Josephus' Solomon's God-

of a Jewish this of the story art

Eleazar. show that

in telling

knowledge

used against and the (8: 45).

demons, the forms of exorcism begins

incantations were still his story "for -

to relieve used to great

illness effect

So Josephus

I have seen a certain

Eleazar, his

a countryman sons, tribunes

of mine, and a

in the presence number of other and this of the

of Vespasian, soldiers, free

men possessed cure:

by demons, the nose its seal

was the manner of the possessed'Tnqn a ring

he put to had under

which

11

64
one of the -roan smelled roots it, prescribed drew out the by Solomon, and then, his the

demon through down, adjured speaking which

nostril demon name

and, when the man at once fell never -. to come back into the to him,

the

Solomon's

- and'-reciting Then wishing that full it as to the

inciLntations convince power,

he had composed. and prove to them

the bystanders Eleazar way off placed

he had this of water

a cup or footbasin demon.,

a littl4

and commanded the it

went out of the man 9\0 overturn spectators that he had left

and make known 8: 46-49).

the man"(Ant.

We cannot between Synoptic support miracle Gospels. this

neglect story

the

question

of the with

relationship Jesus in the in and

and those Bultmann "That

associated cites folk the this stories oral

tradition. of the notion motifs (193)

exorcism

story

of miracles tradition"

have come into It is not

of the

possible of the

here to Synoptic

engage in the exorcism stories -

discussion we will

of the attempt

origin

that

In choF jv. to the this debate is-a

However, clarification and those of of

important an the the relationship Gospels.

contribution between

story

in Josephus

There are, contact (a)

. as has been point ed out before, story and those of the

(194) points of

between this

Gospels. intentions to

In the next Evangelists

chapter

we will

see that exorcisms

one of the of Jesus is

of the

in relating

ii

65
him and highlight their interest in him (for example intention

glorify

Mtt. 12: 23 see p. 20/b below). in telling quoted the story

Josephus

has a similar

of Eleazar. I was done, the

He concludes

the narrative

above:

"And when this

understanding on account things, of his the of

and wisdom of of which we

Solomon was clearly have been induced that all to

revealed,

speak of these greatness

in order nature and how

men may know the himq and that king's

God favoured ignorant (8: 49). (b) In a Jesus

no one under virtue

sun may be every kind"

of the

surpassing

story falls "the

(Mk. 9: 26) the down as dead. Tnan at once fell in Mark Jesus "and never said enter

demon leaves

the

sufferer

who immediately on being (c) cured

Here Josephus down"(8: 47). commands the him again" the

says that

In the

same story lad is

demon to (Mk. 9: 25).

come out of the Similarly Eleazar

to have "adjured sufferer

demon never

to

into back come (d)

him! ' - the

(Ant. 8: 47). says that Eleazar spoke to in 9: 46f; -

In the Antiquities

Josephus the Jesus

Solomon's this

name in adjuring in the

demon. Although stories, other

no parallel exorcisms

can be found this

the NT exhibit Lk. 10: 17; Acts exorcisms

use of a 'strong Just

name1(Mk. 9: 38f-/Lk. as success

16: 18 and 19: 13).

in these

depends on the source,

use of Jesus' so in the

name as an effective story the success

power-authority of the authority. cure relies

Eleazar

on: the

name. of Solomon as the

power-

ii

66
Fuller similar has shown that to the Gospel the form of this stories. Josephus (195) exorcism story

(e) is

Over against support Bultmann's

these

points

of contact

help would S\that out the

conclusions,

we need to set

differences (a)

between

the two traditions. the centre of attention But in is

In the Jesus

tradition (note

Jesus-the-Exorcist story, it is

Mk. 1: 2? f. ). who is

the Josephus but

not Eleazar

on centre

stage

Solomon the wise (b) Another

composer of

incantations. the NT stories Eleazar "ring not of Jesus only uses its

difference

between is that

and this incantations

one in Josephus but also

a finger

which

had under

se4ne

of the roots

prescribed

by Solomon" (Ant. 8: 47)-

This physical
(c)

aid is used to draw out the demon.

difference is between this and the Synoptic of the

An important stories

exorcism basin to this purpose discussed

the mention

of the overturning that is

of water. is

The Gospel

parallel

the episode element next

of the pigs

usually given . (196) in Mk-5: 1-20. The will be

of this in-the

in the Ylarkan. story chapter. However, episode if

we may anticipate is not a proof of

some of that

discussion,

the pigs

(see p. lqqgbelow). cure

states that

Yet in Ant. 8: 48 Josephus specifically

was used to convince had been successful. of the Gospel is at least material of some the

the bowl of water that the exorcism

bystanders (d) Also

anticipating that

our discussion individual

we can note

the cured

ii

67
in below). those stories (eg. Mk-5: 1-20, the individual on which see pp.

interest

In Ant. 8: 46ff. are of little is that that

who is healed What he

and even Eleazar interests was using (e) If

or no significance.

Josephus methods

Eleazar

was a Jew and that and relied

came from

upon Solomon. between have expected However of the

there

was any kind and the Jesus at least

of direct traditions in is (197)

relationship we might

the Josephus some hints

of this

the vocabulary., at all

none of Josephus' Synoptic . exorcism

vocabulary stories.

characteristic

We have seen that this there story of Josephus

there

are points

of contact

between However that

and those

by the Evangelists., the two traditions entirely still

are such differences conclude that

between they

we should independent

are most probably it stories oral is

of each other. maintains198) motifs came into

Nevertheless that folk

possible,

as Bult^mann and miracle milieu

of miracles tradition from a this

the Gospel

such as Josephus in the next

knew. We will chapter.

have to explore

possibility

In any case, to be entirely legitimate

as the story

we have been discussing stories exorcism it

appears is

independent

of the Synoptic tells us about place that

to ask what it

in the NT to

era in Palestine. confirm known for the idea their

In the first of the period ability in

we have evidence the Jews were well

incantations

and the handling

ii

68

of

(199) Secondly demons.

physical in Thirdly the

aids this

were used as part case a finger ring

of

the technique with'roots the exorcism then

of the exorcist its that seal. he let

under in

the exorcist demon smell the sufferer's

enacted and

the roots nose.

drew the demon out through on being cured

Fourthlyt exorcist-took

the man fell to prevent Sixthly to effect

down. Fifthly

the

precautions just cured.

the demon returning name' was It is

to the person

a 'strong

used as a power-authority important thought to note that

the exorcism. why Solomon's in incantations Josephus

the reason

name is is because began this

by Josephus own skill

to be useful in this

of Solomon's section

area.

I'Now so great granted

was the prudence

and wisdom which God the ancients, to excel all and men in

Solomon that

he surpassed

even the Egyptian understanding, The climax Solomon's

who are said ,

8: 42). lt(Ant. ... praise is what he has to say about which includes exorcism -

of Josephus' expertise

in the field

"And God grantqd demons for .

him knowledge

of the art

used against

the benafit

and healing by which

of men. He also are relieved, which those

composed incantations and left possessed behind forms

illnesses with

of exorcism them out,

by demons drove

never

to return

200) (Ant. 8: 45) Then follows Solomon's skill the exorcism, using Solomon's name, illustrating. Josephus gives

as an exorcist.

The conclusion

ii

69
story confirms this suggestion (Ant. 8: 49, story quoted p. 6f

this

aboVe).

And seventhly involved at least

the Eleazar

shows that

exorcisms

of the time cure, here

the use of proofs for the benefit

of a successful

of the spectators.

2.10.3 to us in story

The second story

that is

is his

of particular retelling

interest of the OT (i where \who, to David, Sam.

the works

of Josephus soothed begins

of Saul being ). Josephus

by David's the story

harp playing at the point over

16: 14ff.

"O.. the Deity when the divine prophesy. disorders ation other with harp, torment

abandoned Saul spirit

and passed

had removed to him, Saul, he was beset which

began to

But as for and evil

by strange

spirits that

caused him such suffoccould devise one no

and strangling

the-physicians search

remedy save to order

to be made for and to play

power to charm away spirits and whensoever Saul, the evil

-Upon the assail and

spirits over

should the king

to have him stand and chant his songs

and strike

the strings Josephus

(Ant. 6: 166). was ordered for such

goes on to say that is found

a search

a man. David 11

and described. with him... for that his illness was

Saul was delighted

charmed away by him; the evil other playing spirits,

and against they

trouble

caused by he had no songs and 11 (Ant. 6: 168).

whensoever than Davidl

assailed

him, his

physician

who, by singing Saul

upon the harp,

restored

to himself

We ask of this

story

the same question

we have been ask-

11 ing all the material, so far it does what tell us about

70

in first exorcism
Like told the story

century

Palestine?
dismissed this one is

we have just

in order

to enhance the reputation case David's reputation.

of the central Once again the source force of

character, although

in this incantations

or hymns are used, in them but this story in is the

power-authority person of David,

is. not who in

of the

also

the exorcist.

Saul's divine is spirit

illness leaves beset

is

said

to have two facets. seems then disorders that

Firstly

the he that is a

Saul

and it

as a result spirits spirits

secondly his

with

strange

and evil

affect notion

breathing.

The leaving

and entering-of last story and we

in Josephus' have met we

encounter

it

again in
that is related jilvolves David Icharming

The cure away

the evil

spirits.

'ES49w involves not simplymusicor

but as in a song, that (p. 39-) seen

sound as the words as it is possible

use of a harp might imply, (201). We have already well.

that

Joseps may have had Ps. 91 in mind.

David's 'over 'head'

charming

away is It

said is

to have been done quite possible (202) that by

the head' Josephus

of the king. simply

mean- the

individual.

But the

11

71
of the head has already in their placing been seen in the Babylonbranches

importance ian over in

exorcisms,

or holding

tamarisk

the patient! s- head (see P-13 above)j on of hands. taken the

and at Qumran of this include

the use of the laying

In the light

and the Greek notions, the idea that all

up by the LXX, which first chief

the head is the other that

determines it is

member which (203) members of the body, in the story of Saul towards Josephus the head.

most unlikely that

understood

the cure was directed

Finally, being restored

the

cure

is

described (cfthat

by Josephus

as Saul

to himself in saying 'beside that

Lk-15: 17)-

Plummer is that was for to

probably a person being take

correct has been

the term implies (204) For it

himselft. those

'beside

himself'

close is

to Jesus sought

him home (Mk. 3: 21). *Ef; w-T, 7 to a mental of Jesus' condition,, friends

relation thoughts

term in a neutral (205) Mark so relates . the scribes' But it

the

(3: 21) with

charge is

of him having clear ideas that for

(3: demon 22, see p. 21/below). a Mark, one writer of our period, that

the two

were equivalent. to himself

Thus by saying Josephus place is

Saul was implying that Saul.

restored

probably

an exorcism

has taken

left demon has the -

2.11

The Rabbinic

Material

(206)

A major assigning

problem

in dealing

with layers

this

material

is There

dates

to the various

of tradition.

72 is the need to proceed carefully

any particular time. (207)

in assieing

ideas to

We ask the now familiar material Particularly references from them. tell us about

question in first

'what

does this Palestine? '

exorcism

century

the Babylonian-Talmud to demons, their (2o8) origin

has an abundance of and means of protection of the rabbis an

to

In the Talmud the, attitude ranges

has

to healing
0 imcantation

techniques
over

between
no portion

"He who utters

in the world

a wound

comell(b. recipes-and But this first

Sheb. 15b) and a total incantations literature tells (for

of amulets, (209) example b. Pes. 112a), acceptance about exorcism in

us little

century

Palestine.

One of the best known first century rabbis is (210) He has a direction for exorclsm Johanan ben Zakkal, 2ollel that resembles elements texts with person), the spirit is (for in both the Tobit (6-8) story and

the Babylonian I'Take roots possessed whereupon This rabbis kind

(see p,, /JiLabove). herbs burn them under him with It (PR 40b). him (the water, (211) among the b. Yoma.

'and surround will flee

of exorcism times

represented

many times

of later

67a; b. Shab. example

83b-84a). This tells

success in this period for

us that at least some exorcists'

depended upon a careful exorcism. obser7ation

of prescriptions

11 2.11.2 successful Both rabbi to perform the demon "Ben Temalion, 17b). entirely below). get outl Ben Temalion, get outl On the other exorcists hand there seem to have been different.

73

whose methods were entirely and Eleazar a simple

Simeon ben Yohai an exbrcism with

ben Yose are said command to

and direct

(b. Meil.

Here the successful upon the personal

expulsion force

of the demon depends (see p. /oi

of the exorcist

2.11-3
first

Another well

known rabbi

from the turn of the

is rabbi Hanina ben Dosa of and second centuries (212) Galilee. There is a story*associated with him which further of confirms a phenomenon that world. Hanina was believed to be part one.

the first

century

was out walking

evening She said

when he was met by Agrath,

the queen of the demons.

"Had they heaven,

not made an announcement 'Take heed of Hanina

concerning learning',

you in I would

and his

have put you in danger". Hanina "If replies I am of account in heaven,, I order you never to

pass through settled

Agrath Pleods with, Hanina

regions
for leniency and she is permitted

freedom on Sabbath and Wednesday nights.

This

is

not

an exorcism

but

it

shows that

in first

ii

74
Palestine it was thought that conversations took

century place them. his also

between demons and those The basis of Hanina's

who sought over

to manipulate the demon is God. It is

authority

standing notable is

in heavenj that granted

or relationship for

with

the demon pleads (see p. 40obove).

leniency

and the

request

2.11.4

One of the NT exorcism stories

(Mk-7: 24-30/Mtt. another that story 15: 21-28,

is a healing
see p. 166below). to be noted. son fell he

from a distance In this "It ill, might upper them: hour drink connection

of Hanina, is

happened he sent pray for

when Rabban Samabiellis to R. Hanina

two pupils him.

ben Dosa that

When he saw them, he went to the When he came down, he said has left him ... It to

room and prayed. Go, for that the fever left

was at that a

the fever

him and he asked us for

of water"

(b. Ber. 34b)213)

So although that is useful

the rabbinic to us it

material

has little at least physical

information some aids as

does tell Palestine

us that were using

Jews in first well as simple

century

commands to perform

exorcisms. to control

Conversations them and

between healing

demons and those, who sought from a distance

was not unknown.

2.12

Lucian

of Samosata

(214)

This

pagan satirist

of c. 120-c. 180 AD stands

at a

11

75
in the ancient in the rise and fall of (215) His How to Write world. that he regards as
in up the defending probably Philops. useful 17)-

high water mark of criticism incredulity History

worthless Philops. first

and True HistorY

the stories

makes clear

including (216) with

the exorcisms

16 and 31. of these stories

But the way he sets one of the characters

the veracity representing For that

of the story the popular Lucian's

shows that level stories

Lucian

is (cf.

of religion

reason

are potentially

to us,

2.12.1 the report

That

potential 16 is

is

probably

actualised

because

in Philops.

of a Palestinian to the first that

exorcist century period. that we

4

and comes from a time can most probably report is "For

so close

take him to reflect

The full

as follows. my part, I should like to ask yqu what you say men from so manifestly. Imows about in it, their terrors I need the Syrian how many he of the mouths with and

to those

who free

possessed

by exorcising not discuss

the spirits this: everyone

from-Palestineg(217) takes in hand who fall roll their

the adept down in

the light their

moonand foam;

eyes and fill he restores in mind, a large there

nevertheless,

them to health delivering fee. them

sends them away normal from-their beside straits for lie

When he stands 'Whence

them as they

and asks:

came you into

this

body? ' The patient

himself

is

ii

76
silentl but the spirit answers in Greek or in the country he comes from, the man; he does not Indeed, I

language of whatever foreign telling

how and whence he entered the spirit

into and if

whereupon, by adjuring obey, threatening actually colour"i'

It is immediately between this

him, he drives

him out.

saw one coming out,

black and smoky in

apparent story

that

there told

are some points of Jesus. The

of contact reference mouth is about

and those

to the demoniac reminiscent of

falling

down and foaming

at the

of Mk. 9:, 18 and 20 as is the illness. Jesus actual

the converstion

the onset is

Though in Mk. 9: 21 the and the boy's request father - not

conversation

between

the demon. The Syrian's into this body? " is

"Whence came you request "How long hand this only

an echo of Jesus'

has he had this? " (see p, iq2-below). report is set apart

On the other

from the NT stories fees charged

of Jesus not

by the mention (cf. Acts unlike

of the large also

by the exorcist which binding)

8: 19) but

by the exorcistkcommands mention ladjuring' (or

the Jesus stories

and Ithreateningt

(seeppvoRbelow)-

2.12.2 about against exorcism which

So what does this that will help

story fill

or report

tell

us

in the background stories? (a) Firstly it who is there is

to view

the Jesus stood (b)

seems that prostrated

the exorcist on the ground.

beside In this

the sufferer situation

11

77

a dialogue the genesis or puts but (d) if

between of the

the demon and the exorcist illness. (c)

regarding binds

Then the exorcist on the demon is leave

a supernatural

restriction

the demon does not. obey - that threatens

the person, with some (218

the exorcist

the demon. - (perhaps store driven but, of incantations? out. in view

phrases

and sounds from his the demon is (e)

As a result then is

What happens of the use it may be helps of

not altogether

clear

a-c earlier (ov and -4ve'r-ri) that the exorcist (g) is takes hold for

in the story, of the patient the success

(f) and of these

him up. exorcisms black

Thelevidencel "I actually

and smoky in colourl

(demon) saw one (219)

.0

coming out,

2.13

Apollonius

of Tyana

(220)

The fame of this rests (c. at on a biography

Neo-Pyth4gorean of him by Flavius

(died sage Philostratus

c. 96-98AD)

170-c. 245)*. Apollonius the suggestion

of Tyna was written

about of

217 AD

of the Empress Julia

Domna, wife

Septimius Philostratus

Sevenis in whose circle (LifeI: moved 3).

of philosopher-friends

2-13.1
the subject

As the Life
there is

is about a century
as in

removed from
the Gospels -

the same problem the 'historical'

the relationship

between

Apollonius

and the

11

78
him. points of the This is particularly the Life Julia evident has with in the the in

storiesabout interesting formation Philostratus' Apollonius history admirer that which

of contact Gospels,

in that

Domna placed

hands some memoirs by Damis a disciple-of (Life Iz3). career Philostratus of Apollonius was also able to use a

of the (Life were in have not to

at Aegae by Maximus an of Apollonius of the sage

1: 3), as well circulation survived.

as many letters and various

treatises

Finally

Philostratus

had been able

to travel especially dedicated

cities

where'Apollonius

was honoured, specially

to Tyana where there to the cult

was a temple (221) us. of Apolloni: -:

How far Philostratus' difficult disciple may have "like to

then time

the Life

represents it

views

apparent earlier that

in views a is

and how far

represents suggests

to determine. of Apollonius

Conybeare

Damis,

whose memoirs reached

Philostratus

the

so-called the life

aretalogi of his

of the master, povers"

age, to

set

himself his

embellish

exaggerate

wisd= in turn and "the

and his

supernatural

evident

aim of Philostratus of Apollonius,

is to rehabilitate him from the addicted to

the charge evil

reputation of -having

and defend

been a charlatan or wizard (222) and magical practices"O '

ii

79
In relation to our particular Philostratus have handled study on exorcism we can us some of Apollonius

note

a few points

makes which may give the exorcism stories

idea how he might Apollonius.. tells In Life

VII: 39 Philostratus he-finds

says that

Damis of the people and law - those and those people has the

discredited

and condemned

by nature their stones, 0 feats

who ask vast

sums of money for bits of VIII: T who

who sell

boxes containing success.

which

wear to gain

In Life

Philostratus

sage disassociate the unreal is

himself real

from those

get men to believe the real as unreal

that

and to distrust fortunes. as

and thereby expect, neither

seek to gain vast portrays people,

Thus as we would a poor philosopher reward for his

Philostratus misleading

Apollonius nor asking

activities.

But in at least for Life story drought portraying

two ways Philostratus as a miracle-worker.

opens up the way Firstly-in well known

Apollonius

1: 2 Philostratus

mentions

the apparently in a time

of how Anaxagorus predicted rain,

at Olympia, the fall

of severe being

of a house and stones complains that

discharged

from heaven.

Then Philostratus;

those who accept wisdom rather

the works of Anaxagorms as the results are the very for same people

of his

than wizardry Apollonius

who would

wish to discredit

the same kind

of activities. Apollonius seem more that trees

Then. secondly, Philostratusl-method

is to represent

his that will miracles as somewhat skeptical so (223) Thus Apollonius probable. refuses to believe

ii

Oo% ou

are older

than the

earth

(Life his

VI: 37; cf,

111: 45 and V: 13)

and Philostratus

voices

own doubts

about Apollonius

raising

a dead girl

(Life

iv: 45).

What implications handling means that of the

do these

factors

have for It

Philostratus' probably

individual will If

exorcism at least

stories? heighten

Philostratus technique-,

the

simplicity

of ApolloniUs' Apollonius past with

Philostratus

wants to align workers of the as

the great

philosopher-miracle may well

then the miracles

of Apollonius

be presented

spectacular.

2.13.2 is that while

The best concerns

known exorcism

story

in the Life

(IV: 20)

which he is

a young lad who interupts in Athens

Apollonius

speaking looked

in the kinglvs. portico. and said but "It is not

Apollonius yourself drives

at the young lad this

that

perpetrates

insult,

the demon, who gaze the the

you on without out,

knowing

it". ' At Apollonius' that

demon cried

nd "swore screamed and never take reprimanded the youth

he would leave

young Tnan alone But Apollonius

possession

of any man again. " him to quit proof down down,

him and ordered and to give said

some definite

that

he had done so. The devil The statue

that

he would throw and then fell

a nearby-statue. the result

moved gently

of which was a hubbub and a clapping The lad is also rubbed his described

of hands with he had to himself"

wonder by the crowd. just woken. The lad

eyes as if

"coming as

ii

81
Tiv 1OW-ror
r

a phrase already

shown to be

associated
story

with

(see by Josephus exorcism p. 67 above). The

a report that the young lad fell in love cloak, of with took

ends with

the austerities off his old self, (Life

of the philosophers, and modelled IV: 20). his

put on their life upon that

Apollonius

Can ve suggest from the reports and which demoniac, elements other

vhich

parts

of this

story incident

may hbLve come take place,

of those

who saw this

have been appended? The distress and the simple technique story that

of the demon/ are with

of Apollonius

of an exorcism

are found associated

exorcists

(seepp. 57F(above). statue is much like Acts also is that of the

The episode destruction

of the toppling of a statue So our only which,

in the apocryphal other parallel is

of Peter late

(see-p. 87 below).

and from material an unreliable This of (see p. 6+ I do not in the possession kind of

as we will

(ppqRO see

quite

indication proof

of notions

of exorcism

at the time. kind

may stem from the more simple a bowl of water But at least we can use it century.

of proof

disturbing above). think first

which Josephus mentions story exorcism

here in the Apollonius to help us understand

The demon reflects

saying

he would not take

of any man again but

the view of Mk. 9: 25 and Ant. 8: 47 on them so probably place represents

does not seem dependent held

a widely

view of what took

in an exorcism.

11 The end of the story - the young man's following the

82

austerity

of the philosopher objective

is so obviously Apollonius it

in line in this

with way

Philostratus'

to portray

(see p. -71 hbove) that we cannot be sure that from Philostratus' own-hana.

does not come

2.13.3

Another

story

(Life for her

111: 38) deals 16 year old

with

a mother two the

who petitions years

Apollonius

son who for says that

hacl been possessed the boy into former voice

by a devil. deserted for

The mother places

demons drive has lost hollow his

and that is

the boy

another

which

deep and her for

in tone.

She says that as reprimanding

she has wept and torn

cheeks as well

her son - but to no avail she is

the boy does not know her. frightened steep brought courage, Upon this it gave

The worn-ansays that

of the demon, and because of its precipices

threats

to her of

places,

and the death of her son, she has not Finally Apollonius says "Take

the boy to Apollonius. for he will not slay took

him when he has read this., from his it appears, pocket was of an of the and

Apollonius

out a letter

to the woman... " The letter, to the ghost kind. all that

addressed alarming letter,

0 and containeqthreat,

(-irxJ\A -. u) efficacy

There is no indication we are told is that

of the

on reading

the letter

the demon would not kill

the boy.

This reputation

story

isagain

clearly for

intended

to enhance the occurs during a

of Apollonius

the incident

11

83
between the sage and some Indian wise men.

discussion

Thigrstory

tells

us of

exorcism

at

a distance,

of

talking

demons and of the use of a written demon. Both of these known in the ancient setting Philostratus things world

incantation

to rid

the boy of the widely and well

would have been (see pp-3-2,73above)

and apart this story

from its

may not have altered as well as the distress of Apollonius of exorcism

very much. These elements and the simple

of the

demon/demoniac, those

technique n otions

are probably in first

which would

represent

century

Palestine.

2.14 The Testament

of Solomon

(224)

2.14.1

This

130-paragraph of Solomon, and-ma.stered on the earth he wrought also

long

document is headed who was king all the in

"Testament Jerusalem, of the air,

son of David, and controlled

spirits By means

and under the all

earth.

of them also Temple. against

the transcendent

works of the

Telling

of the authorities these

they vield demons are brought

men, and by what angels la, 66). cf.

to nought"(

It

is hardly

surprising

then that

this

pseudepigraphon

is used to help construct the background to NT demonology and (225) is how'legitimate this? What date should But exorcism. be assigned to this Testament? And if it-is late, is it a

ii

84
work independent on it, of the NT, or Christian thinks (226) that and it is a

Jewish

dependent Christian

or what? Conybeare of a Jewish

recension

book.

McCown sees it (227)

as a Christian

work incorporating

Jewish

material.

To begin dependent lines

with

there

are whole passages which theology. For example

are

on Christian

71 has the

tqle*destroys numberg if will defeat

me who is any one shall

to become Saviour, write it on his

a man whose forehead, retreat he tt

meg' and in fear

I shall

quickly

(cf. 104b and 122). If there were only isolated that units of Christian tradition

then we could added these

postulate

a Christian

hand had simply document. and and echoes

to an already into

existing account

(Jewish)

However we must take frequent thematic

the continuous contacts (228) with,

and vocabulary introduction

of the NT. Conybeare's isolate

and footnotes (a as

them. For example in

H15

and 26 BeelzebZul is described

name unknown before the chief In rulers

the NT, see p. Vtbelow) 24; itself In

/Mtte12: (cf. demons Mk-3: 2?, of demon describes (cf. Eph. 6: 12). lightnings" (cf.

(9: 34)/Lk. as "the

11: 15)world-

72 a corporate of this

darkness" down like

. 114 one demon

says Itwe fall

Ik. 10: 18).

Conybeare explains

this

evidence

by saying

that

ii

85

"the

writer

of the document was a Hellenistic employed the same phraseology (229) of the New Testament'le seems to be so familiar that the Test. Sol. with

Jew, and idioms

who naturally as the writers However the writer it is more likely

the NT that by a that he

was written

Chris ti an,. This has taken in

does not preclude and ideas

us from supposing from elsewhere.

up material

For example

9 24 the demon Asmodeus says "By Raphael, throne the archangel that stands before the put

of God. But the liver

and all

of a fish

me to flightl (cf. This is 22).

when smoked over ashes of the tama isk"

obviously (230) P. 36 above). in the building of Jewish writing

dependent This

upon Tobit

6: 1-9,18

(see

depend .ence,

as well

as the interest and knowledge . 26

of the Temple (cf.

2 etc. ),

5 14 4; Wis. Sol. 9: and

4; 6: Gen. Enoch 7; and

(cf. Ps. 22 118: and

40 and 1 Ki. 2: 25;

118,123
9 128

Mk. 12: 10 and part. ' ;1 that

Pt. 2: 6f. );

) 6: Song Sol. 12f. and of suggest (231) Christian writing.

we have here a Jewish

So far the Test. Sol. dependent outside should

our conclusion is that it

to the problem

of the origin document

of

is a Jewish Christian

on the NT, but using material and notions from (232) the NT. McCown has shown that the Test. Sol. third-century AD. (233) In turn

be dated in the early

ii

86
that it is only with the greatest'of data for This are

we need to conclude care that the Test.

can be used to provide in first parts century

understanding applies clearly relatively

exorcism

Palestine. which of its

not only reliant late

to those

of the Test. also because will itself.

on the NT, but date other

elements

need to be shown

to be more antique

than

the document

2.14.2 in Palestine forward various literature undertook

What does the Test. Sol. tell in the first century?

us about is

exorcism carried

The Test.

by a series demons. This that it

of conversations confirms

between Solomon and

what we see from other that demons and exorcists and the-

was believed

conversations in the'Test.

(see p. so above), Sol. do not

conversations directly wearing

seem to be 5 and 12 the

modelled of a ring

on the IqT. In as an amulet is

used to control

demons

(cf.
antiquity both

83,90,92ff.
of this

). We can be confident etc.

for the use of amulets The

of the
was

technique

ancient

and widespread on Tobit in

(see p. 3-Z above).

dependence indicates of f ish

9 22 and 24 (see p. t5 above) belief In' in the efficacy example) alone, but of incense Solomon

the pe-rsistent liver and gall.

51 (for

asks a demon its "If also I'tell

name and he answered you my name, I bind of demons under

not myself me".

the legion

Although

there is a slight

possibility

of dependence on

ii

87
does confirm knowing and clarify the notion contained power to the does

Mk-5: 9 it there over that

a demonts name gives

the exorcist response again it

the demon (see p. /63 below). dependent of the

Solomon's

demon is probably show the persistence name. ItI adjure tell

on the NT but idea

of the use of a strong

thee

in the name of the God Sabaoth, art frustrated along

to with

me by what mame thou ( 52a).

thy hosts"

Many of the conversations are designed to set out

between the 'angels'

Solomon and the demons or strong names that

can be used to overpower (see p. 93 above) cited

the demons. We have already the stated purpose of the Test..

Hence in
"'Tell

69 (for

example) Solomon says to a demon;

thou (note art frustrated. ' And he

me by what angel

answered: 'By Iameth"I

55 74-103).

The-Test. parts yield first that

Sol.

is

an important Church. is

witness

to exorcism it the Sol. amulets, does

in

of the post-apostolic some information century that

Nevertheless to us in the Test.

of help

in Palestine. between

We see from

conversations

demons and exorcists,

the key importance use of potions exorcists' the period

of knowledge

of the demor& name, the strong names in the the NT era into

and appropriate persisted by this

incantations represented

through present

document.

ii

88
2.15 The NT Apocrypha (234)

There

are a number of exorcism

stories

in

this

literature
background late date,

which are sometimes cited

material Christian to the gospel tradition

stories. in which

as appropriate (235)
this

But the

material cast our by the

stands,

and the fantastic

elements

in the stories stories for

some doubt purpose* publishers, considered to the That is,

on the usefulness ideas

of these

Thus while to reflect that

may have been thought, own timesl they

their

may have

these

'fantastic'

elements

were appropriate the material.

'apostolic-age' while

and so worked

them into

the publishers own time

may not have expected to behave as portrayed (wrongly? ) that our in the the

exorcists Apocryphal Apostles

of their Acts

they

may have felt so behaved. stories

wouldhave of these

Consequently

examination of their Christian

must involve to,

a discussion earlier

dependence literature.

on, or relationship

2.15.1

The Acts

..........

of Peter.

....

This

piece

of literature

comes from the last decades of the second most likely (236) The theme of these Acts is confrontation century. between Peter through his his (Magus) Simon and Peter to demonstrate than Satan that God

servant (237) messenger.

is'greater

and Simon

ii

89
In chapter 119 just before he confronts Simon, Peter

turned "and saw in the crowd a man half demon. And Peter that by Peter then says in the laughed, laughing, said in whom to him. openly -

was a most wicked 'Whoever you are, to all This who stand

show yourself

the young man does. "'You too, then,

whatever

demon you may be, come out

name of our Lord

Jesus Christ, (and) this

of the young to all

man and do him no. harm; who stand and caught in by. " hold

show yourself he left statuel

And hearing of a great of

the young man; which it to st6od

marble

the courtyard

the house,

and kicked

pieces'.! *

The firSt detail

thing

that which

stands is

out

in this

story to

is

the

of the statue Life

remarkably

similar

Philostratus' reasons could

IV: 20 (see p. va abovt). for this. But in view

Any number of of our having in

account

been unable healing

to find

evidence

of the use of proofs the NT period, reputation, seeking in

stories

in and before Apollonius' of Peter this

and Philostratus' (see P-78

aim to rehabilitate obove) and the Acts of Peter, ever its

to enhance the the exorcism story

reputation would reflect (what

element

relationship

to life

IV: 20) seem to the Apocryphal Acts, age

the times

of the publication'of was appropriate

or what they

thought

to the apostolic

Ii
rather than the time of the setting for of the story, woman) to may be

90

Secondly "show yourself

in Peter's openly

call to all

the man (or by"

who stand

there -

an echo of the Gospels, But the dependence probably not very notion should minimal close if

especially

Ik. 4: 35 (cf. Mk. 3: 3; 9: 19). on the Gospels for the wording held is is

of the Acts it exists

of Peter at all, and it

to the Gospels the first

was a widely exorcists

after

confront Thirdlythe

that century (238) each other. words of Peter to - "whatever is

and demons

to the demon, They begin demon you may bell. This

with lack

an address of precision

uncharacteristic

of the stories

where the demon is often

9: 25). of the This all embracing

directly
address

(cf. Mk-5: 9f-; addressed

is more characteristic in the ancient

incantational

traditions

preserved

and magical papyri reflects ancient

(seeppr7ff.

above) and so probably from the time of the

the practice Egyptian papyri

of exorcists right

through to the time of the The use of the 'name tradition,

publication

of the Acts of Peter. is, its

Christ' Lord Jesus the of not at all surprising for

in a Christian

use in exorcisms dates community

from the earliest

days of the Christian

(cf. Ik. 10: 17). The call lad brings

on the demon to do no harm to the

to mind Lk. 4: 35 where the demon leaves the boy, is reasonable to suspect then that the

doing him no harm. It

Acts may be dependent on Luke.

91 Fourthly
of the story or rings

it
that

is a noticeable
no mechanical

feature
or physical drive

of the first
aids like

part
hand$,

or mixturesare

used to help is thought

out the demon. in'the

The success personal four

of the exorcism of Peter

to lie

force

and his This is

use of the name of reminiscent girl of Paul's 16: 18,

Lord Jesus Christ'. to the spirit as perhaps (Life is not in

charge as well

the slave

in Acts

Apollonius' IV: 20). entirely

ordering

the demon to leave such a view

the young lad of exorcisms tradition reflecting of its

We have seen that unique of Peter its

to the Christian may be faithfully own time and the time

and so the Acts a technique setting.

of both

Thus, these

in

its

desire

to strengthen an exorcistic tradition

Peter's technique -the

reputation

Acts have included of Christian

characteristic

use of

'the

name of our Lord authority And in

Jesus Christ'

as a source

of poweraids.

by an exorcist the mention

who relies

on no mechanical

of the demon being may be reflecting century.

commanded to do no a practice This practices story that also

harm the Acts stretched

of Peter

back into

the first

shows the maintainance were not particularly notably other the command to traditions is

of exorcistic confined

which tradition, of

to the Christian

'show yourself'. in

The influence

evident

the vague fashion of

in which

the demon is

addressed

and the mention

the destruction

92 of the statue as proof of the exorcism.

2.15.2 assigned Quispel Paul

The Acts

of Andrew.

No agreed Acts

date

has been by G. of

to the in 1956. and its

fragment (239 )

of these

publishes

However the milieu of the

(240)

encratite half

with the Acts contacts (241) place these Acts second century.

somewhere in the last

The fragment papyrisby

is

an exorcism

extended

over

five

a dialogue the

between Andrew and the street, where there one of is

demon.

pages of (242) on "in

Andrew goes int6 his account.

some. trouble soldiers the

While

he was speaking

four

whose body was hidden of the apostle"

into demon" coming on a 9-12) cried out-

"presence

(page 9 lines

"0 Varianus,

what have I done to you that god-fearing him to the an extended aid

you should 13ff. ).

send me to this The demon then There then soldiers, threw

(page 9 lines man" ground, foaming

at the mouth. the the text of

follows

conversation of their

involving

(who come to the The poorly

colleague), state of the the

demon and Andrew. it makes the that history as simple very

preserved to

difficult

at times

determine

identity says the

speakers

of some of the lines. of the

In any case Quispel is to establish the

the purpose and origin as that?

conversation (243) of the malady.

But is

conversation

From what we, have seen so far

of

exorcism

and. exorcism

11

93
it is the exorcist here, who does most of the the speaking. say as the is

stories Rather Apostle, .F freely later

sur]risingly and contrary (244) offered. addition to

demon has as much to expectations the demon's the

to our In fact

information

speech may be a story, contained for the story demon's of a 36f. )

an earlier

more simple self

words are in themselves virgin's to repel, 16). fight with,

a complete

and use of prayer demon (page that all story

(page

10 lines

an attacking

10 line

1 to page 13 line is a later existence state

The impression, into

of this is

section

intrusion of another

an earlier

confirmed despite the

by the the

speech by the also (page

demon which, describe 25-37).

poor

of the text, possession

seems to 13 lines

history

of the

And these fit

words of the with speech. the The

demon, through words

the theme of the

'height',

better

of Andrew than

extended of this

'secondary (245)

Gregory this

of Tours version of material

kind

was altered

story shows how readily k its during and embellished

transmission.

The reply secondary is

of Andrew to the

demon may also 6ff. to

contain text there as

material.

On page 14 lines hymn/eulogy, not

of the

an unconnected expect

any power-authority Of virtue.

we might

but,

to the

champions

Having

praised it

virtue is

Andrew turns time for

to the you to

demon and sayscome out at the from

"Now indeed this

already

young Tnan, so that

he may enter

service

94 heavenly palace" (page 14 lines

The last light part of this

27ff. ).

'command' may have been added in the Also the first force half of the to suspect to any of

of the man! sbeing a soldier.

Andrew's words so lack the authoritative exorcists that actual it we have so far met that is a pure literary lbractice of exorcism. creation

we are inclined

having no relation

The demon submits never in the past

to Andrew's

command saying

that

he has of the

harmed the young man. The violence

departure be well is

demons seems, even in the Gospel stories, to (246) The only suggestion to the contrary established. of the addition this to. his tradition story in Lk. 4: 35. (see p. 11Z here may simply by the possible be a conflict story

in Luke's That

below). literary with

aspect is also

of the

creation the violence

indicated

(page 9 lines

of the demon in the beginning (247). 17ff. ).

of the

On being uniform, of the falls immortal

cured before king

the young men takes the apostle,

off

his

soldiers "the garment

and asks for (page 15 lines

of the Ages" parallel

21f. ). We there is

have found no early a similar the response

to this

practice

though (Life

by a young man to Apollonius of clothes for another.

IV: 20)of the

exchange of one set 6: 11;

In view

Eph. 4: 24; Acts

(cf. Gal. 3: 27) and Col-3: 9 it on a Christian motif

may be that here.

of Andrew relies

11

95
our purpose in discussing layers this story has not been to Nevertheless we have

disentangle discovered story soldier Despite story

various just

of tradition. this story

how composite was little

may be. The original exorcism of (248) fellows. familiar a

probably

more than

a simple

who Was accompanied later are still emendations, visible. the of the

by some. of his remnants of the the

exorcism

There exorcist's

is

dramatic

confrontation, command, the

th-e conversatiofi, the the take submission sufferer.

preliminary the little of

demon and finally we have found

'conversion' that would

of

Beyond this

us back to the techniques The one clear the mention praying with its to glimpse

and notions of

exorcism with

in the

NT period. times is

continuity

earlier demon to of

in the

'secondary'

words of the flee.

the-virgin. these Acts

cause a demon to is

The contact

own times soldier

probably

to be found clothes.

in the

mention

of the healed

exchanging

2.15.3 about

The Acts

the beginning

to be placed at of Thomas are probably (249) of the third century and contain a are of interest to us.

number of stories

that

In chapters tells the

42ff.

a beautiful plight

vornan confronts

Thomas, to drive out the in

of her terrible demon. Although

and asks the Apostle is prolix of

the woman's request to a declaration

and for

most part

an introduction ability, traditions

confidence

the Apo stle's that other

(see have seen we pp. 4f-, also know of possessed

4q, above) not

persons

ii

96
fleeing from a potential Accordingly a method of healer then first this but actually asking in the

always for story

their

healing.

element

may reflect

century

Palestinian

exorcism.

The Apostle's which is in its

tirade

of listing

abuse on the of demonic to

demon

(S

44)

repetitive the earlier forms

charateristics, we have the whose

not unlike seen in

of addresses

demons which Thus despite tree, here

also

pagan literature. element

'Christianizing' fruits are like

of this him")

(eg "0 bitter

we may have reflected practice

Christian the

borrowing demons'

from the characteristics

pagans - the in order

of lir; ting

to be certain

of subduing

them (see p. /3 above).

The demon's reply

times repeats

to Thomas (which quotes Mk. 5: T), four

"What have we to do with clearly being you..? dependent " and on (250)

the phrase

(thus 8: 24 29 1: Mtt. Mk. and echoes the NT), and is not

so much a defence (and Jesus') praise.

against A little

the Apostle later

in his as a speech point

at the

where he says he will the heavenly a prayer, again, is voice

leave

the woman, the

demon even 22. There exorcism (251)

parodies then story,

in Mtt-3:

lT/Mk. 1: 11/Lk-3: with the

follows which,

virtually heavily

unconnected dependent

upon the NT.

A second story mentions demons in

in the Acts a captain's

of Thomas description of his

62ff. vife

) and

-b

ii

--1-.

97
illness. But no other dealing element with in the story would The

daughter's suggest climax that

we are here story is

an exorcism

story.

of the

Thomas'saying then to Jesus, (S 65). and he will heal them

"Commit yourself '-and bring

them help"

In with lie

chapter

T3ff.

there

is

a highly

embellished any event

story that may

long behind

speeches which then an ass, for that with all it

h&ve so smothered is no longer gift

recoverable.

The story calling (cf. . saysfor out in

involves.

the the

of human speech, show themselves The Apostle

a courtyard 104).

demons to come out.

A-woman and a girl "God forbid you, for that

then

there

be propitiation sparing

or sparing

you know not

or compassion.

In the name

of Jesus, (1
Although

depart from them and stand by their

down and dies own defence, the in

side"

75).

the woman falls in his

demon continues fact the

to

speak --supposedly a tribute The ass, long

is speech of evil. a

to the power of Christ which has been given exalting to life strange Christ and the story tells of

and his

destruction

speech by Thomas, even gives and his Apostle. Finally the

monologue raised This

is woman pasturesl being

ass departs us little

in peace to his about exorcism, and the

primarily

a collection

'hymns I to Christ

Apostle.

The last

story

in the Acts

(9 Thomas of

170) is

ii

98
brief (252) was possessed exorcism story. One of the sons of

relatively Misdaeus

by a demon and so he sought he could fasten them on him but act

the bones of an apostle to his for

so that

son. Thomas appeared in

to Misdaeus than in

reprimanding the living, would

believing

the dead rather that Jesus,

promises kindly

Misdaeus

in his

goodness,

towards. him.

Though Misdaeus dust

had been stolen it to his

he took -

-found from the tomb and attaching in Jesus and his son

no bones - they

son confessed

his

faith

was healed.

This tells

short

story

is

interesting

simply that

because

it

us of the uneasy relationship of the early Church

at least

some-

sections with its

continued in

to experience,

members persisting rather than

of healing

the use of pagan methods js6 the simplejof 'the namet of Jesus.

2,15.4 NT Apocrypha dependent

This (253)

survey

of the exorcism

stories ...... material it

in

the is helps

has shown how much this

upon. the New Testament exorcism

us in understanding a few points

and how little (254) in NT times. confirm which This in

However

have emerged which of exorcism

the continuation

of some techniques and even before parts is

had been used during helps us to substantiate which

the NT period. of exorcism

of the picture

the NT period

emerging

as the result that

of our discussions.

Thus there must

were the notions

the demon and the exorcist

99 (sometimes willingly)
exorcist force should

confront

each other,

that

the

address/abuse (verbally

the demont that relying

the personal

of the exorcist wasl

on some poweraids, between

authority), sufficient

without

mechanical the

or physical conversation

to effect

success, and the

demon and exorcistt

tconversion'

of the sufferer.

In the toppling success of prayer for of the exorcist

of the statue in the Acts

as 'proof' of Peter,

of the the use of old have clothes

(see p. jq5 below) the Acts

and the'exchange

new ones in

of Andrew we probably

reflected of

practices rather

of the period than an earlier

of the publication time. Apart-from material of Jesus; as what this

the Acts

the writers background they which

seem to offer information

us no reliable stories

to the

seem to do is they felt

project

back,

notions

and speeches they sought to

appropriate

to the Apostles

venerate.

2.16 Conclusion

In this 'what century

chapter

we have been asking exorcism

the question in first

can we say about Palestine? '

and exorcists

In our analysis help in answering this

of the material question

which

was of potential to

we have had virtually

ii

100

exclude their these

.I

the Test. manifest pieces

Sol.

and the NT Apocrypha

because'of all

dependence of-literature much older

on the NT* For our study can do is* confirm

the continued

existence'of

notions

and practices.

The first chapter would time. is

impression variety

given

by the material of exorcism

in

this that

the great

of forms

have been Imown and used in Palestine But there may be a pattern in all this

in Jesus' evidende.

Firstly there

some of the texts

we sur7eyed

showed that I ............ because of the

were exorcists things is Eleazar

............ who were successful ...... .... they said and/or (Ant 8: 46-49) did.

particular of this

The best

example

but we also (PR 40b) examples material

saw it and

represented especially relatively and Egyptian) paramount knowledge the

in the-Rabbinic

material

the PGM. Although'these late, the very, earliest this notion

are all (Babylonian Of

exhibit

of exorcism.

importance of both

in these

exorcisms

was the exorcist's to combat and

the demon he sought whose aid

god or pover-authority to imprss

he could

rely

upon.

In order

the demon or the god the exorcist and'histories went so far of the'demon as-to identify for example (as god a3id

used Prescribed god.

descriptions

Sometimes the, exorcist with some other

himseif

powerful

iindividual

Hermes or Moses in the PGM) or even the*invoked also in the PGM). Most of these using kinds

of exorcisms to put a

involved

the god or power-authority

11

101

isupernatural special to leave in his

restriction?

on the demon, by speaking the demon could the demon would be made speak 19: 15;

words and sounds so that the person. defence Sometimes for

and plead

leniency

(Jub. 10: 8; Acts

b, Pes*112b)by some kind a special

Usually

the exorcists' like -.

words were accompanied burning incense or boiling

of activity

brew.

The activities

prescribed

by some texts

were designed

not merely

to represent but enabled

what was expected the exorcist to

to happen in the exorcisml transfer which

the demon from the person was then poured or particular '

to say a bowl of water depended

away. Where the exorcist words an amulet

on diagrams employed.

was sometimes

Secondly successful but

there

seem to have been exorcisms of what was said them. and/or

that done

were

not because

because of who performed kind of exorcism that is

The earliest it is

evidence in the story

of this Genesis that

in Jub. 10, but

Apocryphon

we have the earliest to control but and expel

extant

rel4tes

the ability

demons not

to particular individual's

words or prayers personal force.

to a particular

At least argued of for

at the level

.the of in

story

Tiede(255)

has

the glorification

specifically

Greek stories, and man,

the combination

of the ability

to work miracles righteous

wisdom or holiness.

But in Jub. 10 the

Ili

102
Noah(10: 17), control wise demo is glorified 10: 5). by relating And in his ability Apocryphon the healing to the of

the Genesis with

and godly (cols.

Abraham is XIX and XX). individual

-credited

the king of healer

Thus we have the combination acclaimed ........... in Palestinian

and holy

stories.

The individual these stories

who is

most often

represented

in

miracles tradition

as combining the attributes of wisdom and (256) . ....... is Solomon. Thb locus classicus of the that associated the wise Solomon with miracle

working later

- especially

exorcism,

is Ant. 8: 46-49 (cf. in Palestine

the

Test.

Sol. ). But earlier

in LAB 60 wise

(see p. 50 above) 11% and in the Qumran"community(257)'the Solomon was dir ectly
bility to control

linked
demons.

with

exorcism and the

This technique

shift

in

the stories to the

from focusing individual

on the (as in confined later in

(as in Tobit) Apocryphon5

healer not

the Genesis to t6se the first

is most importantly figures. reflected-in by Lucian's notably for

mythical century

or literary AD it is

A little thistoricall

individuals exorcist,

(as represented Apollonius (258) and,

Palestinian Palestine, some of

the Rabbis5 .

The methods

of these

individual

healers

in literature

ii

103
seems to vary from the simple prayer '. **Get outIt on of

and history

used by some Rabbisl hand prayers finally actual healers in the Genesis and incantations the success, terms is (Jesus),

to simple Apocryphon,

and laying

to the more involved 6o. LAB And and (Solomon) or in

of JubelO in the literature

of these in their (cf.

particular names being Ant. 8: 46-49,

individual used in Mk. 9: 38/

reflected

'incantational' Lk. 9: 49 and Acts

exorcisms (16: 170

19: 13).

III

JESUS-THE-EXORCIST (the data)

3.1 In material

this

chapter

we want

to examine

the gospe3-and critical two out a c4ap. y)

relating This

to exorcism is

from a historical for the next

perspective. chapters picture attempt his life.

in preparation (in

where we will

chap. IV) attempt

to sketch (in and evoked during we will which be

of the historical-Jesus-the-Exorcist to discover what responses this Jesus

So as we examine to do two thingscan, with

material to ascertain

attempting

elements be Jesus as this

9f the material attributed -an exorcist

reasonable of those how the

confidence, who witnessed

to the reports and, to note

early

Church handled

material.

")

3.1.1 implications Synoptic traditional That In is,

A preliminary for

matter

which

has important is the solution accept to the the

any gospel research (2) Problem. In this study components in the first of the solution place we accept

we will

to the problem. the priority of Mark. (3)

the second place, no other

assuming viable

at present the origin and Luke,

Markan priority, there seems (4) in explaining alternative found to be common to Matthew

of the material but not Mark,

than

6ommon source variously

of tradition (6) described. It

to suppose that there is a (5) has been The Q. Q of nature is probably best to see it as

111

105
of tradition
C. K. Barrett

a stratum
for, as

rather
says it which,

than a single
is

document
since it

"more scientific probable,

makes no assumptions of the case cannot Matthew

however (? )

in the nature which of

be proved".

The material

and Luke have in common can hardly

be the limit

the extent all

of Q, for we cannot be sure that available

they have used if the (8)

of the Q tradition

to them. In fact

treatme'nt

of Mark by Matthew and Luke is any indicator

certain that

then we can be fairly Q represented

in Matthew

we do not have all, of (9) Indeed, later we shall and Luke. to our theme the material common 00)

have cause to suggest which was probably part

material-relating of Q yet found outside

to Matthewand

Luke not

in Mark (see p. 24Zbelow).

We do not assume that there is a literary relationship (11) between Q and Mark, literary relationship or a direct (12) between Matthew and Luke.

3.1.2 Synoptic standing recent

If

we accept

the traditional with

solution at least of Mark.

to the one longIn

Problem problem years

then we are faced the redaction

............

history

much has been done in trying to,

to discover (13) material.

Mark's-contribution The point is least at which assured is

and use of traditional

we know so little in determining feature

and where certainty what is to be taken as

a word or stylistic and what Up until is

of the last

stage(s)

of redaction

to be taken

as being of Sir

now the works

from earlier tradition(s). (14) John Hawkins and C. H.

1o6
Turner rely for

(15)

have been heavily frequency that

utilized.

But these

studies

on simple

of occurence the prominence (Mark's)

and do not allow of a linguistic tradition useful rather

the possibility

characteristic than which with redaction. is

may be due to Even Lloyd

Gaston's

work'(HSE) particularly does not offer

a considerable to Matthew,

advance

on Hawkins,

regard

Luke and Q, still Mark's

any way of distinguishing for this he also for uses simple

and tradition redaction (16) The implication frequency. is that, in assigning

of

out present including we should

study

a feature level of depending

of style, tradition entirely

vocabulary, be extremely

to a particular cautious

and avoid

on mere frequency

of occurence.

3.1.3 We shall Synoptic dealing pericopes first with

now proceed to examine the principal that have to do with Jesus and exorcism, those which occur in Mark (1: 21-8 par.; 9: 14-29 pars. ) and then 22-7). Then we shall

5: 1-20 pars.;

7: 24-30 par.;

(Mtt. 12: 22-30/Lk. 11: 14-23 and Ak-3: examine the Temptation narratives

(Mtt. 4: 1-11/Lk. 4: 1-13 and between this

Mk. 1: 12f. ) because of the suggested connection story Baptist and the defeat (Mtt. 11: 2-6/Ik. exorcisms'and we will-look 1-1/M. of Satan

and Jesust. Answer to John the refers to Jesus

7: 18-23) because it may illuminate

performing ing. Finally

Jesus'

self-understand(Mk. 6: may

at the Disciples' 9: 1-6; 10: 1-11,17

Mission(s)

7-12.30/Mtt-10: be important

20) because it

in assessing Jesus'

understanding

of his exorcisms.

111

107

;n

discussing

each pericope

we will

begin

by noting (Q and/or Mark)

how Matthew then we will

and Luke have used their discuss, so far

sources

as is possible, before, finally

how seeing

Mark and if we can probably

Q have used their say which parts, if

tradition any,

of the stories

and sayings

go back to Jesus the-Exorcist

and the reports

of those

who saw Jesus-

at work.

108 17) 3.2 The Demoniac in the Synagogue(

(Mk. 1: 21-8 / Lk. 4: 31-7)

MWLI. tl-tg 21 U

LUL4,31-37

daek Ka*apvaodo 8'Kcdwrlvifs Kci+cpvco4 7ropcL%ovm w dw" W6W* r"em . Toft o#paow daL%Nwok gcdAv&" okob, Wkam iv h odmm.

liv m Tamaxd aoTooW Ti Mad a*mk 5" a6fok is RL"* iv 409* liv 6 mm cbms ytp &Moxwv av IXWVW 06Xswol
"Kal wvcdpcm
Obal i "P"" ! r-v IV 33Kcd I fuwVA IV dv4wnvq i iv Tj avvaywya conw dwxpatcv 4wvq p saqwv-io amlom Kai 311dyWV. &Algpat wvgopa agaft; "V Kai jqa*6 N*pnW; " 4vivla. ook sal Tf 'InooD N4a y* TI AlCri Kai co4 ftaacu 4ft ;' ofid a64 36%CdJWCT*ay

"W RIVA4 ,

IS&

Apih ; ON at Tk A6" TOO OM holL Uywv- +q* hoD. 36mi txcTipnm uOTO 6 'Iqooos dwolimn bl" obf6v

IRCAft It a6to .. n KW mmpdj %CA " +-Am W &AkpTov T6 rit0pa JX&cv It OTA ouwv WXJ 31YA WP6%IGUTM lk*Dqaw Tt;; -M.

&W Gft& T6 Kd Rdh ; Znv ItRAM" acap6vwvCk T6 pcyd4 ftavm Gan PA#" a&r6V 36 MWIyJWM T-,

dymi TO at Tit 46 6 In@08% UyWV. qVj. ;d Ai#a, G616V T6

if iom

!t akoo m! t bd dy... b xw . OV"MMUV Wpk dklQAMSMYOVM- Til 6 A6yot 0

Kcd Tols wvv)pm ToFq an IV ROO* Kai kwfta KGIVJ ltal'4000laV t=daa% 61COMPTOIS aO* WKW it- swopamv. FAAONW600M Axot W* UbTd JOV 4 &Nkh GOTOO90" we* cwo -UYMXOG di U"Tftv imprAgpoo. rcwxtdcm. T41 * x, pov

lwntm Toft axaodp. Ica,4dpxovm; "Ka Ach sivis . 6wov

3.2.1
not found

It

is immediately
Apart

apparent
from

that

this

story

is

that Matthew any hesitancy (18) is said to have had about exorcism, or his tendency to (19) the main reason why Matthew abbreviate miracle stories, left out this story was probably because it did not suit his

in Matthew.

III

log

purpose

here to include the authority (Mk. 1: 22/Mtt. and fully

it.

One of the motifs teaching.

of the story Matthew adopts it more

in Mark is this motif

of Jesus'

4: 29) but has illustrated

directly

in the Sermon on the Mount (5: 1-7: 27). that part stories there of his there was no need to transfer Gospel in his for there were

Matthew may have felt this other story quite to a later suitable

sources.

3.2.2 Jesus' story,

Luke on the other teaching,

hand,

taking

up the theme of the miracle pericope (4: 16ff. )

authoritative pLlso provides to this

and including teaching

a'programmatic exorcism activity sharp story.

as background stands this

In Mark exorcism ministry. is still In. Luke

out as the first perspective as being is less

of Jesus' though

exorcism

portrayed three 40-41)

of central (31-37; exorcism with

significance 38-39 but teaching.

the of each -

healing

pericopes

(see P-337b4low); alongside and more

has to do with in conjunction of Jesus' of this that

obviously complex facets

In the 4: 14-44 Luke emphasises 4: 14 at the power of three

teaching

and healing Firstly,

ministry.

he begins ministry overriding "in

by saying the Spirit";

Jesus began his and secondly the

theme of the

preaching the healing

across this

(4: 43) 'the Kingdom of God'; was ministry

and thirdly come

is dominated by exorcism.. We shall

again later (see below).

combination

(a)

In the detailed

use of Mk. 1: 21ff.

Luke has made

III

110

a number of alterations. improving his source Mark's that style. require

Some of the changes have to do with But Luke has made other more specific phrase explanation. changes to In 4: 33 (20)

Luke has replaced

the Semitic In fact Spirit

i0 lrycv, "Wr(. 000 .Y

with xrXcji 7r vz iu ot ... conjunction with

Luke consistently

uses F-'v in

the Holy

(1: 17; 2: 27; 3: 16; 4: 1,1+ spirit. in that Mark, he uses spirits F ZXIJ uses
)a or

10: 21) and never the other lyw and (cf.

in

of a demon or unclean shows no consistency in relation like Luke,

on ev

hand,

interchangeably

to evil he never

eg- 3: 30 and 5: 2) but,

relation can, to the Holy not Spirit.

Why? To have (21) mean to

(exrev 'W

spirit

though

always,

possessq

have a single 'it is

spirit

in One's

control.

But in the NT the phrase that an individual

astonishing this

how seldom we find is linked

Han e says that did

to the fact

in his but one divine shared receive own spirit not (23) In particular Spirit. the Pauline literature stresses (24) (Eph. 4: 4)e Spirit, that there is'one 1 Cor. 12: 13.; see But Luke also all, . (cf. Acts believes 2: 4,17,38; in using that the one Spirit 10: 44f.; EIv was shared by (25) Thus lg: lff. ). to the Holy spirits

Luke's Spirit and not evil

consistency and not

in relation CX-rey and

of evil

of the Holy

spirits, (26) Spirit

of evil

may be-simply could

becau e an have while Also

TrIlz

spirit

was something Spirit

an individual in which

the Holy

was something

one shared.

in 4: 33 Luke adds Sctc, vovtov51T cook,

in between Mark's

"C47L
of

Ta so that

the man in the Synagogue has a ?spirit

III

ill

an unclean the Greeks

demon'.

Why has Luke made this spirit' did

addition?

For carry

an 'unclean

not necessarily
I.

the sense of primarily cultic with

'demon-possessiont the closely

as vx-% GrRTos had to do concepts introduces of physical and

reated

uncleanness. spirit',

Thus Luke never

the Semitic

and when he takes it up from his (27) it, tradition he always either or if he uses it, alters (28) it somewhere in the pericope, or also cites modifies (29) in So SchUrmann is probably correct words of Jesus. (30) saying that here Luke is accomodating his Greek readers. term. 1unclean

Still

in v-33,

Luke alters
this

Xp-'&3v to

Luke

most likely

brings

forward

from Mk. 1: 26 where the

demon cries

out after

Jesus-has

required
contradiction

silence

of the
of

demon. Luke avoids obedience as well

an apparent

and lack

of demoniacs'

as characterizing (31) form of speech.

a typical

description

(b)

In v-34

(/mk. 1: 24) there by this?

is

the addition (i) mean

Ec to continue

What does Luke intend the feeling "Ahl the .

He could

of the previous to I "Let

hal, " equivalent imperative determine kcKw its

words and have the demoniac yell (33) Luke could intend Or (ii) gol" or "Leave alonel"(34) We

cannot it is is

meaning

from elsewhere the

in the NT for former meaning

a hapax legomenon.

Nevertheless

for the form unlikely EIV. is not common and is rare in (35) On the other-hand is more the latter i4Lo prose. (36) (37) the words of the And if, see, commonS_ as we shall

III

112
are to be taken then well. as disarming 'Leave defences (us) against fits the

demoniacs

enemy/exorcist, the context

the meaning

alone'

(c) In Lk. 4: 35 (/Mk, 1: 25f. ) there are the two minor alterations
be made of

"ro "' kf to t" of -(--ra 0' IkIT

this for the confusion

is There little .
0 and LK was

to

ofATra

common in Hellenistic i1c of clear in "'d predilection

Greek and the process of absorption (38) had begun in the NT and Luke had a for-Ic; (39) Luke's alteration mean

as Deissmann noticed,
kg. r .Ae: 41T E , -roc-

that

4: 35 is parallelcain

PGMIV: 3013
(Mk. 1: 26)

(Sir").

(40)

Also in v-35

Luke has is

tV&v 1P

instead a literary is

Yc(V It of o-7'crPq', . improvement less violent

undertaking

may be that Luke (41 ) but of Marks

q-7MeQ'tTCLJ (to

, (to, throw) rr-rw as tear, pull,

than

or convulse(42) statement that

) and in view the demon did

of Luke's

following

not harm the man,

Luke was probably

to Jesus?

trying

command. Luke does usec-wbV*mcnrcj in 9: 39 (Mk. 9: 26) but On Luke's treatment this

to emphasisethe demon's submission (43)

of a is before

demOn's activity meeting above. middle" demon's Jesus.

of iuzq'Ajx -r; R4"covsee the man "into r a subject the to the ound

That he says the demon threw is most likely activity, Lukelproviding in line

perhaps

with

the

idea

(Mk. in 3: 3 NT the elsewhere sufferer and healer/exorcist

(44)

and outside it that the (45) must confront each other.

the man without harming

Luke says that

the demon leaves

111

113
Along with this it is noticeable that Luke (46) Mk. 9: 26 where the demon is said to cry out, convulse and leave him like a corpse. violent. Luke is clearly makf

him (v-35). omits

the boy,

the exorcism

stories'less

In v-36 (/Nk-, 1: 27) the replacement

awlToevrjS with cli'vc-ro %

oflearV`Q,; ,I
of his

o-cv

is

istic dispute

periphrasis.

'poS (48) &YI-tiocan -:

an example contain

characterof is* no

an element there The

or dissension(49) - all'agree

di spute(50) vocalization different directed

\,x)iw but by using r L-v, (51) in their amazement. amazement is in Mark.

of the crowd's from that found

significantly

In Mark the amazement is authority is and teaching. directed more the the

more genera22y

at Jesus$ (cf.

In Luke - T's 8) M-PS Ou-sps narrowly authority reason at Jesus' of Jesus'

v-32)

command. That

Luke wants

to highlight is probably (Mk. 1: 27)

command in particular the demont3 obedience

why he specifies ,,

, with rfj; yoAwc

notice that

SV he and why adds highlights

U is . And we ,, command in 8: 29

Luke also

Jesus'

(Mk. 5: 8) by making an almost casual reference in 9: 42 (Mko9: 25) the actual

only a simple mention of it,

to it;

and

commandis'dropped
highlighting its

leaving
effectiveness.

(e) In the final variety 'Hxos

(v. 37/Mk. 1: 28), perhaps for verse (52) Luke exchanges efq, X, m-t Lf or z`icnVi v-"a (& (53)being (54)_a much stronger word than 'report

used also of the roar of the sea (1k. 22: 29) and the rush of

III

114
wind report (Acts about 2: 2)-may Jesus have better characterized the

a mighty excited

that

went abroad.

(f) Luke's

We can now summarize what we have said treatment of this as part exorcism of his story. In

about context stages

the wider

he has used it I of the ministry

section teaching

on the opening (about

of Jesus where (particularly

the Kingdom are entwined. and Jesus'

of God) and healing, In particular authority:

exorcism)

Luke stresses - about which

the demon's

obedience

a report

went out.

.. (55) 3.2.3 We can turn now to the pericope in Mark and

address ourselves to the questions (b) (a) how does Mark have been the nature -

use the story? and extent

- and,

what mig4t

of the story

in Mark's

traditionl

(a) exorcism Spirit

As Luke did story,

after

him, very

Mark has used this, first miracle.

an

as Jesus' though just

The Holy

motif, is

highlighted

in the

introduction the miracle story.

(1: 8,12)

slightly is set

removed from

However the story preaching the crowd's teaching.

in the shadow of the theme of itself

of the Kingdom of God and in the pericope (1: 27) ties amazement This pericope this story

to Jesus' There

themes. Markan many embraces (1: 21,28; 14: *28; 15-:41; cf. 1: 9,14,16,39; (56) Jesus

are the themes of Galilee 3: 7; 6: 21; 7: 31; teacher (1: 21f., 9: 30; 27; cf.

16: 7);

the

6: 2;

-11: 17; 12: 35;

14: 49),

(57)

III and Jesus encounter the teacher with of the disciples

r-QC1 (1: 21,29h (1: 23f.;

115 (58) 1 cf.

the demonic and Satan(59)

1: 32-34,39; Christology

3: 11f.;

(3: 20-30); 5: lfg;

6: 7-13; 7: 25; 9: 20); 3: 11;

(60)

"oF&oA" (1: is Jesus 24; cf- 1: 1,3; (62)

5: 7; (8: 30,38;
the authority

9: 7; 12: 6; 13: 32; 14: 36); 14: 61; 15: 39)S61) 1

(1: ) Jesus, 25ff. of

Jesus possesses charis(63) (1: 22,27; matic power cf-2: 10; 3: 15; 6: 7; 11: 28-33), (64) Thus we can and his ministry produces a universal echo.
probably say that (65) Mark. this miracle is indeed programmatic for

The introduction some discussion. clear (66)

to this That

story is

has been a matter a separate (67) unit

of seems

1: 21f.

from the fresh

introduction

to 1: 23 belonged

and vv. 16-mw becaii e

and 21 could fishing

not have originally

together

forbidden and the repairing of nets were strictly (68) Thus regardless on the Sabbath. of the extent of Mark's (69) hand within they probably have not always vv. 21 and 22 belonged placed agreed to this vv. 21f., exorcism in their story. present That it is Mark who has is generally ing is not

position

and in particular method of

shown by the kwi zP'jS begI joining stories and pericopes

v. 23. This

(1: in Mark 12,239 uncommon 15 : 1), and it is not used to

29; 6: 45; 7: 250); join pericopes

14: 43; in the. two large

(2: 6 4: 43) 35-5: 1-3: passages and generally (70) be pre-Markan complexes. _ _

recognized

to

111

116
What is Mark's purpose in giving that this Jesus (71) introduction taught "with to

the exorcism authority,

story? and not

Why mention

as the scribes"?

The conclusion references duction institution to Jesus' reinforces

of the exorcism authoritative authority. with

story, teaching,

itself

contains intro-

and the

this

associated

The synagogue was the (72) teaching, particularly

on the Pabbath,. as bearers

authority

was the scribes who were venerated (74) Yet Jesus had an of sacred Imowledge.
these unlike scribes. the scribes But in what way could to which Mark twice that doctrineo(75) Jesus

(73)

and it

unlike

have authority draws attention it

(1: 22 and 27)? D. Daube suggested . licence pointed to give out, over fifty times translate authoritative

meant a Rabbits

But as A, W, Argyle "though

z'! oov-iet occurs instance

in the Septuagint,

in not a single

does it

which is the Hebrew word that Daube conjectures as (76) zgOV-TC'CK

corresponding to in Mk. l:? is -2,27". It cannot be that in that it Jesus' authority different from the but is

scribes his

is not borrowed knowledge points of,

or derived,

own, -based

on his

God. For as A. M. Ambrozic

with and relationship (77) in particular this out,

view does not take into

12: 28-34,35-37 that his

account Mk. 7: 1-13; 10: 1-12,17-22;

does rely on authority other

where Jesus we look

own. And if

at how Mark characterizes they accuse Jesus of

the scribes

- especially

in that

117 blaspheming (2: 6),

and plotting Jesus accuses

of eicorcising
Jesus

by Beelzebul

(3: 22),

to destroy the scribes

(11: 18; 14: 1) - and how against the Holy

of blaspheming

Spirit
13),

(3: 29f. ) and nullifying

we see that in placing

the commandof God (7: 8,99

Jesus' teaching over against the

Jesus appears as one acting of under the auhority scribes (78) We can conclude here'that Mark gave this exorcism God. story the introduction, that he did relationship it to bring between into Jesus' focus

what he saw as an integral message and miracles.

(b) miracle isolate

In deciding story

how Mark has used the body of this We can, on the one hand, hand we can discuss in the story. task and direct

we can do two things.

Markan redaction, historicity

and on the other of various attend elements

the possible For

the moment we shall

to the former

our attention we. might expect

to the end of the pericope some redaction are generally for it is

(vv. 27f. ) where the beginnings

and ends that redactors

considered (79) have been most active.

to be areas where

The first is that

thing

that

is

said

about

the crowdts

response 27);

they were

'afraid'.

Only Mark uses GoV4ple uart((1: ,,

10: 24,32)
is'rgsponsible concept

but in none of these cases does it

for the idea. (80) (8l)on his Butlas

seem that

Mark

Mark added the

here?

Jesus?

teaching impact

and even mere presence hearers and those

may have had a great

III

118
(82)

around him so that

they are said to be afraid,

the crowd is of a'miracle

:,A or amazed.

At a number of places afraid) generally as the resiilt thought

(or to be said amazed (83). This is of Jesus.

in the miracle story telling.

to be a stereo-typed closing motif (84) taken over from Greek stories, probably tradition shows no consist-

However the Jesus

ency in the occurence of this

motif,

Matthew (15: 31; cf.

43a; Mk.7: 37) and Luke (9 , -. *23/Mtt9*17:18) only once cf. Mk.9.
each add the motif to their (85) traditions.
it is present

Mark never adds it

in the exorcism

to the Sammelberichte,

stories

at 1: 27, and 5: 04),

15 and (17? ) but absent at

7: 30 and, 9: 28 perhaps where we (and Luke (9: 43a)) would most expect it. interested general So, Mark does not seem particularly motif to the miracle in particular. probable stories (86) that in So

in adding this

or to the exorcism stories point it

to conclude this

seems quite

the

mention of the crowd's fear was part at 1: 27o

of Mark's tradition

That Mark has contributed so that

to his tradition point (89)r

in vv..,5,,., -. from

(87)

he can convey a particular

-rt

seems clear

the vocabulary

Tj vj(81)&g..X II .1
with Mark wants

X, Xot , Ira(
(91)

(90)

and the grammar -4'(Prz important thing that

an infinitive.

The most exorcism and that story. only it (92)

to say is-that Jesus' ministry

was important is in turn isq for

in understanding important Mark, in his this

retelling

of the Jesus not

That

miracle

- an exorcism,

111

119
the preaching-teaching (93) as proclamation. at least with at this point, of Jesus, but itself we must Jesusthe

illustrates also credit functions Mark,

Consequently with

associating after

the- Exorcist pattern

Jesus-the-Teacher, Rabbis,

possibly

of the great

a connection in Mark's that -

perhaps tradition. is

suggested Mark the

by the mention also

of the synagogue his

is making clear

Christology

despite

absence of the title ' (94)

Son of God.

his readers are being confronted

by the

3.2.4 We must now examine the core of the story 23-27a) to see how it Jesus. (a) The first is to be related element of the

(vv.

to the historicalstory is the presence

..... .... .. Some have doubted the in the demoniac the svnagogue. of
authenticity an funcleant of this, spirit expressing should find surprise his that a man with (95) a'synagogue. could

way into

However spasmodic well mean that condition. is spirit (97) story.

characteristics

of demon-possession

of his unclea this

at times (96)

the man showed no adverse (b) That the man is said

symptoms

to have an origin of

an indication

of the Semitic

(c)

The

man

is

said.

'K'v..

4P

AvwiVo9tv is not a
apart from its use crowd

synonym for here,

k-tXi'tr

to call -?

out? -for

8: in Lk. 28, the IIT uses it and

of an aroused

(Ik. 23: 18) and of

terrified It

men who think is then clearly

they have a cry of

(Mk. 49 6: seen a ghost

III

120
consternation. Does this of those reported consternation the historical go

extreme

back to the accounts Jesus-the-Exorcist?

who witnessed

The word has a religious in the Greek significance (99) but only in relation to the demonic, and the world, Greeks it felt and Roman generally (100) and so we canAnfer of the gods, the word itself concerned, in Mark save that, with barbaric nothing as far and unworthy in the use of

as Mark is In the LXX of crying emergency. sense or (101)

we are dealing is

the demonic. in the context or national

used especially

zalling In

on God in some individual the NT does not be argued, motif it likely in in

contrast, it

&v*tx1W'Y&o in this use 1: 23/lk. its that

save, detect

might

4: 33 - and so we can We are left with

no religious is -

use here.

the question

when a demoniac met Jesus disturbed of this and-cried study that out? in the

the demoniac became extremely We have seen in the first presence of other exorcists and cried part

to be disturbed that

of the era demoniacs were said (102) .e Thus it is possibl out. have been seen to have had who were confronted
............. of reasons for

as an exorcist affect
At the

Jesus would on those

a-similar
by him.

sufferers

same time

. ............ there are a number

th'inkinR

.................

that this

the earlv element

Church i3robablv-did into the stories

not need to

introduce

of, Jesus. *

(i)

Matthew prunes the Markan accounts,

the consternation

(103)

... he does yet not

though in

obliterate

of the demoniacs

III

121

17: 17f. he removes Mk. 9: 20, the most grotesque instance. Thus I 0 in but in Mk. 5: 7 the demoniacm, p (N /, CY. p4s,. (3 , '17 (104)so that Matthew (8: 29) this is toned down to
the consternation no consistent is only barely element evident. in his (ii) stories. Mark shows Thus in

use of this

1: 23 he has Kati' w'vLywE'. rv as the expression

in 3: 11 Mark has 5: 67r, A()rfKV'-V-jrTv and in 9: 20 (cf -5: 33)

of this

consternation;

in i<ol ; r*yocj--o-v ...

This variety the part

of expression

shows, for

example, no desire

on

of Mark to portray

the demons or demoniacs worshipping 8: 28; 9: 42) pays no particular We could add a third
interest that in this the lack part-of

Jesus. So also Luke, (4: 33,41; attention to this element.

lack story

(iii)
of

indicator
the

of the early

Church's

form of an exorcism in dealing not only with did

- viz.

of consistency indicates theological

the consternation not that

of the demoniacs it into their

they but

seek to doopt they did not

enterprise, to this

even seek to draw attention

factoro

Therefore the first early three

we can conclude Evangelists is quite

here,

that the that

in far so interests the early into hand,

as of the

represent unlikely

Church - it

Church the form like his in

introduced of the

the consternation of Jesus

of the demoniacs on the other

stories

and that

contemporaries, the demoniacs

Jesus-the-Exorcist that confronted him.

evoked a disturbance

111 (d) In 1: 24 (/Lk. 4: 34) the distress I'What have to do you with to (105) TTTt .

122 of'the'demonlac us? " which

speaking

is vocalized
corresponds

The actual

of a demon was well However any decision demon's words extent that on the

known as we have seen (p.83above). regarding the historicitylof the

in Mk. 1: 24 (and 5: 7ff. interpretation were declaring utterances given

) depends to a large to them. Wrede assumed messiahship his and so

the demons

Jesust into

brought

the demoniacs'

scheme of

the 'messianic
of Jesus. that

secret'
We shall understand

deleting
see,

them from the real

in relation

history
to 3: 11,

(106)

especially

Mark did

and use the demons' words as Nevertheless, 1: 26 and 5: 7f. as 'messianic Jn a moment, we the demons' words confessions', maintains and that in

messianic shall also

confessions. see that-in not

were probably were part these

framed

of Mark's

tradition.

Fridrichsen

exclamations

of the demons "we have to see a-confession to the demon and intended of being theory in alliance can easily with to defend Beelze-

attributed Jesus

(my emphasis)

from the accusation But Fridrichsents

bul. "(107)

be dismantled.

Firstly

component* content.

he says OM
History

that

in Mk. 1: 24 'the name/ is an additional

has confused parallels make it form and obvious that

C); tbe e xorcht

Here Fridrichsen of religions of the

the name was part preternatural Secondly

control

form of the prescriptions (109) (see p. 3/ above). does not

used in

the name of

'Jesus?

in any way seem for not only does it

to be an intrusion

into

the content,

III

123
appear in 5: 7 but, messianic as we will see, it is not a name of that

also

particular

or christological deliberately

significance

would be expected Thirdly, Fridrichsen

to'-be

added to the tradition. discourse (1: 24)

says that

the demon's

is only long and prolix

Burkill provides

because it
reply but

serves an apologetic
to'this. three they concise were . clauses,

end.

(110)

a sufficient

"The adiress includes and if these

are read as though significance, question

meant to which the

have apotropaic follow

the two affirmations are seen to increase

on the opening

effectiveness Neither Fourthly it

of the utterance is

assertion is unlikely Charge for

of a defensive (ill) ". superfluous 1: 24 was framed is

weapon.

that

to counter made Charge. (112)

the Beelzebul between

nowhere

a connection

the demonic

confessions

and the Beelzebul

How then

should

we interpret

the words

of the demons?

We shall

supplementing .......... demon's

examine the words of the demons, following (113)

0. Bauernfeind's thesis that . defensive or protective words.

and
are the

they

(i)

The words

"What have you to do with both

(Jesus is the Bibleg with W1,014)

of Nazareth)? and generally

It have parallelsj have the meaning

in and outside interfere

'q)o not

with

the intended purpose of stopping the person interfering (115) (note Jn. 2: 4). The hints here that this phrase can
_ _

take the stronger

meaning of 'to ward offt

are confirmed

III

124
use of a para3-lel
t o avywrios

by Philo's
,

construction
FLoo -rc)&

of 1 Kings 17: 18 Here in Kings the

#ot. kaL rot

mother of a sick boy is warding off Elijah

as a man of God might Quod Deus Immutabilis passage evil in in a way that the NT era. mind that occasion Sit further

suffering. clearly

whose presence (116)

In uses this

ilo 138 Ph. it

shows that Philo is says -

was used to ward off

"Every of evil

on the way to be widowed and empty 10 man of God, thou hasE (117) of my iniquity and my sin"'.

says to the prophet,

come in to remind-me

Philo

has not reversed

the notion

of 'warding

off'

of Velcomet of the man of God as Bauernfeind thinks, (119) Philo is talking about for, as Burkill points out,
how a God inspired

to one (118)

man, on the rememb'rance of past iniquities ka kete IN-ons& IF to keep them in check andurom returning and sins, attempts (120) to his old ways.

What canwe say about the words On the would

the historicity,

of this

part us

of

of the demon - What introduction

have you to do with ("and motif he cried,

one hand its conform

out saying") Church off

to no theological is certainly

in the early here it

and, the phrase Jesus

appropriate Andt importantly

as warding could have hand

the enemy/exorcist. origin

a Semitic

(see p. i;Z: zabove). the possibility that

But on the other it

we have to face to conform the phrase

has been included only 7) but is it

to literary

conventions.

However not in Mark (cf-5:

not used consistently

111 does not explains its that conform to 1 Kings 17: 18 the passage which best

125

the meaning and purpose seems quite decision of v. 24. will likely,

of Mk. 1: 24. Thus although in the end I think

historicity the final

have to be made in the context

of the whole

(ii) above,

We have seen previously, that from the history of this

and in

the paragraph parallels formula. the But to have patbm it Jesus

of religion

name, can be part

opening

defensive

we need to ask - is Mark or the early added-this title, either, or for to be ' to conform dogmatic original

Church likely to the literary or - is

of such formulae a title story? likely

purposes?,

to the earliest

From what we have just characters so we will determine involved direct in this

said story

on the nature 'Jesust to might

of the be expected in order to-

our attention and origin,

'Nazareth'

the meaning It

of this

component

of the significance

demon's words in the early neither (2) term,

is not

a, term that

was of special of Jesus. (1)

Church

as a designation

nor does any later (cf. 2: 23(122) terms refer

Christian

Paul uses (121) Greek writer. Luke (Acts . 10 : 38)

And for

Matthew

and 21: 11), to Jesus'

(1: 45) John the and

coming from

(123) . (3) When they were used, Nazareth in Gali .1 ee. and, Ax
Church

tos vere terms restricted (124)

. Mark'coming

to the Palestinian
that did not use

from a'commiinity

III

126
would have no special title of Jesus. interest in promoti

the title

the term as-a

So up to this obvious dogmatic

point reasons

we can conclude

that

there

are no

why Mark or the early the name into

Church the tradition.

would have wanted

to introduce

If

we view Mk. 1: 24 in the light

of PGM VIII:

13 ("I Is

know you Hermes, who you are and whence you come and which your city")). we see that the origin, If of the one being Mark or the early in order in this have chosen*'Jesus 'Son of Godt is not out to conform

named

was of interest

(see p. 30 above).

Church had introduced to a literary Isuperi3aturall of Nazareth'

a name and origin it that is surprising, should

convention context rather

they

than

the more appropriate as it

as Mark. seems to have done in 3: 11. Thus, of place for the demon to address appear

Jesus as. 1from, NazarethIj reasons particular why the early appellation, term/title te2.1ing

and as there

to be no dogmatic this

Church would wnt we conclude probably that,

to introduce so far

as we can seejthis pre-Easter

does come from the-earliest (125) of the story.

IH Xl; bZS serves well

S'rO( 40T ON L : JAR Church's

This

phrase

clearly The

the eaky of evil

dogmatic

purposes.

destruction (eg. Ass.

in the messianic the early

age was expected took it up as a

Mos-10: 1,3),

Church

171 theme (1k. 10: 18 and Rev. 20: 10; cf. pp. SSIfbelow) and Jesus

127

is portrayed

in the Gospels as one who destroys 11: 2off.

rest of of

the evil Yet

used

(eg. /ik. 28ff. Mtt. 12: powers

neither in in Mark, to nor the in the

see p. Aal below).

the NT is1k6'Uv, ^t (Also (126)

relation

ministry

Jesus.

A( a'1II6XAv:,

is by no mean Nor did

a word of particular of the early that -VI Jesus' below). parallels

interest

to Mark). in

any section think -

Church - as represented exorcisms

the Gospels of evil

were the destruction when we examl e

(see chap.

And once again

the history entities

of religions we find,

to adaresses to spiritual discussing Acts 19, that a description

as we did-when

the mention

of the spiritual his

entity

can involve In Acts

of him - including qualification designatory p. 517 above). In Mk. 1: 24 after of this is rain "I

activities.

19: 13 the to be (see

appended to Jesus' or-identificatory Hereq as we will Jesus is not yet but

name was argued than

rather seethe being

descripti7e is

reverse identified,

the case. comes example invoked) and causes it is

that

know ...

described.

A good parallel

is PGM IV: 3045f. as the light

(who is being God where bringer, (127) this invisible,... So once again description

described

to come upon the earth. to conclude that

reasonable activity

of Jesus' storye

by the demon is part

of the original

(iv) defence,
power

So far,

apart

from

the

initial

words of general effort

(Nazareth)2

the demon has,

made known

in a continuing
Jesus' origin

to overand his

Jesus,

III

128
(the demon's destruction). Now the climax knowledge of the of Jesust

activity defence identia. parallels particularly received

comes with

the "I

know" formula mentioned

We have already to this part

some of the appropriate (see p. 3o above). Note

of the verse 6f. "(I -

PGM VIII: in heaven,

know) your

name which was 11028) to gain

I know you and your in incantations beings. is not

fo=s,,,, designed

These statements control so far over this

occur

spiritual formula

And so from what we have said in its setting in

out of place

Mk. 1: 24. Finally

for the phrase is

we need not doubt its

in a Hebrew idiom.

historical

veracity

That

is we have here

the prolepsis

of the subject

of a subordinate that it

in Gen. 1: 4 I'God saw the light,

clause as (129) was good**

However, "the holy

what should

we make of the

originality that albeit in

of

one of God"? We can begin to Jesus "the holy

by-noting

relation (in it of no

one'? is used, 1 in. 2: 30; there title.

rarely,

in. 6: 69; Acts is only here

4: 27,30;

(3: 3); is

Rev-3: 7) but

in Mk. 1: 24-that it as a messianic tradition at all

. .......... the possibility But the term has title. (130)

interpreting recognizable

as a messianic to signify that

The basic

intention from

of the word is

which

is marked off

the secular, that is it denotes the (131 ) Thus the term is used of beings sphere of the divine. (132) that belong to this sphere. it is used And importantly (133) In Jer. 1: 5 the prophet is 'sanctified' of individuals. that is, he belongs to God. In Sir. 45: 6 Aaron (and Moses? )

III

129
'holy'. And in Ps-105: 16(LXX) Aaron is referred

are called

to as "the holy one of the Lord".

Semitic its background to Mk. 1: 24 quite reflection is right

These parallels make a (134)

probable, and of the*words of the

status

as a genuine If this

demon is high. doing was simply being

then what the demon was to God or

identifying

Jesus as belonging

perhaps

in the service

of God as an exorcist.

We have completed the elements the history

the investigation will

into

the origin that few of

of

of Mk. 1: 24. It of religions

be apparent cited

paraUels I can find

are actually

words

of demons. In particular parallels are - like in order this that role as it to the 'I

no precise All

extra-biblical parallels

know$ formula..

the precise

PGM VnI: to gain related

13 - words addressed to a power-authority - .d.. its ai Bultmann(135) to called attention to Bauernfeind's evidence work. Bultmann said in the

in Bauernfeind's of the threatened Jesus is not

the demon appeared the

man, who utters on the role the case.

'Protective*

words while fact this

takes quite

of the demon. But in in Mk. 1: 24 devices which in

Rather,

the demon appears the parallels authority. cases for

to be using

technical

were used to call Thus the situation over a, powerful to disarm. is

up the aid

of the powerin both

the same in that is, sought,

control

being

in one case

aid,

in another

(e)

Mk. 1: 25 has to do with

the technique

Jesus used

III

130
the demon. In the first part of the verse out, Jesus (136)

to exorcise is said

v the demon. It to cTr1r;/v,!

"T

has been pointed

that '1-1 I
material

the Semitic (137)

where,

Volent

of zilcrMi-ov occurs in the Qumran

it is a technical term

as Kee shows,

and designates representative

the commanding word spoken by God or his (138) upon which evil powers are subjugated That in Mk. 1: 25 g`, ir(rZv takes on the

(see p. i5 above). dimension

a demon is suggested not only by (139) the Markan context but also by the of this story, I immediate context of the word. And the demon has, according of subjugating to our investigations, been making an attempt to disarm Jesus.,

But also

from what we have seen Wtr!, vC^Wv may highlight potential this of the story. So we should activity ask, at

the dogmatic what stage the gospel not

interpretation Although

of Jesus' at first

entered

material?

Markan, appear to be particularly (142) 6 of them are in what are generally

sight 04o)

the word does of its 9 occurrences to be (141)

accepted

areas where Mark has been particularly

although he may not have been particularly it was Mark

active.

(143)

Thus
it motif

active

here,

seems as if in this

who drew out the

theological

confrontation

between Jesus

and the demon..

(f)

tib)s con Mk. 1: 25b /---the I'gr-Xft kc<t g

words

of Jesus

to the demon And again the

cxv-rov that these

question reflect Church?

is

is -

it

Probable

words reliably in the early

Jesus'

words,

or didAhey

originate

III

131
(i) In relation '3917L to OP4. that this injunction we need to take into to silence may have

account the notion

been part of a, Messiasgeheimnis (144)

Church. From 1: 34 it

constructed
Mark,

by the early
at least, might

seems that

'have understood Jesus' (145)

to silence. the more general in this
usequovb(v

prohibition

as a general. injunction
Church wished to talk that
.,

However if conception is perhaps

the early of ceasing surprising

to include Jesus not

is

about it did

command it

47f. in 10: as
to

rather

than #cb6G?

7vwhich

so strongly than

related (146) . 'talking

Uncantational is,

restriction?

rather someone

That

the use of JPaV7-j puts

whereas where they are unable to operate,, (148) in Mark the other other injunctions are requests and in a'Position
commands to silence. understood
A7 at Ir "4.4

(147)

Further,

if

the meaning
is

'be silent

by 4tAA&J'()7 -TI the publishers (149) 014vi 4wvj#-wv then the

by the (150) redactor(s).

.7
words

a glaring

oversight

In other

in

1: 25 does not

fit

the pattern

of interdictions reworking in terms

in the rest of Mark, nor of a conscious (151) understood at this point, and was probably bound or restricted.

of being

On the

other

0 0uwe-j-rt hand

is

well

known

in

the

magical, prevent

papyri.

For example P. Osio. 1: 161f. of a person: -muzzle speak against (152) me... 1 Vrv and

"Remedy to

the wrath

the mouths-which def ixiones

And in the rt tcov are,

f ound at CYP'rus

equivalent

to

XOtTQISCF&'

(to -bind)

or kw"Wrr;AA*s magical

III

132
used in incantations. was to (155) Ibindt Thus in is (153) (154) sometimes the context And the original in relation meaning to

knot)

tWoO-v of the tongue.

of an exorcist's in Mk. 1: 25, and 23 13 'IT it so , is

0 command i,AWM-1ri 6o 41 most likely

quite

appropriate

corresponds part

to the Aramaic tradition.

of the primary

(ii)

Tf. EXFjz E"E phrase

In discussing in place parallel

the Lukan of with bx we

f orm of this noted that

(4: 35) with cVJ out its

Deissmann pointed

PGM IV:

3013f f-rjor-rj()t

With this
"_-ro&

can be compared PGMIV: 1243ff .similar expressions orders

lfCV)E
are found

w1l

JrtF*v*(-. Very Life

in Philostratus'

IV: 20 where Apollonius

the demon

to quit
...i9i. )hi P 11 where a spell

the -young lad,

drives out

(156)

and in Lucian's
poison,

and in And in

16 where a Syrian the Babylonian

drives

out

ifsX-ru17b, ) (158)

Vic

a- demon. order

(157)

Talmud (Meil. 9f x,\ fb: L being

two Rabbis a girl.

a demon to leave of all thisl and there

In view

no obvious

reasons

why this is

command should reasonable the bedrock

have been added to the traditiongit this

to assume that of historical

command of Jesus belongsto

tradition.

(g) first

Mk. 1: 26ff.

relates

the*response*to*Jesus'"Command, in turn, by the crowd. (i) The

by the demon, and then said then to tear

demon is We should

or convulse

the man technique result. in a violent

ask - Did Jesus'

111

133

(Mk. 4: (cf. the demon? Ik. 1: 26; 35; 9: 26; Mk. exit of and see (159) mk. 4: 13)). There are a number of parallels to this (160) in other literature. violence

Mark,

or his

tradition,

seems to be-fairly

consistent

in portraying
included did from not then

this

element in his stories;

is in all his

if
stories.

5: 13 is
That Mark is clear of

the element violence

add this that

to the stories

of Jesus

the fact

he shows no particular

consistency

interest

in its

function.

Thus in 9: 26f.
Jesus$

the violence
but

coidd
this may

be a mean could hardly

towards

portraying

compassion

be said

of 5: 13, and in for dramatising

1: 27 the violence and heightening

have been a vehicle authority.

Jesus'

However it

is

unlikely factor to this

that

any sector

of the early Matthew obvious.

Church appended this Luke's -and Matthew and in attitude

to the Jesus violence

stories.

makes this story

omits

the whole

of the first strong violent

(Mk, 1: 23-28), were died)

81*3X he changes Mark's to a less

(they ! Trv4'Sov7, c,

suffocated/strangled)

(they

and he also omits the violent 17: 18). Luke's treatment

convulsions

(Mtt. 9: 26 Mk. of of the early Churchts

is also telling

embarras-sment over this

noticeable is his addition

aspect of Jesuslexorcisms.
of "having

Most

done him no harm"

(4: 35) to Mark's reference to 'convulsions' crying'.

and 'loud

111

134
In so far as the first of the early the early tradition three Church Evangelists on this point this that represent it seems uninto

the attitude likely that

Church

introduced it

violence in all

the Jesus it

and we can take report

probability

goes back to the earliest

of the event.

(ii) (Mk. 1: 27). shown that notably

The crowd's

response

is

said

to be amazement (pp6 IlAabove) tradition and and, in be .

We have already it was most likely the Jesus of this

discussed part

this

of Mark's

that

tradition motif,

shows no consistency Thusl although reports we cannot

the occurrence sure, it

may go back to the original

of the event.

Finally the story reports elements (1) (2) (3) (4) the

we can ask,

by way of silmmaryhere, said to belong

how much of first

can be confidently of this should event?

to the very the following

From-our

discussions -

pro*bcbLly be included confronts between Jesus Jesus

A demoniac the dialogue the crowd's 61though connection

in the synagogue and the demoniac

at Capernaum, and possibly

amazement. in vv. 27bf. ) Mark has heightened Jesus' teaching and healing a

(particularly between

connection
tradition,

pro:: bablY already

by the very

made, at least

in Mark's

venue of the healing.

III

135
3.3 The'Gadarene'Demoniac(161)

(mk.5: 1-20/mtt. 8: 28-, 34/Lk. 8: 26-39)

Mofth. 8,28-34

MWL Sol-to
I K41 4%hv ds T6 wdpav ift hUm" off Av X"av T6V ripaornw.

Laig.

S. 16-n

28Kal-046vm civo di A'wow dt lip xp, m rapr,.

N Kai ardwlcum
ds To xip" Tft w rspwra' lodw Amwipa rawaias. m G&T* hd lxwv ok am&

k4"vtaav Gk#
Wo gamovirAlteva Ix Tav pvnpdwvIt. lpx*VO4.

fad PANNVM COTOO ix to www ixiev"npdwv

f1cw" oldmv" *VO M hI&M TR In *

4V4um
'k

iv wvhnnauhfl%

w6lon

xW xp6vv I"

lvddam

Xam" UUN
40" ph
kX64W Tr4*

66oflad"m

'

mwivoldqoklpmdwivTcis i4w wroiwpw dxtv Iv Tofs pv4pom Rd 06M d"m 06ogdn OOUN pv4paciv. 136M6 Gkow64" 4M T6GOT6V WC4. mw wd" w au;gmv aguabo K4d &Wwdaft WOM6 Ph Wom sid Ift ct v. w" cow... i0m, Rd o6kk. ToXu4v 66fav gaodmI ax0i && wawlk "aft

" xcd "

lxpatxw 004 A Uym"* TO hoo; A ipiv

Kd Apipcm IV Toil pv4pam KW iv Toil aptort 0 Igpdrov Kid umx6wnw daur6v 4 Zaiwov T6vlqoof3v &6pax* )J#01S. 0"

tpft,. AM" 4k wo ""Oo Poaavwm

lbpaptv KW w"m alho 'Rd "djas +wvj pgy* U"* Tf fRol 'wed +onj pcydAq ctwcv-if lpol 1nooe ? At "a NOD TOO 6- aW sok 'InooO A 6OcoO olai ToG roG . *lam-, 69WU a T6v My. 114 Uopol ace. p4 its PaocManS. in W! I ugm V&P GOO , tm wap4yyox" yip To wvtdpcm . R"
T6 Wvtopa T6

'own U Tbv InGO&

dxd*am

lromoit Y4 XP6"n M"Ww"a 66TO Sw - luoptocTo didNov iced WOOMOAGG046v" gw&lap-. V.4.5 CE 'mo Ta UOP&kkaLwm OW6 P406wv WPM- NbnwilnCk T61 *galhmowu 66qwviou if 5V"A m; GOT6v, m6ia6T6v 6'lnaoos TImr5"pd 5" ky"iv, Kai IIX! aoTo - kywav avopd pa , BTI lonv ;6 61dwa* lexal da*. W6wp6veaimMAtkaOr6v-." rAd WOU01 idpgv. Tva P4 am aOT6v Wow Wapgx&A vapewam GOT6V TvaP4 twTol 11064 300 &J ammoTak IRM T4,; Xtipa. d=agrv . 32AVU Omit df ThvdOu
la, Wpk T# apa ayom xoipw Pcy* .PGKP&VdW*GLNT&dytknXOIPWV WOXUW 12xal wapendlem POOKopim6G4, ponopiM. 310161 OM lrapgKdAM Adyovms-**ov4pdsdsio(n IKWeiS 4pft d dw& obf6v Airmsa&6v Tva ds abToin &04"cv. Ayd)m xolpous, Apft 16V X01pov. a's TO OTOlov '3Kd twdrpg*cv a6rors ditAhm 32Kai dM aLNTOFS KW ol M Ad. timpt" 7* drAhpTu allOhm T& r4c4ara hvm Gpprtm X01pov% III zcd 1606 GpprlVAV Tok dS Min XOIPOVIj Wd- Kai 4 &yAn KaM ToO icprnivoO ds ds 4 dyiAn iv ou KaTi ToGxMp"G

In Toa

To ducodpv twa Tooi; ii

AgAhFv

&ytlul Xoipwv trawfiv PompdvndvToapa Kcd WUPCKdxtm lRd Tva ilmpi*q a6mis

akbv,

Tkv

ck lRdvoustiockhfv I iwdfpc*w a6mis. 33ilcAhvfa M 6movia &6 lroG dv4inmu dcj)4ov Gome" ds Tobi X0409%.KW 4 dydAn KaT& TOO iqmmo (k Tv

III

136

(Maith. S.tt-341 Macm Tois Bacom Kd wkvov wol U P64novm dv

Tj hAdvals.

(Mork. S.1.101

(Luk.S.26-ni
am

MMMv, Ik &Mae% hVIYOVIO IV )4vnv Re 14KW

01 P66KOVM Kai I+Vrv dwrfvkav ck Tftv w6Aw Kai ck roLn dypods- W 4x&ov luiv A low T6 Ye. YOV65 taxal IPXaVM Spbs Tbv Incroov, Kai tewpoodw *VOV T6v &GIpOV46pc"v likanapivov Itat. Kai dwAyyctkm ayjoiw.

I+Wfov, Ck Kai6WL%hvfft
Iv W"v dwtyyo wdwa KW 76TOW
34KGI 1600 IACfq j W6AK 60100VICOVdVWV. T4 In"o, dS 0

Ital 31166vm M ol 116ox 14vrv Kai T6YCYOV61

cis Tfiv w6lov ilAAhv Kai 4hv Kai 1690V Ka"pcvov oll it &atp6vic u luiv Kai ds ToLn T6 YCYOV61 wp6s TO Incoov, df T6V "wm lpcmapdvov mal ToO

ITAX04V
1&6vM occd

IPAA&" supd

OWINAVOOM676V l(rxqK6MT6vxcyvk4%

m4pavoi)m

Tobs w66as

W 4+OMDIIM.

lexal bqyjoavTo

C16TON al 166YM W61 tydvm 06T6V WOPCKd)AM ft6 uW 6piev a6TtW. pove;opdvv Kd =0 NJUvro Irapasoldv a6f6v

TO 6as. Tov Xoipwv. tlKcd p"OhIq

'jILV05 116 14op4oneav. 6"yyakov Ral U aOoit ol 156vM min doOn 6 6as. abT6v ftav T6 3? Kai Apilnetv

Irm&os *

5susPCMOI

. to ge Weivom Oma 41176 wxoiov (IMSUIPP&S CISTWOV Owdaypc*cv 30 Win U abToG 6 "p dfoil 1104WUPCMQ 0616v 6 608P0vwhw Tve PWCIIAO j. 10 iccd Wo T&liatovea elvat oby a&#* 6139 0K deav ahv, WA Itya cl&re - ew. Lum U 6616Y 14mv. 0" CK ev 011C6V cou WO$ tobs bi wrpg+tds Tbvoix6v gov
Kai dwdyyoxov abmit 6 RfN61 Kai &nyoa am wn Iwoln"y 6 hj wmiqm Kai 414adv ut 10ad dw. Kai men am AP%CTO iv A Acco. AwWtv Kof akiv m WOW mummov mtpo a ininm W641
zmt. ihpa>. ago ll*M GbTo 6 'Incolls.

ft i*V owvoblv..

dwdklv =Pwipoo ,wr, ponw &wwar, thectO*v, Sn+6pj peyd4 OUWXOVTG*

This exorcism

story stories

is

both

the most

'astounding'

of the Synoptic and redak-

and the one with problems.

the most textual

tionsgeschichtlich # provoked

These difficulties

have of

a wide spectrum

of opinions

on the historicity

this

story

as well

as a variety

of interpretations
for the various

oF the
stages

meaning

and intention

of the story

Some see the story as faithfully (162) reflecting while others see it as a historical event (163) a Popular folk tale appended to the Jesus tradition.
And some interpret the story (164) psychologically while

in its

transmission.

III

137
interpret it in the context of first century demonology. (165)

others And it

has been seen as a Christian midrash in:: spired by (166) This variety to us is. 65: 1-5of approaches signals not only that we may not yet but also fully that understand we should the hature proceed with of

the Jesus caution,

tradition,

(167)

3-3-1 Matthew 8: 28-34. It does not appear from the (168) that Matthew wishes to draw structure of this Gospel 069) the to this miracle story, particular attention story simply appears in a section given over primarily to

miracles
chapters together teaching

(8: 1-9: 34)170) This balances out the preaching

5-7 so that "And in their finally

in

' ._

in 9: 35 he draws the two motifs all the cities and villagesl of

Jesus went about synagogues

and preaching disease

the Gospel

the kingdom,

and healing

every

and every

infirmity".

The particular this story are clear Matthean

ends to which

Matthew wished Mark.

to press The most is the

from the way he alters alteration

significant mention probably dealing

of his. tradition

of two demoniacs. combine here with 12: 22 (/Ik.

A number of Matthean about this

characteristics When that

to bring

alteration.

11: 14) we will

(ppuObelow) see

Matthew seeks to heighten ith special messianic

what he considered

to be healings

significance.

Thus to that passage he the stories

adds the mention of blindness, of the healing of the blind

and when treating

46/ (/Mk. 30 10: 20: in 9: 27 and

III

138
there were two blind people involved. to which Matthew
he mentions this theological for

Ik. 18: 39) he adds that And here,

attaches

in what turns
considerable

out to be a pericope
significance, Apart fram

messianic

the involvement motive, Matthew

of two demoniacs. seems not only

to have a prediIction

two are being explicit where the text already implies that (171) 'but he involved, seems to have an inclination
also

(172) towards using numbers*

Matthew Luke also -ment is

describes

the

two who met Jesus

as &"*, vc5gue the But agree.

says that

the man had a Sx(:,, mo vtov

probably

due more to a movement away from the less

precise
than

Semitic

idiom

jv iTvLjuxrt
dependence,

(173) 10 AK-, Bwrw rather 0

as the use of different indicates they the severewere "so fierce the form

to any literary

of the word might plight that

indicate.

Matthew

of the demoniacs no onecould

by saying way",

that

pass that

but he has avoided in Mark that and self

more detailed the breaking

grotesque of chains,

description crying out,

involved

flageMation.

It
himself 5: 6), to mtt. for

seems rather
ofthe in

surprising
of places

that
taking

Matthew

does not

avail
(cf. Mk.

opportunity a number word Mtt, of

UP jrj4orkLPVf-IV expanded Mtt. Mark

he has

so as 22;

include

the

(Mtt.

8: 2/Mk. 1: 40; 2;

9: 18/Mk-5:

14: 33/mk. 6: 51;

15: 25/Mk.?:

Mtt.

20: 20/Mk. 10: 35).

Yet here (8: 29) and in 27: 29 '(/Mk. 15: 19) Matthew deletes Rark's use of it. In " 15: 19 the attitude to Jesus is one

III

139
it is uses TF)Do1r#cL---vEZv classified of true

of mockery and where Matthew tworshipll(174) attack on Jesus so perhaps despite

Matthew

8: 29 as an of

what he believed

to be the truth

the words of the demoniacs.

In this softened phrase

same verse

(v. 28) the cry

of the demoniacs (Mko5: 7). The

is

by the removal has a variety noticeable

joyfi of ('75) of usesq. close

but

in view with

of its the praise

particularly

association

(Lk-17: 15-16; 19: 37-38; Rev-5: 11-12; 7: 9-10) and the God of
voice
mtt-3:

of God and the risen Jesus (Rev, 1: 10; 4: 1; 10: 8; 11: 12; (176)
13-17; 17: 1-8)here. Matthew probably thought it The address ( itv of the demons to Jesus not 44oj ), and the -vQ 'roCr IBLOO 40 is

inappropriate altered

to the plural

words are pared Another obvious

down to isolate omission is

and highlight

Mark's

(5: 7)4OK(Pj a-z -rov G&jv and particularly

When discussing

the Babylonian

materiall

w Acts 19: 13v we said that in the context of an exorcism p 1.

did not take the rather
but rather it meant Thus to

. ..... imploring weakerl mundane sense of,

put ... I ........ a supernatural alters the I ..... .... restriction demon's words on to

(177)

an opponent.

when Matthew

a question,

he is not merely

Isoftening'

the words

(178)

but

...... ..... completely changing

putting a Ispell' on

them to remove the concept

Jesus.

of the demons
L dw-O'cKv 5w

(179)

Yet in retaining

Matthew preserves

the conflict

between Jesus

and the demoniacs.

Matthew's

alteration

of Mk, 5: 7 goes beyond deleting

14o
material proposition. to torment (a) from his tradition to inserting a whole new

Matthew's us before

demoniacs

say - I'llave you come here things stand out here.

the time! " Three the concept

Matthew enters for the early (eg.

PY,Aolt of r',

significance only his cf. did

early

Christological

which was of (18o) Not thinking. and

Church use it

of the coming Christ

kingdom Mtt-11:

Mtt. 6: 10; 16: 28; Ik-3:

16; in. 4: 25; 7: 27,31;

3; Lk. 7: 19f.;

Heb-10: 37; and Mtt. 21: 9; 23: 39; there are also person sayings in

in. 6: 14; 11: 27; which (eg.

16: 28) but

Jesus speaks Mtt-5: (181) though

in. the first 10: 34f-;

of his

coming 12: 46;

17; 9: 13,3.9;

n-10: 10;

18: 37)(b)

Matthew,

using -a

&Cc

draws attention I This

to the

setting Matthew's In this, hailed ing here. (c)

of the story interest the first

pagan country.

may suggest

in the Church's visit

mission

to the Gentiles.. Jesus is both reflect-

to the Gentiles, (v. 34),

as 'Son of God' and rejected early

perhaps its

a dilemmathe (182) As we will

Church was facing

in

mission

see later,

part

of the expectations of the powers of evil.

end time was the destruction With this verse we should

of the (183) judgment

41. 25: compare left,

In the final

the king cursed, his

says to those into

at his

'Mepart

from me, you

angels".

the eternal fire and prepared for the devil (184) So, regardless of whether or not the as a question in 8: 29 that or a the

words of the demons are understood (185) Matthew is saying statement,

111 eschatological Yet from ogical torture of the demons has. already we see that begun.

141

the end of the pericope is not finalized.

the eschatol-

toment

Matthew's removing Jesus

abbreviation

is

severe

to the point the dialogue A22 that

of between remains

the whole

8-10 Mk-5: both of -

and the demon, and Jesus'

technique.

(Mtt. 8: 30-32) is the demons' request

Jesus' simple and authoritative

to enter

the pigs and

the only -

command -. "Gol"

time Matthew actually

The authority of course

mentions Jesus' words to the demons.

are recognized as a matter (187) From is not it to

(186)

and power of Jesus

and for

Matthew need no elaboration. 44AAsiv about t3K, that it

what we will I without

say -

significance

Matthew has introduced

describe

an enemy of God.

what Jesus was doing to the demons - overthrowing - (188)

_

We need to ask here whether or the pigs

the

Matthew

thought

the demons

4-fibbowov
drowned

iv
(189)

ro?S ty6, xs-t v

must rest

The case that

on the plural ZKWIN-vav

demons were

Up in

t6,

this

point -

in v-32b 'the herd',

the pigs but then

are referred, finally strictly

to

the singular

Matthew by the

says they were grammar it is

drowned.

Thus abiding

the demons who drown. (i)

But on the other-hand in v-32b if the -

we must consider it is the pigs were not

the demons are not mentioned of interest; say, (ii)

who. are the centre thought

Pigs

to be drowned but,

swam back

142 (190) . then one wouid expect the story to shore

their safety, (iii) or the response

to mention

of the herdsmen to be less of demons was water (191)

traumatic. and it
in it.

One of the habitats then

in the said

would be surprising
Uv) after Nowhere else

to find
Gospels to

the demons drowning

is the fate of the

demons,

an exorcisml is in

be their way to

destruction. describe the views

(V) P71010Vj, (rX6V fate of the demons

an unexpected view of other

extra-biblical

of the end of evil one habitation

spirits.

to another,

Demons are transferred (192) bound or fettered,

from (193)

simply
to just

flee
'diet.

or are cast out,

(194)

but they are never said

for the destruction

And in Mtt. 25: 41 the imagery a fire not water, (vi) If

of the demons is the destruction been expected

Matthew had had he would have the eschatological

of the demons in mind here to have more carefully linked

aspect of v. 29
as the destruction

(vii) 32. with v.

And if

such a momentous theme

mind then in v-33did

of the demons was in Matthew's him to make it seems to me that more obvious 'in fact And so,

one would have expected In view only of all this it

Matthew

have the death does not

Matthew final

of the p3Zs in mind. .:. this exorcism associate of the demonse

importantly, the

of Jesus with

destruction

Matthew men r'esponded city.

follows

his

source

in telling

us that

the herdsthe

to what had happened by fleeing use of 2clIN11464 (rather

into(195) elsewhere, than

In view of Matthew's in relation to

primarily

'proclaiming'

ITT

143
t-eporting! and perhaps ) good news about Jesus (11: 4; take 12: 18; 28: it that

simply 8,10

2: 8 and 28: 11) we should

Matthew intends

news of what Jesus had done. towns-people out only is heightened It is in

the herdsmen to be 'proclaiming' (196)

The response

the good of the iT4.s

uTT"'(vr*;

when Matthew 'says that interesting the NT, here to note that

went
ovS is

to meet Jesus. used three 'meeting' 'meets'

times

(of in 25: 1 and

the

maidens

the bridegroom) Jesus, entering

(where in Jn. 12: 13 and Jerusalem, with the

the crowd refrain

'Sosanna ... 11). Thus Matthew has the crowd meet not who possesses v. 29). This frightening interpretation of the remainder the towns-people right mention mind and of the powersl is of v. 34. see

a mere miracle-worker but the Son of God (cf.

support. ed by Matthew's In Matthew's tradition

construction (Mk-5: 15f-)

the demoniac are afraid. healed

seatedq However,

clothed, Matthew

and in his deletes all

demoniac(s) Jesus. (a

and has the people

meetj

and behold of meeting

And the consequence for him to leave their

Jesus

is

a request

region.

Finally The missionary

Matthew motif

eliminates in this

Mk-5: 18-20 from his story does not preoccupation interest

story. him,

from what we have seen Matthew's (197)' story is its cliristology.

in this

3.3.2 8: 1f.

Luke 8: 26-39-,. This pericope

in Luke is bound by

.... ....... and 9: 1f. into a coherent block on 'discipleship'.

ITT

144
mentioned their first the call of the Twelve in-Luke. in 6: 12-16,8: The Twelve 1ff.

Having this is

appearance - notably

(and

some other healed

disciples spirits

some women who had been accompany Jesus

of evil

and infirmities)

as he preaches of God. Having (8: 26-55-),

and brings, heard

the good news of the kingdom teach (198) authority (8: 16-21) (8: 4-18), heal ))l (8: 38ff.;

Jesus preach, his

witnessed

(8: 25, (3off.? and mission

and had lessons

on discipleship

cf.

8: 2F), then in 9: 1f.

in these

the disciples
same areas

are given power

all demons, to

and authority cure diseases

- over

and to preach

the kingdom

of God.

In his his source

use of tradition fairly closely.

for

this

story

Luke has followed alterations seem

Most of the minor

by a desire to improve the gramma and style to be motivated (199) One major structural is Luke's alteration of Mark. tra33 posetion of the description where it of the demoniacb Jesus' plight

(8: 29b) to a point response

highlights

compassionate. between Jesus and inevitable

to the demoLac. is

The conkrontation merely

and the demoniac but is couched

no longer

mechanical

in compassion.

However, story little that

there

are some Lukan alterations attention. part

of the with address (v. 28)

merit

specific the first

Luke accepts, of the demoniac's he prefers

alteration, But in

to Jesus. rather

the second part OOHIw

.0f

S.E*5, u(*c

than Mark's

Matthew

omitted

III

145
but Luke also entirely alters the sense of the to 'bind' In Mark, L the demon the

altogether,

demon's words by changing Jesus, Jesust to 81"cit response

them from an attempt 'imploring' simply Jesus. ZXqtv

bskinglor to the demon is

Luke in using to leave

Try-jyl>)f4

has Jesus ,

(200) command

the man, Luke adds that

the demon had driven

man into deserted

(cf.

, 'r -rs Pq,"otrs - voicing the commonopinion that , (201) It is clear places were the homes of demons.
Luke thought Jesus was confronting than and

v. 29a) that with

conversing

the demon rather Luke (v-30) between Jesus' hints

the man. In the of a

adversative'cSr" contradiction and the reply to explain

at the possibility for

request he-goes

the demon's name Mark slightlyl

Xrp4v it

for

on, altering

that

was because

many demons had entered'the is no longer simply into into and

man. The request 'to the which his it remain, in

(V-31) the demons of

(Mk-5: 11) but not to be sent the region' (202) The $abyss' was the bottomless'pit that in the final judgement 11ff.; Satan

was expected would

angels

be thrown 36-39);

(1 Enoch 10: 4ff.,

Jub-5: 6ff.; Again of

1W. 3: 12-17; the adversative the storyl destruction as-in

(cf-5: Ci

(203)). Rev. 17: 8; 20: 1-3 v-32, not

beginning Luke did with it

and the remainder connect the final story,

show.. that of'evil (8: 32)l

anything is

in

this

Thus again,

Matthew that

the herd

of pigs

(&efTZTI'vjjq is made the -

singular) of the fate

drowns in

the lake

- no mention they entered

of the demons, save that Luke maintains

pigs.

(see P. 19,9below).

the same response

146 to the episode as Mark, but when the people went out to
see what had happened his feet Jesus' grateful Jesus for right they saw, not but of only that a clothed man in the at the

(as Mk-5: 15), mind (v. 35). listens returns, healing),

also

he was "at Mary,

of Jesus" feet, leper his

In view to his

10: 39 (where

teaching),

(where 17: 16 and at Jesus' feet thanks

and falling

Luke may intend

the healed disciple.

demoniac (204)

to have taken

up the position

of a grateful

Another is says "In

interesting to describe

Lukan addition the healed

to this

pericope

man. For as Foester

the healings

of Jesus cr always

never

refers

to a single The the

member of the body but choice healing of

to the whole man... the view that

the word leaves

room for

power of Jesus life".

go beyond physical Luke also leave Unlike makes clear

and the saving (205) ask great the its (207)

power of faith

why the people with

('206)

Jesus

to

because Matthew

they were seized (8: 34),

fear

(v. 37)ending' by using

Luke preserves

'missionary impact

to the narrative. 497)EZ(rbwt that work. in -

However he heightens 'to it relate in detail'

and to make clear been at

the miracle

was God

whohad

3-3-3 Mark 5: 1-20. We must now face what is generally

recognized to be a difficult task, of deciding what

147 contribution thought that Mark has made to this this pericope belongs pericope. to a longer It is generally

pre-Markan

ark 43) (4: 5-5: which, with few modifications, used unit (208) in his Gospel. Following this unit of material there. is _ in 6: 1-6 the rejection That Mark of Jesus ot Nazareth. juxtaposed evident of up, this is suggested by the Markan hand 5: 43 and 6: 1ff. (209) Mark probably intends in 6: 1-2a. the theme short'pericope four to reflect back (210) miracle on to, and sum JtxzZlezv

stories: (211) In 1: 21-28, a pericope closely connects the two units. (212) 6: Mark has already showed that closely 1-6 resembles interest in the relationship Thus the first between Jesus' teaching Mark has is to place - rejected

the last

the use of

his

and his

miracles.

contribution, demoniac and healer'

made to the episode under

of the Gadarene the teacher

it

'Jesus the rubric (213) by his people.

(a) exorcism structure

Some of story

the more involved

problems its That

relating difficult is,

to the

itself

have to do with critical problems. story end,

and form

where did

the pre-Markanj

or earlier

and, have two stories to the original

been combined here tradition

both do and -

belong

of the historical-Jesus?

(i)

It

has long

been proposeAthat

in 5: 1-20 two

previously

separate

stories

have. been brought

together.

(214)

148 D. L. Bartlett
this theory.

(215)

has given a thorough treatment of

is the original exorcism and call-

One story

4: features in 35-41; 23-27; 3: 1: 17-19; story with, common with and 9: 14-29. A second story involved the tale of the destruction of the pigs. Such a division on a number of presuppositions. (1) The proof of an exorcism fits
someone like feature which (2) Apollonius

the material *ofl--:

seems to rest

better with the milieu of

than with Jesus. The

or Josephus

of the pigs was later

points

to a story'of

a Jewish story.

exorcist

appended to the Jesus between Jesus Aqt6v is

The exchange

and the demon, and particularly more likely to be of Roman

the use of the term or Hellenistic (3) Formal origin criteria,

than Jewish. based on the other Gospel exorcisms, to the

suggests criteria

there (216)

are two stories, and a second which

one conforming does not.

(4) Different best eiplained

subject

matter

and centre

of interest

are

by such a division

of the material.

(5) The start and end of the story are difficult to sort I.. out as 5: 1-20 stands, -but such a division as proposed above
reduces the difficulties.

Finally,
iculties the result among other

it

is supposed that
etc.

the apparent textual

are to be attributed - rather of writing. than

diffto say,

and inconsistencibs of the things, joining

of two stories style

a particular

We should

now examine

these

presuppositions*

(1)

As we

III

149
completed our examination for of Jesus as an exorcist whether or of

have not it not is

not possible

us to say at this fits

stage

the episode

of the pigs

the general. This this

character we

the exorcism can investigate in the story

stories

of Jesus. that

notwithstanding mention

the notion is proof

of the pigs

of the success

of the exorcism.

As parallels
Philostratus. Peter severe in Life

to this

phenomenon Josephus Ant. 8: 48;

Philops. (217) 16; and Acts of expressed Acts

IV: 20; Lucian

11: 4: 11 have been cited. reservations about

We have already

the use of the Apocryphal of-Jesus as they

illuminating

the NT stories

seem often has that

to be dependent been mentioned

upon the NT. But as the Acts in connection with, 'proofs'

o Peter

we can note

in 11: 4: 11 Peter-ordered himself to all who stood

the demon'to by.

(ostendo( show

218))

The demon responded

by leaving

the young man and breaking

up a statue.

Yet on the other that contrast

hand when we examine Mk-5 we find with the above parallels. enter Firstly

some points

in Mk-5: 13 the demons X(S cited. proof rather Secondly of his to leave to being parallel success. the

actually than act

into_ the pigs

(stT-jAboy

upon them as in (Jesus)

the paralle3sjust for

the exorcist Thirdly

makes no request

the demons themselves

make the request

man and transfer out story

to the pigs - in, preference (219). 1 know of no single of the region. that-would cover all of these points.

sent exorcism

111

150
On the other hand the first mentioned aspect of the pigs displacement incident from above)

that

we have just

the demons' parallels.

the man to the pigs that from in

has other material

We saw (p. 14

in the Babylonian the sufferer

demons transferred exorcists (220) On these. -parealels to some object. texts Thompson says. is that water the demons in. the vessel will be poured

the Babylonian Ifthe which with intention

of the magician

have been transferred which

to-the

he has been working when the pot is 221) worth

the spell,

dissipated fo, Zrth In this

broken

and the water

on the ground". -( it is

connection Hibbert it

also

quoting

from Count

D'Alviella's

lectures is

of 1892. to make the spirit being, which can

"Sometimes thus

deemed essential

expelled

pass into

the body of a living or some object

a pebble, be thrown What these is that it

a scrap

of wood,

away, ... 11(2,22) 0 and history of religion to view parallels show of than is, a

co=ents is

more appropriate of the cure

the destruction rather That

the pigs deliberate

as part 'proof'

of the demoniac success.

of the exorcist's

the demons pass from the man to the pigs from the pigs to their watery "the home).

(and then possibly as even by the fact

Indeed, .

Dibelius that

admitsl(223) find

miracle

is proved

the people clothed

the former right this

invalid mind"'. episode

now 'sitting It remains to be as

properly

and in his or not

shown later

whether

can be regarded

III

151
to the original tradition of the historical-Jesus.

belonging

(2) hypothesis

A second presupposition is based is that

upon which

the two story

the exchange

between Jesus and is

0

the demon, and particularly thought zqore likely The first to be part

the use of the term Roman or Hellenistic of this than to note presupposition That in

origin

than Jewish. dispensed firstly, it

can be is,

with is

more quickly sufficient

the second. that

when we were examining in Mk. 1: 21-28 were adduced to out of place a Latin loan

the exchange between a sufficient make it

Jesus and the demoniac parallels

number of appropriate that

apparent milieu. but

such exchanges Secondly,

were not indeed

in a Jewish (Legio) word first

Aq, &'-? v is

it

is

found. in Greek writings Diodorus Siculus

from the

Century

BC-(cf.

XXXVI: 5) and there (eg. P. Oxy.

are many examples

of its

use in Greek papyri

1666: 5f. that'the

(224)

Thus there

is good evidence for

thinking

at home outside a strictly (226) Roman milieu - even in Palestine. So we conclude that _ the second presupposition is unsupported, The verbal exchange
Ax-(c6v the wor4 and are not foreign to a Palestinian milieu.

word Aqt&" was quite

fit

is that 5: 1-20 does not presupposition (227) the form *of an exorcism of the and that a division
would bring Gospel one story into line with the form of to

(3) Another

material other

exorcisms. stories

But the use of Fordgeschichte do, and do not, belong to a

determine

which

III

152
tradition
if any,

... particular
Few stories, up against r arbitxily alone is

is a highly
show a pure will stories always

questionable
Iformll reveal

methodology.
one story and

(228)

to set

the others to assign to use "the

differences,

to a Sitz ( 229) wrong tool".

im Leben on 'form'

It
and subject incident

is supposed that
matter is being But is

a different

centre

of interest
of the a story

added by the addition it to be assumed that And, instead reflect

of the pigs.

must have only conflict, heighten wordsq could interest the fate

one focal not in

point?

of introducing upon, and

the pigs

incident

the manifestly resulted

cured man? In otherin a crowd coming to seated,

of the pigs

see what had happened and they and in his right mind.

see a man clothed,

Such a division difficulties in sorting in to Mark,

of the story out the start

is

presumed to reduce

and end of the pericope. of the pericope and the difficulties story. have

But the difficulties been attributed

the beginning by Bartlett,

of where the story

ends remain: - in the first

Finally
and inconsistencies

it

was supposed that

can be solved of the story

the textual

difficulties

by dividing

the story. explain explain the the the

However the division difficulty variation,

does not help

of the position in vocabulary,

8, of v. nor does it nor does it help

in solving

153
problem stories of giving story, depart of the end of the narrative. creates sufficient at least one major In fact difficulty creating that in the first Jesus stories to. of two

explanation

as to why, demand for

the crowd makes the radical from their region. From other fear

exorcism

Jesus we might

expect

either

or wonder but not a

request

to leave the area*

(230)

The result hypothesis in explaining the difficulties see if there

of this

investigation

into doubt

the two story on its usefulness or

has cast either

some considerable the origin

of parts stands. which

of the story We will could help

in the story are other of

as it

have to explain

explanations

the problems

the story.

(ii) time

Another

major

problem

that

has been tackled Lightfoot

from

to time

is jh'din'of*the*story.

says

that

the story
"evidence

could satisfactorily
is given in this

end at 5: 15 for
versel first

of the reality and in his right

and completeness mind'), ('they Nevertheless and,

of the cure

(clothed

secondly,

of the effect ( 231)

upon the witnesses

were afraid')". the obvious

point

to make is

that

while

v-15

could end the story

support Lightfoot, for fear

it
that

does not,

and it

must be shown, to
But naturally

w. 16-20 are an addition. to leave their (232) _ region And that

the request from their

Jesus

follows

of him (v-15).

vv. 16 and17

III

154
is unlikely for there is little evidence

are a Markan insertion

of Mark's hand.

Finally, story? in his

are, vv. 18-20 these

an addition

to the original supplementary is proclaimed and against Wrede

Wrede takes

verses

as being

the same category will.

as 7: 36 where Jesus that it is

For the view

a Markan supplement but they

adduces to other Firstly

a number of pieces interpretations. the contrast

of evidence, Burkill

are open (233) has enumerated them. home and tell what

between v. 19 ("go ("he 20 and v.

the Lord has done") is (cf. not-a formal

proclaimed with. oltkoS 30). kwt' is

in Decapolis") and not not always 8 Ku? (O'S in the

1: 45a;

one as v. 20 begins (234) Secondly 7: 36b). and retreat against

a place need

of secrecy not stand

(cf-3:

Thirdly

over

at any stage

story's

history.
Jesus'

Fourthly

proclaiming

Messiahship is

the man is not thought (235)

but simply in concluding

to be
"what that Jesus

had done". So Burkill

justified

Mark

did not compose these verses in line (236) ....... ;geheimnis. Further evidence between _ vv. 18f. -and the rest

with
that

any M*es'siasthe connection is pre-Markan

of the story

is the reference
from

to the boat in v. 18 which probably

redactor which to 'the who is responsible is

comes
for the

the same pre-Markan

4: 35-5: 43 complex(237) in part by references

as we have noted boat'.

bound up

Though it

seems correct

to conclude

that

the connection

III

155
it (238) is still possible

between vv. 18f. and 1-17 was pre-Markan, that Mark has contributed
to make it It is is conform to his that

to the ending
objectives for

in such a way
(1) (5: 18)

the pericope. t"vet,, aVr'*f4TO& occurrence

noticeable the
a similar

the man's

request other

virtually
in

same as the only

form

of the
in3: 14

phrase

as the purpose for which Jesus appointed

(2) While there is no contrast there

the Twelve.

(239)
the

between vv. 19 and 20 in is an obvious difference is 'family'

way that between or

Wrede intended,

them. The usual widest sense of almas (240) Thus the healed man's ! parish' Iclan'. not conflicting extension with *Txos activities is certainly is

(Decapolis)l more extensive. Mark's

while This

of the mants,

probably

responsibility
79, K-m with

for his hand is evident

an infinitive, (242)

in the use of a'arpye, t

(241)
S243)

and particularly

(3) The combination further highlights

of IN, % the links Thus while

verses

"cirs(v and k7) between vv. 18-20 and the call the connection

here

of the. disciples.
and the preceeding Mark's interest reworking in using

between vv. 18ff.

tradition

was probably especially

made in his

of vv. 18ff., this pericope

v. 20, shows Mark's his theme of

to serve

discipleship.

(b) noting

We should

now examine significant

te*ihoie'oi'ihe*perilcope Marka contributions, particular parts, i-4esus. the or

any further in the

difficulties the story

text

and. how far

as a whole,

relates

to the historic.

III

156
(i) In vv. 2 and 6 Jesus twice meets the demoniac.
gives two possible is explanations for this. that His the trad-

Schweizer first ition

solution

based on the possiblility so as to lose

has been altered second,

e8joocuzv f rom v. 2. explanation, as being is a rather of

Schweizer's ihat

attractively

simple for

6 v. can reasonably

be accounted

unskil-ful

the digression resumption of the story after (244) And we note that Luke (8: 29) has attempted vv. 3-5. to tidy up this point of the story.

(ii)

For the variation (v. 2) and Av-1 ,,,

in vocabulary (vv-3

in vv. 2-5 between no (245) be a Markan word. between

and 5) 1 can suggest could

clear

explanation,

though/Avivcv

But in any case nothing (246) the words. Even if that he introduced to suggest it

can be made of the distinction is into vv. 3-5, either a Markan word - in there seems to be no

evidence

that

Mark has added, section.

composed

or significantly

contributed

to this

(iii)
Jesus. term,

V. 6 says that

the demoniac ran from afar

said this

and7r/omx

V'-"

rx

In view even if

of what we have previously Mark is not responsible it is for

on this interpretation to have arisen in the earliest of what we of the

of the demoniac's in the early

activity,

more likely of v-7 than

Church

in the light (247)

strata

of the-tradition.

But on the basis on the part this

have said about (248) demon that

the consternation probably lies

behind

interpretation

III

157
is likely that 6 v. represents an aspect of the original

it

story.

What of the phrase

wv,. ALrk? about this is, as

We can probably

draw the same conclusion we did &v Yxi oifA4 v. at about in

That

as it

is

not used

consistently of religion

the exorcism storiesl and as it. has history (249) is the phrase probably an echo parallelss

of an historical

event.

(iv) four

(1) TELCAVI that

<C(( (rat

This

is. the first to Jesus.

of

phrases

constitute

the demon's words that

In discussing the demon there designed structure also

Mk. 1: 24 it

was established

the words of mechanism

are to be understood the threatening of this verse verse

as a-defensive exorcist. indicates

to disarm

The content, that we should this first

and wording this

understand is not

in the same way. That

phrase

dependent

in number from could 18(251) be dependent

on 1: 24 is suggested by the change (250) The form here in 5: 7 TV to uo, (01a on the apotropaic of it formula (252) suggests. in 1 Kings 17:

Philo's'use as -

(2) We have also previously

be taken as part of the demon's by -'Iq q-o t^r

the that name should argued (253)

address. make mention is

We do not need of the

to be detained important this

but we should

phrase

b-Ai. '-I*v* There vAQ, e*oL')'I-' . -, is of particular evidence time interest

appellation is is little

no doubt that (254) to Mark. this verse

Yet there and this

of Mark's

hand in occurs in

the only

the phrase

the vocative.

III

158
Mark has not added the reference is possible that to Jesus as the Mark

Even if

'Son of GodIq it felt leave it appropriate the matter

the Church before the title chapter. here.

to introduce until the next

We will

The last Most'High'(God)". 'his is title in

part

of the titular Although context

address

to Jesus

is

"'The to

I can find of a'demon's

no exact defencel

parallels the title and the

in the

found

the magical-incantation is not out of place light here.

literature

appellation

PGM IV: 1067f-'calls god. " In PGM

a god "good and holy V:.46 an incantation's high god. "(255) In

of the most high is title part "the is

authority the NT this as being exorcists:

13ameof the most attested in two

different against Paul along

traditions Christian

of a demonts defence 16: 17 - of Thisq

Mk-5: 7 and Acts

as a "Servant with the fact

of the Most High God"* that

the margin that

of NT tradition,

is on tr-ror , as a divine r3ame , (256) to the improbability points it into

Mark or the early defence. confident report

Church needed to introduce So again that this event. it seems that 'title'

the demon's reasonably the first

we can be in

was included

of this

1. ' in is the third IOV rOV elemert crz (257) the demon's words of defence. We have seen the approp(3) riateness
it would

'w

6r4i'S'w of

in this

context

(p. 33 above). That

in the

not need to have been added at any stage

111
history later softens of the transmission reactions it as if to it. they bind entirely of this story is it clear from

159

Matthew object Jesus.

(8: 29) omits

(8: Luke 28) and

to the thought

of an attempt

to supernaturally t,.. by God' is in "I

The form of the adjuration with the form found reads -

in keeping

the PGM. Two examples adjure

from PGM IV - line-3019 the Hebrews

you by the God of

11, lines and ...

3045f.

reads

I adjure

you by God the light understands

bringer.

11(258). 00 .

Thus Mark (in 5: 7) probably

using God as his source

the demon to be
to fetter Jesus.

of power-authority

In dealing
the significance ing/1 that

8: Mtt. 29 and Lk. 8: 28 we mentioned with

the early Church That is, saw in the demon say-

(Mk-5: 7). C184WO-WVL". S significance in for

the term had clear Church. part So have of the

eschatological

the early

we any confidence defence? demons, abyss), demon is not his I think (they this said fate.

the historicity what is

of this said

in viewof

to happen to the or sent That but into isq that the the is up this

are not phrase is

finaliidestroyed probably the final Church is original. torment unlikely

to expect The early

to set

situation.

(v) and Burkill stood

The position mentions V-7 but not

8 Of Y. has long three the possible position

been a problem (1)

(259)

s-olutions: was later

8 v.

before

changed because

the demon did

immediately

obey the command. But then

III

16o
simply om'itted? (2) V. 8 was not by an editor. stories

why was the command not part of the original

story

but was added later

However, it

from what we have seen of other if such a comand in its original

exorcism would

would be surprising

need to Jesus must really

have been added. is so powerful its victim. and it Burkill

(3) V. 8 is

position. that it not

that

the demon at once senses That is, an explicit

leave

command is thought

necessary clau e.

now comes as an after prefers this alternative

in a subordinate as

as the story of subordinate like an explicit solutions

a whole details.

in the na ration shows delight (260) But v. 8 certainly reads seems that is its another present intends

command. So it adequate. There

none of these possibility, position.

three

is permits

and one which In AqLv

8 to remain v. the narrator relate

in

p*it? -(&T45

clearly

the following I said.

command to So. perhaps out as in defence. So the

to what the demon has just on meeting Jesus

Mk. 1: 24f., Then,

the demon cries with

in his

perhaps

simultaneously attempts this fast

the command of Jesus, Jesus' attack.

the demon further inrder ra rator advantage to convey 6dopted of this

to ward off

or overlapping that is

dialogue

the solution explanation

8. in The have v. we that it makes sense of held to

v. 9. The possession be equivalent

of someone's

name was widely hip. we shall If this

to having

power over

is how

we are to understand then v. 9 is be successful. redundant If

v. 9 and this if

show in a moment, to

the command of v. 8 was thought hand the adjuration

on the other

of the

-6

111

161
come out'

demon 'by God' and the command to the demon 'to overlap in some way (and cancel each other

) out? so that

Jesus is not at first

becomes significant

successful
and important.

in his exorcism,
That

v. 9

Jesus was not always

thought

to be initially
cure

successful
of the blind interpretation proceed

by the two-part If let we are right dogmatic is

man in Mk.

in his healings; is shown (261) 8:

22-26. then Burkill exegesis has

in this

presuppositions that

in saying

"Jesus it

so powerful its

must now leave

the demon at once senses that (262) victim"*

But are we justified further

Probably

in taking

v. 9 as being Jesus'

attempt
'yes'

to gain ascendancy over the demon?

for as historians of religion are well aware

the possession of someone's name meant power over that ( 263) And further, person. of the historicity of this notion in the context of a supernatural conflict of-any we can be confident. dogmatic this have they reasons

On the one hand we have no knowledge why the early into

Church would want to introduce and on the other request control. for hand'we

element examples sought

the tradition

of exorcists' to exercise as well

names over which

as PGM XIII:

For example we have cited PGM IV: 3039ff264) 242ff. We have already noted, other exorcisis often seem to

when discussing

Mk. 1: 251 that difficulty

have had considerable speak or obtain such difficulty their

in getting

demons to

names. Jesus

seems to have had no for the-demon

according

to thisstoryj

162 immediately
attributed interpretation is correct then

supplies

his name. But has this

be certain,

success been
but if our 8 of v. seek

to Jesus? We cannot of the position the early

and significance did not always

Church successful.

to make Jesus instantly in the history

And some exorcists success it in gaining

had similar of religions (265) the name of demons. So on balance likely reflects that the demon's reported situation.

seems, quite reply accurately

immediate

an historical

(vi) v. qb Winter definitely AIE61-&V of Legio

In what way should

we understand for

the reply (1)

in

"My name is Legion; says that in this

we are many"?

Paul

passage "an anti-Roman (266) discernible comes to the fore"i Winter says that during the great in Galilee

attitude in the use revolt near the the

Decima Fretersis

was stationed

place where this

emblem of this Vespasian

story
legion

has its

locale,

(267)

and that
not only with

the
did him were to

was a boar.

Howeverl

have the fifth,

and fifteenth but

Legions

(BJ he took Gamala IV: 13). when not restricted see the narrative the number of pigs to any one area. as making

the Roman legions also attempts

Jeremias

a specific

connection

between

and the number of soldiers

in a Roman

legion.
but in of

However the body of soldiers

which had a strength of precision no special

he cites
men.

a telos

of 2,048 ( u'js

is not a legion (268)

And in-the use

any case the lack indicates

- about)

significance

was attached

163
to the particular then to return number of pigs to the notion that in the herd. no specific It link is best was

intended

between

the number of pigs

and a Roman legion.

(2) in

Mk-5: 9 includes

the phrase

"because

we are many" hand adds if

the direct

speech of the demon. Luke on the other reply to one word "Legion" him% reply We should

limits "for

the demon's

and then ask then

many demons had entered

the second part part

of the demon's History

in Mark was originally parallels the PGMj that how it it

of the tradition.

of religions with

show, as we pointed was important related nature, not not

out when dealing only

to know the, name'. and also of the demon, but also

to the nature

the actual which we have his

of the demon. A good example cited is PGM IV: 1017ff.

of this,

so far

where a god reveals

name and nature. tlMy mame.is heaven, The phrase disclosing tradition Luke's Bairchoooch. I am he that sprang from

my name is "for its

Balsames". this form of a demon that the

we are many" fits nature.

However we cannot

be sure

has not been shaped to fit alteration suggests that

the form

though did not

the early

Church

make such attempts.

A potential

difficulty

here in

is

the constant reply

change to

of numbers of demons, exemplified

the demon's

Jesus - "My name is Legion for we are many" (cf-5: 7f-)-

111

164
obvious that the demon in

The change of numbers makes it (2-69)

mind here is Multiform.

(vii). This

In verseslO in

and 12 the demon pleads was probably not

for

leniency. by

element

the story forl

introduced

the early outside

as we have seeng other exorcism stories (270) ' And in view of this feature. the NT contained Church

the non-theological

nature

of the plea (contrast in adding

Mtt. 8: 29;

Lk. 8: 31) we can see no motivation It was held that

they Itorment'

the element. with areas,

and the But in 'out story, exorcism

demons were specially

did not want to move. which

from which Luke the

associated (271)

In Matthew is

the demons seek to avoid

eschatological Mark that which

punishment

(Mtt. 8: 29; Lk. 8: 26 and 29). is that simply being sent in this this

the demons fear It seems then,

of the region'. that neither

at least associated

Mark nor his the final

tradition

of Jesus with part

punishment

of the demons* The second that they should be

of the demon's to enter into

request

(v. 12) is that

allowed side this

some pigs

were grazing said, whether

on the or not tradition of

of the hill. element of

As we have already the story until is foreign

to the Jesus

we cannot Jesus stage

decide

we have finished All that

our examination to say at this

as an exorcist. is that

we are able tradition

the pre-Markan

contained

the pigs as one of of the pigs (272) a new home.

episode.

And, in so far havens

as water

was understood

the appropriate is the description

of demons, the destruction into

of the demons plunging

III

165
(viii) It remains for us to say something on the

response to the healing

of place,

(vv. 14-16).

(1) v. 16 seems out

14 fitting v. and made redundant well with not (273) that it might be a later by V-15It is possible addition (274) ' though there is no indication that Mark to the story is responsible for it. (2) Though we have so far episode from this in story seen no it is

reason

to divorce that

the pigs the focus

noticeable on Jesus, in his response associated

of attention

these

versesis and the

and particularly 275) (3) mind right of fear with to Jesus' (276) 4: 41e,

the man sittingg

clothed,

In the Markan framework miracle is probably

to be

Our survey Bultmann's "clearly

of this

Markan pericope on this story, in intact

leads that

us to support he says original

conclusion this story We could is

essentially support

in its

jolm-,. (277) that the

also

Schweizerts

suggestion, in (278) of skill an early most to the

inconsistencies are probably

and apparent

redundancies lack around story

the text rather ptory. probably original judgement

due to the na rator's of material

than

the accumulation shown that tradition story though

We have also reflects Jesus

much of this rightly

that

belongs

we have reserved between the pigs

final incident our

on the relationship until

and the historical-Jesus examination of the data

we have completed

on Jesus-the-Exorcist.

III

166
3.4 The Syrophoenician (279) Woman's'Daugh-cer_ L. -

(mk.7: 24-30/mtt-15: 21-28)

Matth. 15,tl. t$

Mark. 1, t4-30

bcdatv 6 'Iqook bqi24'ExciftvA dvaaft pnetv cis 1A pipq T6pou xal L68yov. gis T& 5pia. Tdpou
21, 46uv* Achive AW, n ital yvev" KcdOON dKodocoa Xavaval [Sob lxdl0k dw6 6p(wv YOV4IMPI a6TOO9, - -'. yuvh Tav Ftv ljdtoba lxpa Xiyouca - ! LIA. vwv 1 tlxev Tb hydTplov ab* Aau16Wpm A hydqp a6vpe, ul6s, pou 6alpOVIffal. 236 U aKdaam dwcxpMq wvtopa obic ItaxeD *s a6ij X4yov. xal 7rpoacAt6vTcs ol pgh.
TOICIOTOO4p6TOUVC[OT6VMYOVTtS'dw6TUOOV CIOTjV, BTI Kpd; tl 57nOttV APCIV. 246 aj ftaKplat, IIWCV. ()OlgftloTdArIV OFdwoXwA6T(l WPOUCKOM

21 Kai ljtMv

Kai clockXvcis oWav Who Valtv

11P (IS T& Wp6pC[Ta T& KOU'Igpa4 afto 264 U WON

Aboaa wpouixtow

4 6kYuvh wp6s Toin w68as aftoo-281 *EXkqvi& lupofowlitivou yl - Kai TO x1youn. x6pic, PoAhlPOL 4piku kip&liov lxpdXqIx Tva COT& T6 286.81 dmoitpikis 3. 27 D"arp6S IlrM -aOTj* ctwtv- T4S GO* Kal
o6r.
tcrnv xaX6v Aciptiv T6v apTovTd)v
dolS WPCOTOV X0PTaG&AVUI T& TdXVC. 00

donv AapcTv ydp KaA6v T6v 214 &j iroISKuvcpIoiS. iriKvwv xa)Tols PaAcIv "A U PaAciv. irixvwv xal Kuvoploisdwtv. * Itople. COTO Ity9l dmcxpitn vak x6ple. Kai
xal y&pir&xuvdpia
KGI T& LVVdPIG" OW0KdTWTJS TpaWdC" ftb Tov *IXIWV Tiw WaIllov.

dpTov T&v

Wici dir6 T(Bv *ixiwv Tav 7n7ff6vivy folioumv dmbT4s TpawdqsTdbvKvpIwv cOnW. 29KCl 28-r6'rc brOKPINIs 6'lnaoos tfwcvaOTi-

dwtva4TI.
16yov Owwo Ral4luT6v .

& yoval,
Tw Vol

4 Ply* crou Wfan; Y"04&S NACIS.

ton
akj

&A TOGTov

kv Ix * &uyaTp6s vouT6 6aip6viov . 30xaldmdtoku, cis lrbv ofxov uOTjs

coptv xkfMv

hydTnp

dm6T4t Apat iKdvnr,

Tb wal6loypcpqpdvov dwlIv Kai T6 6cup6viov llckqXu&ft

III

167
Again our particular by an attempt interest to discover in this pericope about is the was

motivated

something

historical-Jesus-the-Exorcist made to him both S. ynoptic tradition. by his (280)

and to see what response immediate audience and by the

3.4.1 Matthew 15: 21-28. In the section 14: 1-16: 12 Matthew

is closely following Mark. This particular stories story is one of the

three

(15: 21-39/Mk. 7: 24-8: 10) miracle

following

section
yet

(15: 1-20) on the question

makes it teaching clear that

of clean and unclean.

the interest of this

And

the context is

section (see

in the

of Jesus That

conveyed

by the stories have had at the context It and

15: 10-20,24-28). some interest Mission

15: 21-28 would and Mark, from in

least

to Matthew,

of the Gentile is in turn

seems obvious that

the story. of cleanness for in Paul's first

interesting Mis6ion is

the question associated, laws

the Gentile letters it

are here

the question

of-food

that

highlights

the tension

between Jews- and the Gentiles.

(281) -

(a) The most pressing

begin our investigation source for

question

with which we should

story is - what

of the Matthean this story? (i)

is, Matthew's Judaistic

Because of the suggested that

addition

of vv. 22b-24

Streeter

Matthew has conflated

Dibelius reply assumed,

Mark and a parallel

only

version

in M.

(282)

because

the words of Jesus and the word for word, that there

of the woman approximate

III

168
behind Matthew and Mark which contained

was a common source

only these speeches - the healing

Against Matthew these suggestions

(283) being obvious and assumedo -,

objections. Firstly

Held has brought

abbreviates

the novelistic

peculiarities

of Mark,

especially Secondly,

at the beginning

(cf. Mk-7: 24b. 25a, 30). and end

Matthew also insert3sayings in other places in (284) But we must explain the origin conversation scenes* of vv. 23 and 24, (where Matthew's story differs most from (1) These tw ice)q (285)

Mark).

Two things

are noticeable

about the verses.

two verses abound in Matthean vocabulary -41wiTax, ?, 4(286) (287) 0Y5; A4 1j. 4_1 Ci 'rYO ,f,
"'POIROrMY it with other
10

(288)
link he cf.

(289) (? ). (2) Themes in this

Matthean interest themes and pericopes (the faith

pericope in which

shows particular

of the Gentiles,

8: 5-13; mission
David, of his hand,

the kindness which motivated to Israell

cf. 12: 23). interests inserted

Jesus, cf. 8: 5-13;

Jesus'

cf-10: 5ff-;

and exorcism and the Son of

is that in the light own

What we can propose in these

themes Matthew has,

in his

these

two verses.

(ii) Mtt-15: it.

Although

there

is

substantial

agreement

between

21 and Mk-7: 24 it it is

seems that

Matthew has rewritten to repeat particularly

'f '3vI#a4*Grv kat-9 'v\G &

Firstly

characteristic within

of Matthew a short
a peric6pe

phrase
at the

or construction
beginning

space,
- cf.

and end of

(v. 21) and j"' Sidon, not in Mark, (291)

(v. 29). has been added

(290)

Secondly, because

probably

169 it was, both in-and (292) as a formula. out of the NT combined with Tyre, almost

(iii) In particular designated Canaanite to seeing Kilpatrick from its

V. 22

is

also is

substantially

different

from Mk-7: 25f..

there -a

a difference

in the way the woman is in Mark (7: 26) and a it need not be an obstacle his after source. G*D.

Greek Syrophoenician (15: 22)l but

in Matthew Matthew

as reliant in

on Mark for the period

has shown that

the OT9 apart of

other uses, Canaan is employed as an equivalent (293) Phoenicia. But even if 'Canaan' was current as the

Semitic

equivalent

of 'Phoenicia

(294)

make the change? Again story in Mark is This hardly in

we can follow flattering

Kilpatrick. to this

why did Matthew (295)

woman or

The

her people. Matthean remained diverts

turn (296)

may have offended

the Greek speaking

community. unaffected the reference people reason for

As the villages and countryside(297) by Hellenism Matthew's alteration to the story from the Hellenists practical or to

the Semitic diplomatic motivation who occupied heathen alteration par

of the area. there

To this

is probably for

to be added a theblogical in the OT the Canaanites, were the particular alteration. indicates $60" tr ( t of that (299)

the alteration, the land before (298)

the Israelites, Apart from this

excellenc'e* in v. 22 being the rest

an understandable of the verse active, also note

Mark by Matthewl.

Matthew has been particularly

ir8

(300)

(kz, (vOS

(301)?

) C5,

at(

(302)

170 303) ZScfvtE (;,LOS

Uv)

Held

is

correct in this

when he says that story are not into

the harder for

and literary

more Jewish
r-

traits that

evidence

pric#ty Christian suggests

but

we are tran

planted

the JewishHeld when he

worlde that

But we cannot does not

agreemith take

Matthew first

up Mk-7: 27a - "Let this verse is a

the children

be fed"

because -

later
is is

insertion

into
that

the Markan narrative.

would suggest (2) that this

(304)

(1) There

no evidence a later

sentence 15: 24 - "I was

addition

to Mark.

In view

of

to the lost sheep of the house of Israel'? - it o -only to use Mark's sentence on would have been contradictory sent

feeding

the children
simply

first.
left it

superfluous,

Thus Matthew finding (305)

Out.

Mk-7: 27b

(v)

The last

verse

in Matthew's

pericope

(v. 28) is

also substantially
vocabulary and thematic ( TOTE

different (306L,
12S

from Mk-7: 29f-. (307) Y r Iro,

the faith

However the qvr,.

(308))

interests

- notably

(309) of the womang

and the girl

verse this

being healed

'in

that hour'(310)
hand. that

the mark -

out as being point

from Mattfiew's the theory

So we conclude for this story

by accepting source pieces is

Matthew's isolated

the Markan storv (311) of material.

to which

he has added

(b)

We want to draw attention

to'a

number of features

III

171
.......... the ................. way that Matthew

of

has handled

............. Markes

pericope.

(i) to

Schweizer actually said to

thinks enter

that

Matthew

may have wanted

Jesus not

the region from' for,

'come out correct,

and Sidon as the woman is (312) Schweizer is the region. of Tyre the rt'STO( u V77 ,, in v. 21 saying says to Jesus

probably is that Jesus passing intention

although

ambiguous, Jesus "went

in v. 29 (/Mk-7:

31) Matthew

avoids

(Etc ) came out of the regionj on from there", is -and Mark's excised. to enter That

he simply reference it is

through for

Sidon

Matthew's is in line

Jesus not

the region

with v. 24 of Israel. "

"I was sent only to the lost

sheep of the house

(ii)

The cry

of the woman is

'X ' Ci 11 avy

AAL ...

Of the

8 occurrences of ! ALztv'
17: 15; 18: 33 (bis); 17: 15; 20: 30,31)
from Jesus. suggesting

in Matthew (5: 7; 9: 27; 15: 22;

(9: them 27; 15: 22; of

20: 30,v. 31) five are the cries

of those who seek healing

word Matthew ministry, is regardless

Thus in the use of this what motivated not Jesus'

healing

of whether-or emphasizes

the sufferer

was a Jew. This out "Lord

Matthew me" in v. 25.

in having

the woman cry

help

(iii)

The appellation-accorded

Jesus

is

0 Kr/occ

v'i'oS

In Das complete

re Israel dominance

W. Trilling of Matthew's it

accorded Christology. is

A )cvaivS (313)

the However in the

J. D. Kingsbury "the

has shown that

to be seen rather titlel

manner of an auxilary

christological

172 purpose of which is to attribute

Jesus in his capacity or then as the

divine

authority

to

'Christ', (314Y

'Son of Davidt,

'Son of God', Our attention is here is

'Son of Man"'. directed

to asking

in what way xows being is

informing

in the vocative meant to refer Lentative where

In view of 'Lord' 'Son of David'. (315) it may be that the title case beyond itself to 'Son of-David'. is supported

This by 9: 27fis

suggestion 'Son of David'

of Kingsbury's is the title

to which

Matthew

drawing attention.

(316)

What then of the title

'Son of

Evangelist. Matthew 17 (310

David?? Matthew uses the phrase more often (317)

Aside from the Birth first shows Jesus

than any other

where (cf. 1: 19 9: 27-34; is

Narrative

to be the Son of David is used in 21: 1. -17;

and 20) the phrase 15: 21-28; that in

the passages 22: 41-46. it

12: 22-24; noticeable is

20: 29-34; all but

the last mention

two passages this with for connection Matthew's

the context again overall

one of healing.

We will

(pp. 33GFbelow) response should

when we are dealing but

to Jesus-the-Exorcist, simply note that Matthewts

the moment we is the 'Son of

Messiah

David'

whose role

is primarily

one of healing.

(319)

Uv) insertion Israel. Matthew

We have already

mentioned

one achievement Jesus' mission

of the to

of vv. 23-24: - emphasising By sharpening brings or hardening

the words of Jesus of the Gentile

the faith relief.

and persistence

woman into

sharper

III

173
(v) V. 25. We have said ((ii) above) that the woman's

h4rtJesusI cry for help emp0s; -imotivated activity,, ses. -. -(-, -w by mercy. In using TTRor; Matthew reflects, both -vi <L. (320) on the divine character of Jesus, and the Gentile
woman's humble faith.

(vi) to first reply mission order with

V. 26. In Matthew's feeding the children,

omission

of Mark's

reference Jesus' exclusive in the

and in prefacing

the adversative is and further

phrase accented.

Jesus' The reversal

to Israel #*crlv of

ku-v*Atcq

so that

the reference may be

to the dogs is

pushed to the end of the sentence

in line

with Matthew's

earlier

attempt

(v. 22) to reduce the

harsh perspective

on the Hellenists.

(vii) this

In recasting (v. 28, cf.

(321)

the whole

of-the

end of

pericope

Mk-7: 29f. ) Matthew faith notable

once again in Jesust that this the same

emphasises

the Gentile

Son of David,

woman's great (322) the Messiah. It is

theme is emphasised in 8: 13 where another Gentile's is highlighted in contrast and to Israel's lack of

faith

faith(cf. 8: lo).

So in his clear not dogmatic of particular

use of this objectives, interest,

Markan story the story save that

Matthew is serves

is

pursuing

itself it

certainly his

theological

purposes.

III

174
3.4.2 Luke has not used this
he otherwise

story.

The story

does
-

contain

themes to which

shows an aversion

the negative
Gentile

Mission.

attitude of Jesus to the Gentiles (323)

. However Luke's omission attitude

and the
of the pericope f -

may not be due to any particular had to it for it forms part

he may have omission'

of Luke's

'great

Mk. 6: 45-8: 26 which it It repetitive could also

he may have omitted in content

because he thought to other put it, (324) material. this episode

and parallel be because,

as John Drury

('Jesus'Gentile "insists that

Mission'(325)), the gentile mission

was removed because Luke was the great business

of the Church in his founder Luke's though treatment is

by its second volume, not realized (326 ) he prophesied itoe. Thus we note that of the Centurion's kept 'off-stage', boy (Mtt. 8: 5-13/Ik-7: and'in all 21: 24 the of this "time is

in 1-20) of

the Gentile the Gentiles"

(327Y is not yet. But if the healing

right, -

why did Luke include which

of the Gadarene

demoniac

by the mention of the pigs indicates. a Gentile (328) However the demoniac from setting? was isolated Gentile co=unity and Luke would have wanted (not man Jesus) to include to his

his

the reference people

to the healed

returning him".

to proclaim

"how much Jesus had done for

3.4-3 Mark 7: 24-30. From 7: 24 to 8: 26 Jesus is on a (329) Gentile Mission. Mark usually begins his pericopes with koet"'
to indicate

but as (S C. is used here we suspect he wishes

a significant break in the story. For the

III

175
times-Mark uses St'

only other

to start

(1: 14; a paragraph

a great break in

10: 32 and 14: 1) they -Imply (330) While this pericope the story.
to the Gentile Mission in Mark,

might belong primarily

freedom brought after from sharply the section on the law

Jesus'

and the receptivity'of into focus in this story

the Gentilesis as it (331) stands

Jewish

legalism

(7: 1_23).

The evidence have reworked is Markan will the

is

not

decisive

for

v. 24,

(332)

but Mark may the setting of

introduction.

Whether extent

or not

depend to a large The mention is probably

on the origin into a

(see below)333) 26 v. house as a retreat not a significant

of'going (334) Markan.

Although4"

is KO O-OUM

indicator

may be Markan redaction. diminutive though of daughter could

of Mark's hand(335)Lue). s (336) It is'possible that the 1 responsibility, influence (337) "(338)

is Mark's

as this

be due to Semitic a relative 00 00fv-r5

and -tz

. as the phraBe begun with by a personal due to Semitic probably is ing nothing herself pronoun influence,-

and completed ) is also

probably is There

(339) this

whole phrase

Ere-Markan, in the last

including part

(3#0) P 10 &q *eK-AO-rov. -7rvr! of v. 25 -

the woman prostratMarkan activity. be

at the feet a parenthetical

of Jesus clause

intimate to and should

V. 26a is

probably

regarded as from Mark's hand.

of the origin be put thus of the setting

(341)
of this

This raises
story.

the question
can

The question give

- would

Mark or the early

Church

a Gentile

III

176
to vv. 27f.? I think since Mark (342) in the Gentiles and Jesus' create this potentib2ly
that V-27a suggest

setting

it

is unlikely

shows a special Gentile

offensive is not

interest

Mission(343)and
situation. a later addition It

would hardly
has already to Mark.

been said

Only I-IOaToV might

Mark's hand, but the evidence is too slight that Mark is probably
Again build nature creating two verses in vv. 27-2 a case for

responsible
is little

for

this

to suggest (344) phrase.

upon which to

there

evidence

Markan redaction. s(345) tell

The severe against

and discourteous ever

of the sayl this section

the Church (346)

of the pericope. of Mark's

The closing

also

show little

hand save perhaps Mark's seems

the reference interest slight. faith that

to the woman going pericope

thometo(347) story

in this The centre

as an exorcism is

of interest

on the woman, her origin, words. It seems

or persistence, Mark found its this

and upon Jesus' story in his

tradition

but has

reworked

introduction.

3.4.4. exorcism pericope

What can we say about (a)

the historicity is nothing from

.. ........ . ..................

of this

from a distance? that necessitates could in

There

in the -

a healing

a distance

the daughter is nothing

have accompanied that in kind

the woman. (b)

the pericope of healing of this

dictates this

There N the need for a

particular (c) is Other from

type stories

case an exorcism. One in particular of the

can be cited.

the Talmud

(and is

similar

to the healing

III

177
boy (Mtt. 8: 5-13/lk. 7: 1-10) b. Ber. 34b see

Centurion's

independThis Mk-7: 24-30 74 clearly story and are p. above). (348) It is then quite yet come from the same milieu. ent, reasonable lies to assume that behind at this Markan pericope that there

a story,

of an exorcism

a distancet

properly

belongs

to the earliest

memories

of the. historical-Jesus-

the-Exorcist.

3o5 The Epileptic

Boy

(3450

178

(Mk.9: 14-29/Mtt-17: 14-21/L`k. 9. *37-43a)

Maft.

17,14-ti

Mmi6t.

14-ft

tuh. 1,37-4141

"T. Ybm . do&nw

R abtfiv

Ta Ims ftb

kjpqt

go-

TOO apouj

Kcd tMvnrt wPk

Tlbv axAov

H Kcd

Immvm 1160V

Wok

Toin

Panift

5XIOV YpqwaTtli =I

! RAv. imp' avpowaq 6

abTok W* 5XI"

Kcd Z;

aXA" woAft ow4mm0614 -

.166vM aOT6v

- Ofts

wAs

RIMMOnm

wod

a6T#

gk6VKW WPOOTPiX*Vrgl 4=6OM A Q%Kq"fT4 '$Kai brnpeimm akods*

didna6v pou T6v VI&

Nm Go"Os ; "Nal CTI Is Too 5XIOU WOK4146 T6v vl6v pou wp6s IXOVM mopa
5= dav aft6v Kwuldh MOOG

aw"1611 004 "P

3$Kaj 1&06

axAov 106nm dX6 TOO 4vgm ym- &MomL%4 Uopal aou IhnoAd#40 hd T& vl6v pou, 5n pon"11 Pal 18 &AovItal IMM ,* KCd 1600WVtOpa
lopoba KpKa * K91 P" italowagdoo GOTbv lud t1afOrm aOT6v PcTddOPOO MWPikV

aOT6v, Ical 440KO Kd tVaWCM

xal TPKa Tobs 666VM

dWOXWPCI dfaOTOG

woudun Y4 .!.. I cis Ta woo

Kai IroudKIS cis T6 alimp. losai cots, wpooToil poonvars 064 19 6M laxom vcyxu aOT6v iroll p0quis

d. V. ft
acm We 060

a6T6v.
dxpawc

Kal d
TovRaftlavowTva k"t neav. ud 06a.
41 ngp a

'o Kd Ilmonv iltpdxwwaw,

Kai oOK t"'b

v aOOv hoamleat. 11L aK ji! oxq! kd t Ilk 6'C! Y(VC& affl(rfOl Kai III-

dwompsksabTois A ycvtik ftow,

Mw

t" W6" wp6s6. lws w6Tt pcF 6. t(rTpappbM. 64J b4opot loopm; los dvitoput Us w6m pds w6Ts ; pim
VPCTd POO OPCOV; 06T& 4k
6ov; +dpgTt GoTbv W* PL
W*

opov;

we*"

InGool ific;;; 1.5T&I m *Aopm w. &UT6vw&

fog alr6k Mwomolit"V66T6gotp6vio T6r4c6pa ToGlppntcv aOT6v KaiMimaOT6v cOT6v. Quvcaftpajgv abT6v, Kai owtowdPoler toKn Kai wtailv hd Tft Yk Immao

20%al k"av

a6Tbv

III

179

(Ma"h.. 17.14-211
"TO6. yiyowv

(Mork. f. 14-fq FA bntp6Tnm 16V

Toko

(W61,31-48al

W604K xp6voqiadv 6f

ako; a al dww is wwu&w

"gal imUdm W ds WOP a&,& IOGI&

Is bp 1" xw ds Dam Tvadimm" 0616V

d TI kw% PoortoovAsiv. OT)wmoftiq If kft =6 Si lqoois dw" a6TO. T6 d savq Wdm kvaTt T4 , 6 waThp wwWown.11Wft jcpdjat 'MM6..
Too IM. Nou PC ucm. POOM 14 awwriq4 26 liev 46 Inooot

a"

6 Inook

it,tal

bn bm"dXu

5xM%
T* &RUN"

T# wwown

lqnk,

T# w"4wn

T# awki"

lbl4a iccd

MYNvako%76 alax0v salmoovilyt &* hwdom m% 1941h It aft W pqOn dqd&qt dw cOT6v.36sal de 46108T6gaqi6vm Kpdt" Kcdwolm awapdt" nfp hv - gal dy4vero iwd vt &we an "aam Too., Wou&f )*m 276R lqmk qwnlm Ift Xaok 06. Itak&v&q . w 1hpanOn 6 =Ff Too,W64mv

ftb

Tft

4" 1
"Kai dodftw"

48 jtjp!

TO ImMe Idea I INd * mo ad"L sid dwdusm abT6v &I WdM" ToG hoL M Tj

ydo6"M

aOTol ckoian olpa com we M il Audi Oh INg hrnp&w Wav a&& * 5n b* oda 17,6 L6G; d=v ab; je6 64 W AkvvOvnm dsOcAdv aW ; 39x@l yo abTois- M T4V 61rimcmcv pv- abmft*
bpiv, dv gxnTe wielw m X6ICK0V mvdrnw% iptite K ape Todilf. 11a00 W 6P4V yp Ad" mi PCTQMM 6 IW obav 46uvcem

Eim 646 C4M -

d Vxmwiem av it in Kniovovdwcwt W" xat #e ovwpNv mn *d%mV$hm m)Vnniv il NMM - iM lntcoum av piv.
TOOTO 16 yh" IV 06AW Wvam dkN dA dv

III

180
Once again we are seeking to shed light on the

historical-Jesus-the-Exorcist understood Jesus as an exorcist.

and how the Synoptics (350)

3.5.1

To begin

with

we should

note

three

agreements underlining in

in Matthew and Luke against the above text). Firstl

Mark (see broken Mtt-17:

16/Lk. 9: 40 against

Mk. 9: 18

6 Luke Matthew ai where use (v4lv4 and

reflects 14: 29; disciples' independently 16: 26) rather reputation altered the disciples' than strength

'v- X v' ci but Mark has (

ability so in (cf. order Lk. 12: 25; to rescue well have the

Matthew Mark.

and Luke could

Secondly Ik. 9: 41 against

regarding

the agreement

in Mtt-17:

17 and

Mk. 9: 19l Mark has St" 6*

-k&-7'07S

X-E, Cl . This in the

ind Luke and Matthew have variation doubtful is not difficult

zlTmv for,

to explain

except
J

Xrytt Lk. 24: 36, Luke case of of never uses (351) -1 Jesus Matthew than and also prefers rather cirrov "ITIIro&-. S has been added for clarity A40 0(352) 6 CE the the been brought as subject of verb, and -has

from the early

part

of Mk. 9: 19. Kq!

Luke (9: 41) and

Matthew (17: 17) add the verse

farewell

Ectr9oN, 'vr u,vz )(153)which makes In Moses'

over the

a semblonce of Dt-32: 5there the Song Moses of of Israel contrasted is with

the lament the faithful,:

faithlessness

ness

of God.

Dt-32: 4bf.

reads "A God of faithfulness

and with-

111

181
iniquity, him, they just and right is he. They have dealt generation corruptly (zvLA

out with

are a crooked

and per7erse

61-ccrpol? A been in frequent

The Song of Moses seems to have are a 2: 15 Paul part v7 S)

use in. the early-Church and there (354) In Phil. number of echoes of Dt. 32 in the NT. adopts of the first in part of Dt-32: 5 and quotes (Ttvr('WS irKtX(,; and non-Christian that Dt-32 the last

the verse

the genitive

Jtzrpq&z! S Pwt; environment.

to contrast Also

the Christian

of interest

is, the fact

passages

the Qumran communky

used-in

was one of the (355) their writing.

But how could

Luke and Matthew

see in Mk, 9: 19 an echo

of Dt . 32: 5?
Firstly, just

There are a number of relevant

describing (b) a 'faithless

factors.
generation' above,

(a)

Mk. 9: 19 is

as Dt-32: 5 does.

Further,

as mentioned

Dt-32: 4-and a similar

5 are contrasting would

the faithful'and to the early

the faithless Christians

contrast

be evident

in the story may well

similar faithless

in Mk. 9: 19-20.

(c) Also the early

Christians 'v7. -and/or

\tZ,, kwcl &. rrrw" have used WtV4 0-Kc,

phrases as 'catch-phrase-descriptions' So Peter is said

of their to exhort his

generation.

hearers
generation Phil.

in Acts 2: 40 to save themselves from this'crooked

(,, 'crro rJ-LJrYz&S -: mentioned, -rvv-r?)S Paul uses the exact enviro=ent. of wzvtq, is not in the NT, to see In phrase of.

2: 15, as just

Dt-32: 5b to describe (d) Finally,

the Christiants

43 the of occurrences (356) 33 are related to the OT. it

I

difficult

111

182
it is that on reading 4r0'110S, wr jr-vt"" allusion in Mark, to a -

how likely

Luke and Matthew would verse Dt-329 replace

have seen a possible Church's to strengthen was a missing favourite

from one of the early and wished either

passages or

the allusion element in

what he thought

the verse.

Thirdly description

Matthew of the

and Luke omit If

Mk. 9: 21f.

-a

illness.

Matthew it

and Luke felt would not be dropped so far, the the

Mark was twice surprising 'second'

describing that

the illness, they

to discover description. between

independently

From what we have argued Matthew

'agreements' overall belief

and Luke do not (357) in Markan priority.

shake the

3-5.2

Matthew 17: 14-21.

In the section

16: 21-28: 20

Matthew is dependent upon the outline of Mk.8: 31-16: 8, but (358)

occasionally section provides supplements. In the smaller 16: 21-20: 34, -following on from Peter's confession and the with .

(16: 13-20), training .

there are the passion predictions

of the disciples.

Thus the section'begins

the words "from that .

disciples killed,.. section, Matthew that and... for

time ulesus began to show his

he must go to Jerusalem be raised" in

be and suffer... (359) (16: 21). And within the Narrative to the

example,

the Transfiguration

(17: 6-7) adds

the words of reassurance

frightened
miracle

disciples

(cf. Mk. 9: 7f. ).

story

seems at first

to be misplaced

Thus although (36o)

this
the

III

183
between the ending of. the story and its it general the

association context theme of

indicates

that

'discipleship

Matthew wishes to view (361) trainingl.

under

(a)

M&tthew begins out

the story

in the same way as to the disciples it arguing aspect

Mark but misses with of the scribes the disciples, casting

the reference

- probably for

because

shows a negative or overlooks light (362)

Matthew minimizes

their

faults,

them in a more favourable 8: 25; Mk. 10: 35/mtt. this. 20: 20).

(eg. mk. 4: 38/mtt. story story, would

The present

seem to coritradict

But the end of the gives sufficient in their ignorance

even in Matthew's that

tradition, did

indication

the disciples

not

remain

(cf-17: 23/Mk.9: 31f. ).

(b)
is

It

has been noticed

word for

before

that

an important

Matthew. *3763) Held has established

0 %porfopr5qC...
and concludes is "to direct

Aq, elv
his study

as a fixed
of it from by saying

formula
that

for Matthew
its intention event

(364)

attention doctrine,

the individual proclamation

unique

to in

the general

or rather,

contained

what follows'0365)

(c)

Apart

from Heb, 12: 12 references genuflection

to the

'kneel

in

the NT always

have to do with

and expresses

humble supplication Matthew's

or worship.

(366)

This is clearly

in

mind in v. 14b for

in v-15a he substitutes

III

184
for for this 'Teacherlt(367) Jesus' activity Once again is the his the motivation Matthew of his

ILordII provided heightens sonts

'mercy'.

by including probably

father's

description

plight,

explaining for

one of Matthew's the description

motiv6s(see forward

P. 32 Sbelow)

bringing

from Mk. 9: 22.

(d) that father

There is

is

no suggestion

at this story

stage

in vv. 15f. The

Matthew

relating

an exorcism as having

(cf. v. 18).

describes

the boy not 39) but falls

an unclean

(cf. Mk. 9: 17/Lk-9: Matthew water

as being (-rr('rrrzl thrown hold

'moon struckt, into

spirit/demon (368) Thus and

says the lad than

the fire

rather

being taking

UCAOty of the lad

) as in Mark (9: 22). (KwTq. X% ) as in to

No demon is here Mark (9: 18). 'heal?

The disciples than

are said $cast out'

not

to be able

the boy rather

the demon (cf. Mk. 9: 18).

(e)

To whom does Matthew What ever Matthew

understand

Jesus'

rebuke

to

be directed? of -YL-ra^,, S might

Mark intended

(9: 19),

by the removal that the By

takes

away the ambiguity for

rebuke closing inability

have been intended with

the disciples. the disciples' than

the story as being

Jesus explaining lliiie faith?

due to

rather

'no faith', charge.

he also There is

exonerates also no clear towards

the disciples indication the fatherg (vv. 14bf. ).

from that for

this

the words indeed it was

of Jesus are directed the father

who came in faith

In view

of what

111

185
Aor' use of the T;; of I Lyf( relevance of what

on ... we have notedthe formula

in Matthew, indicating
Matthew probably

the general
wants

was to follow, stand the strong

the reader

to undermore widely

words of Jesus

to be directed

than the 'crowd'

in the story,

for

to the crowds without

any derogatory

elsewhere Matthew refers (369)

association.

(f) activity McCasland because

Matthew

omits

the violence by Jesus these details

of the demon's (Mk. 9: 20/Mtt-17: were omitted 17f-)probably

when confronted thinks that

"he did story

not

consider

the sensational It did not

quality seem fitting

of Mark's to

in good taste...

preserve

the record of resistance

made against
But Matthew mutual Hull
4

is

and efforts (370) the Messiah by demons?. reticent about colourfu32y Jesus and his an alternative omitting

of defense

not

antagonism offers

between

portraying (371) opponentso_ explanation when

too simplistic Matthew this, is

he says that Yes he omits iather -

the 'iechnique omits Jesus'

of exorcisme the

but he also never

questioning and asking

(Matthew

has Jesus

ignorant

questions) that heal for

and he omits along

the possible with

suggestion

(Mk. 9: PP) to

Jesus might, the lad. omitting

the disciplesl

be unable

Thus Matthew probably these verses from Mark.

has a number of reasons

At last

in v. 18 Matthew

gives

clues

that

he is

111
relating an exorcism story. That is Matthew takes

186
up vTc*rOc4 embarrassed (see p. 33t

from Mk, 9: 25 shows that about below). portraying This is Jesus'

Matthew technique time

not entirely as an exorcist gives

the only but

Matthew

an indication of Jesus' words

of Jesus'technique,

he omits

the details

(cf. Mk. 9: 25).

demon cries Jesus' absolute that

Matthew does not include

the lad

Mk. 9: 26a where the

as it comes out after on Jesus'

out. and convulses

command - such a suggestion authority should (cf-Mtt-8: omit 32),

would It is

refle# not

surprising to the being as dead

Matthew

either

the reference the child place in

immediate

result that

of the exorcism the healing attempt

(Mk, 9: 26)vor implying successful. that

takes

two stages, entirely -to,

the first

by Jesus was not

Matthew itlemselsewhere to include this healing element in Jesus' T

refusehe omits -

miracles

the two stage

8: Mk. 2? of --26.

(h) Matthew
the lad

Rather concludes
was'healed

than his

admit story
that

to a two stage in formal

hour" of

healing

(cf. Mk. 9: 27) that

language
(as _(). in he does

by saying
in 8: 13b; is

"from (372)

9: 22b; probably

and

15: 28b).

The use catch-phrase

PIIe7rZV5I: r; Iv view of 8: 8,

a significant

((; 13 rOoeO and 9: 21,22 concluding

Thus this

(r4Titv)

remarks is linked
concluding formula healing in v. 16.

where a word in the (373) with the pericope.

in v. 18 probably highlights

Jesus'authoritative inability to heal

in

contrast

to the disciples'

III

187
W Matthew for takes up Mark's "I rrjaarr7,, YSU, (( indicating ... zTrr 0v of conclusion to the story -

the reason In

the disciples

inability

(Mtt-17:

19/Mk. 9: 28).

the use of the formula is again probably than

Matthew

the significance event in the

what follows story inability

is wider

the individual That reasons is,

(see peIR. 3 above)0(374) in exorcism and its for

the disciples' too little faith,

are of significance appended the saying (cf. Lk. 17: 6) as it

the Matthean 'faith his

Church.

Matthew has seed' little

about suits

as a mu tard

theme of the disciplesk

faith

(cf. 6: 30; 8: 26; 14: 31; 16: 8).

(375)

3.5.3

Luke 9: 37-43a.

Luke follows

the order of Mark and the

in placing this story after

story is part of the Galilean

the Transfiguration
ministry (9: 51)-

(4: 14-9: 50) prior This particular (9: 1f, ) by

to Jesus' pericope reference Strange Jesus'

journey is linked

to Jerusalem with*the call

of the Twelve

to the disciples Exorcist (9: 49f. )

as exorcists, by reference This

and to the to exorcism suggests that using

name as a power-authority. these three episodes

Luke was using

in his

theme of the

'Training

of the Twelve$.

(a) that with

In Luke's

use of Mark it reference

is

i=ediately

apparent arguing

Luke has onlitted the scribes. the story

to the disciples

Luke uses Mk. q: q to begin firmly against

the story, of the

placing

the background

III

188
by removing Mk. 9: 11-13 (about-the coming of

Transfiguration Elijah)*-

so heightening (376) (see p. li? o cibove).

the OT background

to the story

(b) In v-38 Luke heightens and Jesus' merciful

P OVOYLVI S. ., on the person do with God's

the pathos of the situation 190OW Leuce t and

response by using
MAtOv(

In using of Jesus for vigilant

Luke may be reflecting in 1: 48 it has to

as he uses it (377)

care.

(a) though different recasting

Luke's

description similar

of the illness to Mark's (9: 18),

of the boy, uses entirely for

in essence

vocabulary. this

Luke is for

probably (i)

responsible

description

of the five are in Ik-Acts;

times

occurs (Ii) TwiOOV'(A

in the NT, four occurs elsewhere

in the NT only

in, 9: 26 he forward.

Mk01: 26 and. 9: 26 and in view probably brings this element

of Luke omitting_Mk. of the description

(iii)

From 9: 38 we have noticed

that Luke beightens hardly

the pathos leaving

of the incident;
the boy is in line

the mention of the spirit

with this.

(d) of Jesus of
In view

harsh the Luke does words consider whom (378) As with Matthew, Luke's omission to be directed? Against (Mk. 9.*19)
of 41b'v.

implies

that

it

is-not

the digciples.
following-

"Bring4your

son here",

immediately

upon Jesus'

reprimand

it

seems as if

Luke

189 understood the father to be the object of the words.

(e) maintains

Though in slightly the element

different

language, seiied

Luke (v. 42)

of the boy being by Jesus us that

by the demon when confronted However Luke does not about the illness tell

and convulsed (379) (cf. Mk. 9: 20). asked the father

Jesus

(cf. Mk. 9: 21 and Lk. 9: 42).

(f) exorcism

Luke story.

also But

maintains like

rVL&v s'7r(,

indicating not mention

an the

Matthew

he does

command of Jesus response adds that Matthew to Jesus

(cf. Mko, 9: 25) nor the demon's (cf. Mk9: 26). 'k4"ca Also like

unruly Luke Neither

Matthew, the boy.

'W Jesus

healed

(380)

nor Luke admit

to a two stage

healing

story,

(g) be making

In line explicit

%4ith an interest

of his, at in

Luke (v. 43) may the use of

what he has hinted

has been visibly

(v-38) - that in Jesus' healing activity, (381) (cf-7:

at work 16). _

God

What can we say about story? 'training in a harsh redirecting the disciples. his (b, mercy c), We have seen that of the disciples'. light at all,

Luke's this

handling forms

of this part

exorcism

story

of Luke's

The disciples the severity of the

are not placed illness and

the criticism

of Jesus

to, the father Jesus'

(d)-exonerate (f),

But Luke highlights his needing

authority (e)

no human aid

andperhaps

III

190

here, .

that

in Jesusl God is at work (g). an exorcism story

That he is

transmitting
interest

seems to be of no particular

to Luke.

3.5.4 that in this

Mark 9: 14-29. pericope

(a)

It

is Bultmarn's stories

opinion

two miracle

have been
being and to brought

combined, together healing.

in the pre-Markan because (382)

material,

presumably of the illness

of the-similarity admits but This story that the

Bultmann

it

is

now difficult may have in

make clear occupied between inability Vv. 21-27 unbelieving three play pieces

distinctions, vv. 14-20.

first

story point disciples,

has its

the contrast whose power. of offers to

the Master to heal

and the magician's provide the foil for

the Master's the paradox Bultmann

are the second story faith. To support (i)

describing his theory,

of evidence.

The disciples

have a part the scene, role,

in vv. 14-19 only, in vv. 21fl. has a minor twice present

and thereafter takes

pass from the chief

whereas he only described already

the father

though is

(ii) in 17-19. one vv. (iii)

The illness The crowd is

in vv, 18 and 21f.. in v. 14, yet timeo(383)

according

to v. 25 comes on the

scene for

the first

So, are theittwo, the moment that is Markan then

stories

here?

(i)

If

we presume for in vv. 28f. the

the reference the disciples

to the disciples do indeed

pass from

scene. after

v. 19a.

However, this

need not be an indication

III

191
once being two stories for in other the-story. through stories characters

of there

are introduced the four

and withdrawn

within

In Mk. 2: 1-12 the roof are

men who lower in

the paralytic part

not mentioned which

the latter

of the story. story,

And Mk-5: 1-20,

we have argued late in

to be a single

has the herdsmen

entering

the story(pp.

147-634bov4-

(ii) illness described this might is

Bultmann's twice three

second piece In fact

of evidence it is

is

that

the

described* times,

probably and 21c-22a. there While may be

- vv-17C-18a,

20b,

indicate

an amalgamation that would

of stories

another

explanation

make these stand.

two (or

three)

'descriptions'

intelligible

as they

(1).

The first
it
his of

description
seize. s him,
teeth the and story

(17b-18a - "he has a dumb spirit;

it dashes him down; and he foams
rigid") I comes at the very as form

and wherever
and grinds beginning in

and becomes (after to the the

introductory first element (384)

setting) in the

Mk-5: 2ff.

conforms of miracle

criticsit

analysis

stories.

(2)

We have seen, that

in dealing

with

the other

exorcism or audible

stories,

a recurring

element

was the visible

consternation That this this

of the demon when confronted of its the illness opening

by the exorcist. (v. 20b) fits "and when -

second description is clear fram

category

phrase

he (the (3)

demon) saw himeoelle in our examination that of exorcism part stories so far it

Also

has been apparent

an important

of the stories

192 was the exorcist knowing the demon by gaining its name

and thereby the illness only because

its

character.

That this

the third category is

description manifest

of not

(vv. 21f. ) fits it begins but with also

a question

"How long -

has he

been like

this? ",

by the answer which fire or water. do not

mentions

the demon's predilection three story descriptions hypothesis for

for

Thus the a two

of the illness their

require

explanation.

(iii)

Are there

two crowds

in

this

story takes

in one ; -ffia-vvyr', No Yij

v. 14, and another (v. 25) to refer parallel

in v. 252

Bultmann(385)

to a second crowd coming to the area. in classical

to the word has been cited

Greek or difficult

in the papyrs(386)

and so the meaning

of the word is

to determine.
a crowd is it

Taylor

says that

converging

the meaning is clearly (387) .,, on a single point azid Black

rehat require tal "to attack"

that
says (388)

corresponds

to the Aramaic does not

In any case the story to explain intended that the mention

a two story

theory could seems neither be

of the crowd in v. 25 and it (389) to be the same crowd as in v. 14. it that the evidence hypothesis. of this story

we can conclude

demands nor needs a two story

(b)
involves disciples,

In view of T. S*--Weeden's work

the thesis that Mark conducts relating

(390)

which in part
against the

a polemic

and as material

to the disciples pericope we should

takes pay

up a considerable

amount of this

III

193
attention to Mark's
7

particular

interest

in

the disciples,

and to the origin

of 'this

theme here.

After in Mark's

discussing

what he thinks

are three

stages to Jbsus -

portrayal

of the disciples' Misconception and, involved

relationship Rejection,

Unreceptivenessq - "that Mark is

Weeden concludes against-

assiduously

in a vendetta

the disciples.
But there this point

He is intent
with

on totally
this thesis.

discrediting
(1) Firstly,

them".
and

(391)

are problems is

made by C. J. A. Hickling, question the method by which caset to identify a it

"one may legitimately it is proposed,

in any given

document as polemic against must be conjectured

(2) it In view of the is unwise

adversaries

from this

whose views (392) document itself".

on the ending of Mark

continuing

debate

ending

to draw too many conclusions Trom the present (393) (3) Mark. As Quesnell has pointed . of out, much does not fit Weeden's thesis and this

of the Markan material

.. is most evident
of attributing

at points

inconsistencies

where Weeden-takes the easy option C394) ""

to borrowed traditions.

(ii)

J. Schreiber, that

Over against the viewl. held by J. B. Tyson, (396) (397)

and W. H. Kelber, as well a polemic against
the place of the early

(395)

as Weeden,

Mark is conducting
has reassessed on the role says "what

the disciples,
in Mark 13: 37

E. Best as taking

of the. disciples Church. So in

where Jesus

I say to you I say to all"--

111

194
"Jesus' intended who would teaching for the as Mark views few, ... followers; then it was not primarily for all

but was intended the role

be his is

of the disciples to the

COMM13nity.,

in the gospel Best has been able assault set

to be examples if

(398)

to show that

Mark was conducting have been expected them but to

an

on the disciples group over

he would against

up another

as he, has--not

done

the so we are unable to argue that Mark was attacking (399) Where the disciples disciples. appear in a negative perspective give Mark's further they do so as foils This so that Jesus can go on to

instruction. (eg.

redaction

motif comes not only from (400) 7: 17; 8: 3), but it was also present

in '.

his

tradition-(eg.

6: 35; 9: 11; 10: 35ff. ),

failing

(4ol)

So Best

admits when we see the disciples

Jesus or being rebuked there

to understand

a hostile note, relates

attitude

towards

may be grounds for suspecting (402) the disciples. But we should in these categories

says Best,

how much of the material Jesus which, if

to the power-of can best

to be properly to the weakness it is quite

understood,

be seen in regard

contrast

of the disciples. natural if

And with

to the cross, it it. that (403)

Mark wanted

to explain

he should

show

the disciples pursue note role Best's from

as misunderstanding work any further. of Best's

We need not what we should much of the in Mark's in a

Nevertheless work is that

the results

of the disciples and that against

in Mark already Mark was not in fact

appeared involved

tradition campaign

the disciples.

111

195
(iii) We should now return
its UL'

to the theme of the

origin. Firstly o-4-rf., has vv. 28f.. MOT, his

'disciples'
In

in

Mk. 9: 14-29 of the

and discuss

view SUV"

vocabulary

OlKos, kark

177100-74, interest

L
particular ending

shown

in

this

to the pericope.

Yet the reference

to this
is

005) kind of demon only being able to be cast out t'v 7rjPo9'zuA-q ,
not Markan for technique Exorcist he does not of healing, show prayer as an -

probably

element notably powerful

in Jesus' the Strange

or in anyone elses

(Mk. 9: 38-41). name in 6: 13 is

who is simply invoking a (406) The reported technique (407) anointing this with position oil not prayer. in Mark's of the

of the disciples Whether tradition

or not vv. 28f. is difficult

were in to tell,

though

in view

inconsistency (vv. 19,23,24)

between the motif and'prayer

of faith'in

the pericope it

in this

concluding*sentence
For, though-it in Mark's is

may have been placed possible that this

here by Mark. inconsistency

existed

traditiont

inconsistencies transmission to the healing perspective of

would

have been omitted in the probably (408) This tentative tradition. conclusion gives story. us an indication Using-the disciples of Mark's possible

story

on this

as examples

to the comiminity(se*p. Iffobove), how it is to carry out exorcism

Mark may be i3lustrating of this kind of demon.

Secondly,
(These verses

the introduction
can be isolated

to the story

14-16. vv. because

as the introduction

in v-17 the miracle

story

proper begins).

Once again Mark

111

196
active here - note ? )15AOtt C" j ), e r.

has been particularly

! TIC 'Pti-rcyU

(409) 0

The question

then

is

what was the extent

to the scribes the disciples Tram figuration made this is

of Mark's
pr6bably be part this

Markan.

here? tradition (410)

Reference
of meeting

The mention the

could with

of the seam linking story. Whether

or not-Mak What of the

connection greatly

I cannot

determine.

crowd being that

ama ed on seeing

Jesus? The suggestion

could of the Transfiguration (411) be on the face of Jesus still mil t be discounted (412) (2)'Mark because (1) no such hint is dropped by Mark. something of the glory would have created verse an obvious contradiction between this

As they and v, q - I? them to tell

were coming down the mountain, no one what they had seen.. *" contrast to

he charged

(Though perhaps

v. 15 was designed

in deliberate

this glory'

44f.; 1: - cf.

and 7: 36).

(3) The*suggestion parallel with

of a ! visible the glory

is an appeal to a detailed

on the face of Moses in Ex. 34: 29. While a general parallel between the confusion (413)
be possible, the-first place

at the foot

of both mountains might

breaks down. In

the parallel

in detail

Moses had been talking of the people's (contrast

to God, and secondly confrontation with Moses

the eventual was not Again Church, with

result

an eager this could

greeting

Mk, 9: 15 and Ex, 34: 30)construct of the early in contrast to read

be a deliberate to highlight

intended it

Jesus'

experience

Moses but

does at least

warn against

trying

III

197
only a conjectured
offered by Taylor,

too much into

explanation, is

parallel. (414)

The naturalistic
the amazement is inadequate. sensation

that

due to the unexpected

appearance

of Jesus

The explanation that is said

seems rather

to be in the niminous in the presence

to accompany being

of Jesus

(1: 27; 5: 27; (9: 15); 10: 17 and particuLarly

10: 32). The

question is whether this miminous element is Markan or whether

it could be expected to have been in his tradition. is James secondary

Robinson to Mark's

has shown that Christology

the m3minous attitude and is not necessitated

by the

Markan view of Jesus.

indeed 9: 15) falls

(415)

The key verse (10: 32' and

the-section of debates between 'The interest
element

within

Jesus and the disciples

glory and greatness to Jesus response

about suffering.

in
is (416) it

reflected which is

in the numinous rejected is

a response Thus as this was probably go'further authentic

by Mark in 8: 33. (417)

to Jesus

condemned in Mark tradition here.

to be found and attribute

in Mark's this

Can we of'

element

to the strata

reminiscences

of the historical-Jesus?

In relation

to Mk. 10: 32 Dunn says that

in just the 'messianic secret'

it
motif.

is a variation without (418) (However

parallel

as we have

indicated

9: 15 may be such a parallel). point and the

Dunn moves to it is strata.

quickly historical not wise

from this

phrasing awkward other in evidence

authenticity. to posit

But without this motif

so easily

the earliest

Thirdly

the

theme of

'the

disciples'

reappears

in vv. 18b-

111 19a. That Jesus is meant, in his rebuke to the 'faithless generation', to be addressing the disciples is clear from

198

the use of., &To? (cf. v. 20a) whichl being plural, can only 'f to the disciples refer or the crowd - but the crowd is not the focus of attention indicates of this that here. And the conclusion of

the pericope the implications are firmly indicate

the disciples for

pericope of interest.

(and therefore . (419)) the early Church

at the centre, that it is

A mimber of factors for (1) the reference Markan us towards

Mark who is

responsible here.

to the disciples activity suspecting (2) help

and their

inability

at each end of the pericope Mark's hand in this

predisposes

reference cry

to the disciples. (in v. 24) "I believe;

In view of the father's my unbelief"

desperate

the rebuke towards

of Jesus

(in (3)

v. 19) may have Where faith it is is

once been directed elsewhere always mentioned

the father.

in Mark as important seeking the healing,

in healing either

that

of those

of the sick

person (5: 34; 10: 52) or people acting 5: 36).

ciples

on their

behalf

(2: 5;

if
it

9: 19 was intended
would

to be directed
to this

towards the disBut while to the

be an exception for

pattern.

Mark seems responsible disciples' to this tradition. inability story that it

heightening

the reference is

in vv. 181f. the motif was probably

so integral in Mark's

to be found

Our conclusion

regarding

the theme of the disciples

in Mk. 9: 14-29 is that while

it

was probably

present

in

199
the body of the story part of the introduction), by Mark. (vv. 18bf. are likely to have been may

the ending

of the pericope

have been supplied highlighted the role

In any case Mark has clearly in this story. -

of the disciples

(c) focusing

We can now look on Mark's of

more generally to it

at this

pericope,

contribution

and the likelihood of

of elements authentic

the story

belonging

to the strata

historical

recollection.

(i) three

We have already

offered

an explanation (vv. 17b-18b, fit

for

the

descriptions

of the illness that they attribute

209 21bof an to they in of

22 - seeppoWabove) exorcism the story do not story.

the common 'form' these descriptions for

We should

of the historical-Jesus-the-Exorcist to the pattern 3: 11; 5: 2ff.; betrays of descriptions

conform

elsewhere

Mark (1: 23,26; the descriptions

7: 25) and the vocabulary Church interests.

no early

(ii) original

Does the story?

rebuke

by Jesus that

in'v.

191belong

to the

We have argued

the early

Church - as

represented in this
doubt

by Matthew and Luke, saw an echo of Dt-32: 5 (420) such a conclusion casts saying. For some
being in the earliest material. However

on the verse

the use of Dt. 32: 5 in Mk. 9: 19 is significantly

from the way in which in the early

different

Church used Dt. 52: 5- Here tradition - reflects the lack

the saying

the pre-Markan

III

200
in someone coming to Jesus/the Church Dt-32.5 in early communityl

of faith but

in the early

seems to have been used to contrast to the community

characterize

the pagan world

of faith

(see eg: Phil. 2: 15 and Acts 2: 40).

(421)

(iii) not ever

As v. 24 deals it is

with

the faith

of the father in origin.

and How-

the disciples vv. 22b-23

probably

pre-Markan in being

may have their cry

origin foopity ,

the post-Easter a foil for Jesus' prefor

community,

the father's which

words on faith Easter help is in origin.

are difficult

to show as being hand the father's rebuke cry

On the other with Jesus'

consistent light, probably

and does not the father

show Jesus

in a kindly and so/is

in that

he causes

some grief, story.

to be associated

with

the original

Uv) "E'TrC T

V. 25 is rv, is

the report

of Jesus'

exorcistic

technique. follow. spirit,

used to describe said

Jesust

words which

The commad of Jesus. is I command you, When dealing particular the detail

to be "You dumb and deaf and never that enter there

come out of him, with

him agaie. were no have added

Mk-5: 8 we noted

reasons

why the early

Church

should

of the address

to the demon. And on the other hame in exorcistic (422) convention. incantations We conclude the

hand the use of the demon's was a long then that and well this

established

element

of the words of Jesus belongsto

historical (2)

tradition. iwi TWaa w (Tot (cf. Mk. 1: 27). The phrase is

III

201
well known in the magical seeking to control command you, literature in the context of

also

incantations

demons and gods. Great one...

For example

PGM XII: 171 has "I great you; god... for ";

demon of the I command for an

PGM VII: 331 - "... is

Lord Aroubicl fitting its

I am.. o11(423) So this . command. Before the next part of'the enter

vocabulary origin

exorcist's mention (3)

discussing verse. into him". it

we shall

". *. And no longer material

In dealing

with

the

Babylonian ancient

(p. 16 above)

was illustrated

how the a

world

believed

in the re-entry

of a demon into

person.
arrest

In PGMIV: 3024f.
a free-ranging

there

seems to be a provision
it entering

to

demon to prevent

a person

"let -

thy angel descendo-,, and let around this

him draw into creature...

the demon as he flies apparent repetition

both Hellenistic there after 8: 47) into (Life alone is a Jewish

captivity (424) , This . routine in

in Mk. 9: 25 is a recognized
and Jewish prescription material. for

In PGM IV: 1254 the wearing of an amulet Ant'.

a demon has been expeUed, is said to have Iladjured

Eleazar

(Josephus

the demon never Apollonius leave

to come-back

him ... "oThe demon with IV: 20) "swore and never take that

which

was dealing

he would

the young man So the history

possession of Jesus But at during

of any man again". accords this its well with

the reported of religions tradition accordance It is

technique parallels.

point,

has the Synoptic in telling technique?

been shaped, with

transmission, of story literary

an accepted to discover

pattern a precise

difficult

convention

202
that is being
Axvl

followed;
5zcv (or

Josephus

(Ant. 8: 47) has/4jKr-'r--.

"avrX brerv

ZlS

-(VI-ro'-p

in some manuscripts

but Mk.9: 25 haVcK&

is last story in to my knowledge part

IrLAqs -(-r-c
in v. 25 is

25 The of v. whole .
in found its not entirety. only The in a

nowhere paralleled

of the formula but

(Ant. 8: 47),

also

in a prescriptive

incantation apparently

the magical

papyri

(see p. 40fabove)

and also

(PGM IV: 1294)e Further, on amulets shows no desire

representation show no desire in view genre

Mark and his tradition consistent in their

is they

to be thoroughly
of Jesus' to adhere exorcistic

words - that pattern. over (cf-

to a literary

Finallyq this

of the later words

Evangelists1hesitancy in the tradition

of Jesus'

Mtt. 17: 18/Ik. that v. 25

9: 42) it is

seems that reflection

we can be fairly

Confident

a genuine

of the words of Jesus-the-Exorcist.

(v) Vv. 26f..

departure is found

We have seen how reports

of the violent
world (5: 13)). here and it Again (4: 35)

of demons were common in the ancient in other of Matthew in stories of Jesus (Mkol: 26; reticence

in view this

(17: 18) and Luke's probably

element

the story

goes back to eye taking the lad 1: 31

witnesses.

But as the referen6e him not hardly

to Jesus only fail

by the hand and raising 41 but 5: and also could

closely to remind

resembles the early

Christian

(see Acts 2: 24,32; 3: 26; (425) the 13: 33f.; 17: 31) and power to*awaken the dead, fomulation, if not the content of this verse, may have of Jesus' resurrection

III

203
after to note Easter. that (Over against these points it is was

originated necessary so co=on surprising

the use of the hands in healing world that it would i4act (426) be

in the Jewish if Jesus did

not use the technique

We Vegan this into focus Mark's

section

with

the objectives to this story pericope that

of

(1)

bringing

contribution in this

as well belong

(2) as

tracing

elements

probably from Mark, is

to the historical-Jesus. about which

The contribution

which we may have some confidence, could have been either especially brought for into this ability

vv. 2? -b-23 story in from

this story

elsewhere

or created

the light

of v. 19. In orderb*focus the disciples' Jesus' Mark's rebuke special it inability (v. 19) from contribution with

on Jesus' is

as an exorcist by redirecting

highlighted

the father to this

to the disciples. story was probably for the there in

concluding early is

an application

appropriate

Church.

On the other a considerable in this

hand we have seen that amount of reliable including Jesus'

possibly

historical

recollection of the illness,

pericopel

the descriptions and the violent

the rebukeg

technique,

departure

of the demon.

III

2o4
4")rl) 3.6 The Beelzebul Controversy( '-f"
(Mk. 3: 22-27 and Mtt. 12: 22-30/Lk. 11: 14-23)

mafth.

Mirk. J. n-17 9. St-34

12,2f-30

Luk. 11,14-15.17-23 (Y-14, see p-.Ioq below).

22T6Tc wpoonWX xw46S ,

a64

32Abf& U ! jCpXoV6VV W)b wpo abli !!

14 Kal 0 IxPdXX 6op6-Aov m46v* W sOT6Av

Saipov46pewn lru4A6sK Kai thpdmcu

. avbtswov 4& Banim96

33KC4 lKplq Too

rame Tbv m4& Baqlavlou ImAqm 6 aOT6v, 13KCd 064ft laxetv Kai ol Kcd . * of bxAm MoTawo Ndwgs ol aXA01 RG*wM Kai Ucyov- p4n obT6s d- xhvvm- 06uwolt I+denv 6 As Aculk 21ol U ooplauto (FQMCS OOM 069 dltp&UG C17rOV' T& kip6via cl p4 ly TO BcdWoOA a Itod- 134

601poviou fydmo Sk TOO RCAHVM txdxnm 6 n46S. foa6pacav Kai ol 5XI01,

vq oonn iv ii'lapailL
ol M (polli(Mrol

IXCYOVIV

uKololypatmaTt oldw6 16mis UA a&Gv 'Icpocmxdpw a4yov an d"V.

iv

&pXovn TSv 6cupoviov. T4 dpXovn Tiv Scupov(uv To

dl(Pdua 26 tjUS6j GoTav threv GOTOW TftdVoVp4UW. T& amp"4L

eldcloobIlyu Ical allIV

rk Wp6via.

8tpoviwv dpXovn 6(npoviwv apxovn Te niv II&V

hodue

licodJUn

Tik &mpvla*

...

23Kai

wpoaxaAcedpoos 17C6A1 k a6m(n iv wapapoka I. &mipm ACYCVGOTOiS '7F&S66VGTGJ dim ac-ravft oamvdv IKWAev; 24Kai I&V PGOACIG pcplaoj, 06 W OTaNim A pumAlla VGTQM lxdvn- 26xal Mv If lam* oildo 14' tau* 06 6gy4mm peploot i4 011da

glain04evit

wdua PacnAda:

piploadoo xa#' fal"is- .

lpqpoc. Tm Kai irdou w6hs OlKiU PtPIO&dOG XGO'lCrU- 1 TIS 06

wavaPamlefu fir famv &Gpcpla&trGa fpqppofcn W OINOV wflffeL RalOINK led ai Itai 6

26icaicl 6. dKaVdV CaTaV&S T6V (F(ff P&Uc41flcrVT6v lpipi-::

oTamocircm vaq- was o6v trTuMcracu pamAda UOTOO;

Kdvq oa&faOlKaW6 dwcrcrTavft itplmil If laUT6V KCd Gan, b66&wm TOAS 1XIL CAVGI

27xald ly6 tv - BtdcpobAlxpdl. AW T& kl&Ia, 21 0101

ahcrctcn ab%wm A acnxcia aftoo, lri ymdv 10ei 81 6alp6V1CL T Xavpf iYisiv
W T 6(nPdvta , 01 0101

III

205

(Mafth. 1 opav dv Tm dKpd)aou(nv; ,8A TOOTO GOTOIKPITGI Iopwv CIOVTGI hoo WVCOPCM cl of Ily byid

(Mark. J, tt-t7l

Ruk. 11.14-15.17-231
6pew IV TM IKP&Uoumv; 816 TOOTO aOTOI OprAVKplTUI IGOVTC[t. 209184 IV Sofyf lxOdA NT61(* hoo )a Td Balp6vla, dpa loft dev

Im Ta actill6via, apa 1400-:, GeV

Too a(Co.

j pumAcial 14' 6pas ' 29Q &6VaTCd..

7raS ds T4V oildav

14' Ollal 4 OamAefic

27 &W ob &mcn Too hoo. obuN tisT4V211davT00idatiiv T UK4n UXUPQD

It bTav 6 loXup6Sxa&wwJUopdvos fuAdval] x4v iv Tv IaVTOO GoIV tlp4vn ICTIV T& 67rd00 17rgA-

TIS clallativ

Toi I*XupoO xai T& axtdq: aOToo r&pwdqcn, i

, jaovTaQoToo-'2Iw&v6k lcrxup6TIpoS

6(MT6Vlapp6v
W T6" Thv olKlav abToG 6iaprd00 . 30*op4QvpcTjpo8 lar, 1poo 1(mv, Kai 6A

T6V Iupbv

NV

V1114q GOT6v, Tijv

IravolrAlav aoToo arpto If* a fmoift4 Kca TTt Kai

6ta6i6w. T4V oildcrv abfoo 61apird- Ta crKaAa(16TOO m a. 23,0 A rov pcf Ipoa KaT' lpoO lonv, Kai 6A M!Vdywv pre Ipoa oxop.

(mopQuvdywv PeeIPOO Au .

11

This

is

one of the most important

passages

relating

to our theme and so we need to give There is Q material here

it-some

attention. with story. the The

and we are presented a brief exorcism

possibility

of Q containing

Charge (Mtt. 12: 24/Ik. 11: 15/Mk-3: 22j cf-30) understood . and so we must attempt

has been variously

to answer some questions.

and-from passage impact tells where did us about around it

What was meant by the term Beelzebul, come? We should Jesus' technique also ask what this

in exorcism

and his

on those

2o6 him. And it will be necessary to take yet another look

11: 20. In view also of Best's treatment verses of relate

at Mtt. 12: 28/Ik. Mk. 3: 27f. we will

need to ask how these of Satan.

to the idea

of the fall

3.6.1 nature extent

But we should

begin

by making for this

clear

the The is

and extent

of the sources in Mark is to Jesus'

complex. as it

of the complex

made clear family into It

bounded by references But what material apart from his

(3: 21 and 31ff. ). this is section possible to

has Mark brought subsequent reworking?

learn
with will

something of Mark's redaction

here by comparing him

-(428) In juxtaposing q.. Mark and the Q tradition we _ be noting not simply the differences between the
but how the differences to be characteristic is not possible follow of these to arbitrarily tradition lines traditions. assign

two traditions, found elsewhere, it

In othe*ords the differences Hence before try

to a particular discussing

or redactor. we should

Mark and his

tradition

and establish

the extent

of the Q tradition.

(a) Matthew

Mtt'l:

24U.

11: 14. It

is

fairly

clear

that This is

has entirely obvious in Mtt-9: 32f..

reworked

these

two verses. account

particularly doublet

when we take Note firstly (430) w

into

the vocabulary, (431) being

the Matthean E-g. and uayi at

(429) Matthew's hand is

also

evident

in the demoniac

111

207
as well as deaf. (i) The healed sw;, man is described

blind

as a d=b

man who spoke and (ii)

AAbrit v seems to be kwlc. the healings in the NT the

an awkward addition. the only giving hope for receive

Of all a precursor

one not having

in the OT is

of sight

to the blind.

Accordingly the blind

a fond would 29: 18; (32: 3);

the Messianic their sight

Age was that

(Is. 42: 79 16; 61: 1(432)

35: 5; 42: 18-20; 43: 8). 'And it

is pertinent

to notice

that

the only time where the theme of the reception occurs in the OT it reception
has already

of speech

is twinned with

the theme of the Matthew

And one

of sight

4f. 6. In Is-35: 5 11: and in this passage.

shown an interest

of the predominant
is that Jesus fulfili-,

themes Matthew continues

the Messianic 8: 17)433) context Matthew would

to pursue

hopes of the OT (iii) Thus in this it is

(eg.

Mtt. 1: 21f,;

2: 15,23;

eschatological/messianic not surprising that

(Mtt. 12: 22-28) have wanted

to heighten

an already
with this

Messianic
is that

healing

and so alter

Q. Uv)

Consonant

among the Synoptics frequency of occurence is

-rvjXS has a in Matthew, of particular 10 times Uk. =5 above, times, in (434)

relatively (v) Also

high the title

'Son of David' he-ase5it (vi)

interest Mk. =4

to Matthew; times). (435)

about

Finally,

as mentioned

Mtt-9: 32-34 (which is more closely

we can see how extensive 12: 22-24. agree At two points Matthew's where Mtt-9:

parallel
reworking 32-34

to Lk. 11: 14-15),

has been in

and 12: 22

against

Lk. 11:14-15 -w

'y Atoei & AAovl and

III

P-o8
that
.....

we have noted Regarding Matthew Matthean

we are dealing
......

with

Matthean

vocabulary.

the verbalization the evidence, origin. That

of the crowd's slight, is

amazement in of a

though is it

in favour

seems to be a type

of response

to miracles

that

Matthew uses

21: 14. Luke has it

8; 9: 31; 7: 28; see cf-15: (436) only at 7: 16 and 13: 17a

Even though the text juxtapositioning above) it

Matthew has entirely of the three us to identify seem that the

reworked

this

material (see the

parallel

passages

enables would

the common elements. common source healed material he could

From this

involved talk,

a dumb demoniac

being

so that

and the crowd's

amazement.

But Fuller (437) composition. 'ideal His scene' for

thinks It is,

that

this

miracle

is

an editorial which is an ,. (438)

he says, created

a miracle to carry (i)

"deliberately this

the saying the

support

seems to be;

"Afterall,

church was interested

(ii) and without "the Beelzebul

in the saying,
sayings (were)

not in the setting 11

handed down

(439)

any setting

by Mark and Q (Mat. 12.22 par, )., 0(440)

It

is

true for

that

Mark. does not but

use an exorcism to say that Matthew

story

as a setting does Q is precede not

the pericope,

neither and Luke has

to beg the question,

as both

the controversy-with this is

an exorcism,

and Fuller one

shown that

not Q material,

nor that

111

209
is dependent is that on the other. this in exorcism The most important was created not in because the setting".

Evangelist point "the for

Fuller

church

was interested Matthew in a setting so remarkably it is is

the saying,

But at least interested that they

and Luke have shown that for the material.

they were it

And how is

agree

on the setting?

On Fuller's the

own evidence exorcism story

more reasonable pre-Matthean

to presume that Lukan material.

and/or

If

it

Matthew

can be assumed that (441)

then we are

Luke had no knowledge of

justified in thinking that the

Q tradition
point

contained

a brief

exorcism story
is healed,

at this

a dumb demoniac (442) is the amazed. crowd and in which

the man talks

(b) ) (: agree

Mtt. l: 24/Lk. 11: 15443) that an accusation

Firstly

Matthew and-Luke at Jesus - but

was levelled

by whom? As Matthew seems concerned to make the Pharisees (444) Jesus' opponents and as proper names tended to enter (445)
the tradition during its tran mission That against Luke probably best preserves the Q tradition. the accusation is, some of the Secondly, Ik. 11: 15b

crowd directed

Jesus.

what was the nature

of the accusation?

Comparing

with Mtt-9: 34b Q appears to be best preserved In view of Mtt, 12: 27/Lk. 11: 19 'Beelzebull
Q here. reference Thirdly, There is no evidence 'having' similar for thinking

in Ik-11: 15b. in

was probably
that

to Jesus Lk. 11: 16 is

Beelzebul

Q contained (446) (Mk. 3: 22)than any

to Mk. 8: 11 rather

111 ... possible

probably

210 Q material (cf. Mtt. 16: 1; 12: 38)

to Q material.

(447)

and so it

does not belong

(c)

Jesus"Reply

(Mtt. 12: 25ff/Lk.

that Jesus'

11: 17ff-)-4)
(having

Matthew
mentioned of

and Luke agree that

(448)

reply

Jesus knew 'their house. about (ii)

thoughts),

began with (Mtt. (iii)

the saying

Lhe divided the saying

Then foUows divided.

12: 26/Lk. 11: 18a) Lk. 11: 18b

Satan being

from Mk. 3: 30.

(not in Matthew) is probably (449)

The fact

a Lukan explanation
that it follows

derived

on rather for

, _ the view that Luke is awkwardly supports (450) (iv) this intrusion. Mtt. 12: 27f. /Ik. (451) almost exact parallels (v) In

responsible 11: 19f. 11: 21f. are is

Luke following
or is

Q (while

Matthew (12: 29) follows (452)

Luke at least

Mark (3: 27))

is following-

he reworking of Q here

Mk-3: 27? - cf.

the order

Mtt. 12: 28/lkoll:

20 and Mtt. 12: 30/

Lk. 11: 23. It

is uncharacteristic of Luke to rewrite Mark (453) so extensively and if he was here reliant on Mark
it is surprising that There he has only is taken up o cirXvASS
t 3,

into

the vocabulary. in 'r

U7TVrYOy7b(

some evidence of Lukan activity (454) here yet in the allusion

(: r a-Ka-), x

aeiroD-

)-

to IS-53: 12a Luke does not follow (455) does. Thus it a tradition here,

the Alexandrian seems probable

text that

as he usually Luke is following

other

than Mark

- probably

Q.

211 (d) F'r'o'm''t'h'e''e*n'd'of'Mtt'. becomes. less probably in certain. its Ik-12: '1'2': 30/lk-11: 23 the order of

10 (Mtt. 12: 32/Mk-3: 28f. ) is in Luke "where with the it has a catch saying (456)

Q position

word conmection and also C'Holy

OSon of Man') Spirit') with

the preceeding following saying".

And in view of the appropriateness

of Mtt. 12: 43-45a/

Ik. 11: 24-26 in the context in which Luke has it, Luke is (457) Lk. 11: 27 is unconnected with probably following what follows and in Matthew the Beelzebul pericope does

not extend beyond 12: 37-

6.2 -3..

If

the above reconstruction

is the extent elements

of

Q, and we set it
in Mark stand

along side Markpthe following

out which require some discussion.

(a) The pericope (458) -; the -family,

_ he was beside assured as it

is introduced
coming to seize

(3: 21) with

a reference, to
they is said all but

Jesus because of this

himself. is unlikely

The authenticity

to have been created

by the

early

Church(459)
reference vv. 31ff.

a similar supplying

and the Johannine, tradition (46o) (Jn.

10: 20). v , to the present context

also preserves
of Mark he-,

In view

(see,. below)

may also have appended vv. lgb-21 (461)

this pericopee

as the introduction

to

(b) Mark (v. 22) has the scribes making the accusation against (462) Jesus. Again in view of Mark's desire to make the (463) scribes Jesus' opponents and the tendency for (464)Me., tradition to take on proper names, Mat the o-is wdecabon

212 Mark may be responsible (c) That Jesu is is said for naming the accusers. (i by of the early of the

to be j)osesied

Beelzebul Christian

(465)

unlikely

to be an invention and Luke's omission

cf. Matthew

reference. (d) V. 23 - "And he called

high: lighted

to them in parables It is also ...

of Mark and Q and it is

by our comparison

probably (e) It
sayings

from Mark's hand.

(466)

_ is also apparent that Mark does not have the Q

about the Jewish exorcistsl Jesus' source of

power-authority,

and the Kingdom of God

(Mtt. 12: 27f. /

Lk. 11: 19f. ). In the light the relationship

Spirit

of Mark's evident

interest

in

between the Kingdom of God, the Holy

of Jesus (see above on Mk. 1: 21-28)

and the exorcism

it

is most unlikely

that

this

Q say3mg was available

to

Mark. (f) That the parable tradition of the Strong is suggested Man was in by its parallel this context position

I-. in Mark's 46? ) in Q (g)

The comparison Not only

in

of Q and Mark draws attention is its position

form. the earliest The

to (Ik. 12: 10)

us to saying answer

Mk. 3: 28ff.
but here it is is

in Q different
question form of for the

a different which is

(468)

not

whik

butZits has given

form and position three

in Mark's for

tradiCtion. that

R. Scroggs its position

good reasons

thinking

in Mark is

secondary.

III

213 111. Vs. 23 introduces

series .a of parables 28f.

the defense by announcing that

is to follow. 2. While vss-23-27

are parabolic,

are not.

The introductory

words in vs. 28, "Amen I say to you, " suggest an (469)independent logion. 3. The parabolic 1 originally
discourse has given belongs thio lack no hint in its imagery that thought

of the Spirit himself to his is feels readers

to the discussion. of consistency, just "For

Mark for he explains logion

in vs-30

how the preceding they had said, have not,

to be interpreted: spirit.

'He has however,

an unclean said thatj

" The Scribes

and Mark has to relate

the Beelzebul

controversy
with

with vss. 28f.

spirit, working

by identifying
contrasting (470) in Jesus". from Mark's belongs thus

Beelzebul
it with

the unclean Spirit exclude

the Holy Thus we should (h) Although they

vv. 28ff. presently here

tradition unit

here.

vv-31-35

to Mark's tradition

3: 19b-35

do not belong

in Mark's

as

V-31 marks a new beginning is not directly related

and the subject

to the Beelzebul

of the material (471) controversyo that the Beelzebul I from

Our comparison controversy

... .......

of Mark and Q has revealed source probably only

................... in Mark's

extended

........ ....27. 3: 22b to 3:

3.6-3
intended that

We should now move on to ask about what Mark

use of this this tradition. (a) Crossan there is says severe

by his

Mark utilizes

material

"so that

III

214
between Jesus Mark's (i) intention? In vv-31-35 and his Probably (472) relatives'!,, not. Consider is intended But the between

... opposition is this

fo'Llowing.

no contrast

Jesus'
is

family

and those seated around him;

between Mk. 9: 36f. vv-32'and

(473)

there
is to

no adversative

33. The story is said

be compared with

where Jesus

to use a

(ii) There is no other to visual aid make a point. (474) of Mark to the which suggests an "animosity evidence (475) What have is do here Jesus". we a clear of relatives misunderstanding without alleged beside portrayed of fact in Jesus' no early family. narrator thought him". (iii) would have that Jesus was (476). did

the warrant that himself

the family

at Nazareth

and went out and Luke omit

to restrain the reference.

Thus Matthew Mark intend? this material

What then on finding it

The answer may simply in his tradition

be that

Mark thought

appropriate

to place it
'possessed'

here for

were thought

the charge of beingFfAr-I and being (477)

to be synonymous.

(b) to play

Mark's the role

redaction

shows that

vv. 28ff.

were intended 11: 20 to

of the Q saying

Mtt. 12: 28/Ik.

show by what pOWer-authority

Mark's if intention is particularly Jesus'

Jesus performed his exorcisms.

evident family in v. 30. Again to this

(478)

Mark had intended criticism

to be subject v-30

severe specific

we would

have expected

to be more reworked.

and vv-31ff-

to have been more carefu2-ly

ft

111 (c) In view of other present day contributions

215 on the

understanding of Mark's intention material

attention This

in the use of traditional

in- this pericope we should draw particular

to the Parable of the Strong*Man (i) (3: 27). man is That

parable

has two components; and then (ii) his

the strong

bound Olc-, ')

house is

plundered.

the binding

.. is .... Temptation
will least if find in

of Satan is to be seen as taking place at the (479)

a. view that is widely held. Yet we notiong little support for this at

(p. z3obelow) the Temptation components,

na ratives. Md

Thus we want to ask least for

both

binding

plunderingl'at

Mark,

could

be understood Best - at takes it

as referring that

to what happens is a previous is an

in exorcism? definite aorist is act

the binding

the Temptation (480) However as being

" S. becau r, 7 e '12 the strong Satan is

subjunctive. understood cast

man in v, 27

obviously

and in v. 23 Satan who is being

OfHow can Satan cast out

")it Satan? out Furthermore natural in

in exorcism. are quite

the notions the context

of binding of dealing

(and loosing) with

demons, exorcisms looses

and healing.

In Lk-13: 16 the In Mk-7: 35 And antiquity is

healing

a woman whom Satan had bound. is healed out

a bound tongue Deissmann the idea

(cf. Mk. 5: 3b; Lk. 8: 29). that running through

has pointed that

influences. binding dealing first with

by demonic man can be bound or fettered (481) Also the progressive pattern of v. 27, and then plundering, demons illustrated, for fits the form of in the

example,

216 magical papyri: first giving the adjuring directions to bind or restrict

the demon then

to the demon - all

in the same progressive

(see act eg. PGMIV: 3037ff-). the metaphor of a house is

who is possessed by a (482) 'house . So also is taken from the strong

In Ik. 11: 24ff. I

used to describe demon. What is in Mk-3: 27c it man here strong is the 'Lord the

individual is the

at stake is

the house that of the House' a parable

(3: 23).

Thus what we have Satan, the

in, Mk. 3: 27 is

of an exorcism. house, is

man is bound and his from Satan. that There

the possessed justification

person, for

taken

then*no

thinking na rative.

any of this

parable

refers

to the Temptation

From what we have said we can say two things accused Jesus' of exorcising source

of

this

pericope Firstlyl but

in Mark, Jesus is that

in particular. by Beelzebul, is

Mark affirms. Spirit.

of power-authority Jesus is

the Holy

Secondly,

in exorcism

defeating

Satan.

What can we say about of Jesus? The fo3. lowing*points

this

parable

reflecting

words The

can be considered.

comparison of a possessed person to a 'house' (483)

common in the East. this parable Two Gospel traditions (Mark/Matthew has it. and Luke Thus this (484)

is still
preserve

) and the Gospel most Jesus.

of Thoma- 35 also probably belongs

parable sayingcof

to the authentic

III

217 3.6.4 It must now be asked what the and how that the fact material _Q material that can tell

us-about

Jesus-the-Exorcist

presented

him. We have already pericope, began with given us very little

established a brief

the Q

exorcism story. about this

But Q has exorcism.

information

(a) while

Luke describes

the healing

(11: 14) using e-' ic43av loc117 bv-roS uses

Matthew

says zFjr4, Tzv-rzv in

12: 22, but

in 9: 33. This predisposes us towards thinking that Q used 3q, -(485) I CmA. as the word to describe what Jesus was
doing in his exorcisms. We will discuss this word a littld

more fully

in a moment (p. 2: U).

The brevity not only, that

of the account Q saw nothing

of the

exorcism

indicates' technique in

special it is this

in Jesus'

of exorcism nature is

but

also

that

primarily

introductory exorcism had later

to what follows. is

That

introductory That exorcism

of a dumb'spirit

important. for Q will

eschatolgical in the pericope. eschatological

overtones

become apparent in the introduction is affirmed,

However already dimension

the as one

of exorcism

of the hopes of the Messianic sing for joy (Is-35: 5 and 6).

age was that (486)

dumb would

originally

(b) What did the charge in Mtt. 12: 24/Ik. 11: 1 (487)
mean? Did Jesus' audience think

that

he

was using a particular

foreign

god to affect

his exorcisms?

(489)

218 This idea involves

Jewish Ekron distortion in 2 Kings with late

the notion
of 'Baal

that

'Beelzebull

is a

Zebubt, (i)

the name of the god of of the name

1: 2. But

the connection

Beelzebul seems quite (ii)

the name of the Philistine-god - no earlier than is

at Ekron 49o) Jerome (c. 340-420) by Origen(ECYIII: 25) they

Outside

the NT Beelzebul (Refutation with incident

mentioned

and Hippolytus

of Heresies

'6: 34)9 but (iii)

make no connection who mentions phrase "the the

the name of Ekron. of Ahaziah (Ant.

Josephus

9: 19) has the using the part "same of the

Fly-God

of Akkron to render

(Ekron)"

words as the Septuagint Hebrew Baal-Zebub God ,,. (491)

the latter supposed

traditionally

to mean 'Flydoes not seem of 2 Kings 1: 2

Thus' even Josephus between

(c. 37-100) Baalzebub

to know of a connection

A possible and a term 'Be6lzebull. clue to the meaning of (492) Beelzebul is in Mtt. 10: 25 - "If they have called the ma ter malign of the house Beelzebul, those of his household". how much more will Though it is rare they in the

OT (1 Kings8: 13 =2

Chr. 6: 2; Is. 63: 15; 'Hab-3: 11) Zebul can

heaven and probably in mea33 'dwelling'. (493) the Qumran scrolls. In cultic rival IV494)

be used as a synonym for A similar meaning is

found

the Hellenistic

period

Baal was the chief in the time

of the Yahweh faith

especially

of Antioches

In lat"er

Now in Jud ism and the NT pagan gods (496)were said to be demons.
"What better name then for Satan, the chiqf of the

only to Yahweh*

OT writings (495)

the name 'Lord of Heaven' was available

III

219
demons than He could this not title that of the chief of the heathen by his proper gods? name this nnme

of course is

be called

restricted

to Yahweh - but

disguise Gaston

'Lord of Heaven' could be hinted (497). here Jesus concludes

at in a slight

"The Pharisees Satan. Satan,

accuse

of being

inspired

by

The narne they is tran parent

use, -Beelzebul

Baalshamaim understood

by Jesus

and his

enough to be readily (498) hearers". of Jesus lead

Thus what the exorcisms is that he is evil

the crowd to think

and inspired

not by God but by Satan.

(c) Mtt. 12: 25ff. / Lk. 11: 17ff.

charge wording meaning of casting of the first is clear. It

is Jesu'

reply
(i)

to the

out demons by Beelzebul. two verses is impossible for need not for that

The precise us and the

detain

Jesus would

to be casting mean Satan was even if would I

out demons by Beelzebu2/Satan divided. But even if

he were exorcising himself, of Satan is Jesust

by Satan, exorcisms

Satan was divided still (ii) is

against

mark the destruction The next to point argument that

and his

Kingdom. the charge Jesus with

used to counter of charging

out

the inconsistency

being in league with Satan while

their eople own cast out demons. out

not considering (499)

by whom
is

The question

"by whom do your response to this

sons cast of course

(demons)? " The natural be 'God' (and the context

would

111

220 only two alternatives, here is said in Satan the next or God).

supplies There is

(500)

a problem Jesus

verse his

(Mtt. 12: 28/ exorcisms is Q's mark

Ik. 11: 20); the arrival understanding exorcisms?

to claim

that

of the Kingdom of God. What then of Jesus'

their contemporary exorcistsand C In Q's present arran ent with vv. 19 and 20 it has generaUy is that Q felt been thought that that the

(Lk. 11) juxtaposed obvious interpretation

the exorcisms

of the Jews were related

in some way to the c.oming of the

Kingdom of God - an interpretation

been variously (502) and vigorously avoided

which has rightly

by NT critics.

(501)
_

Creed

for

example resorts insertion(503)

to Bultmann's from

hypothesis . of

that

v. 19 is

a late

the "controversies

the early
But even if 'late' it

community with
the reference was still part

its

Jewish opponents .
exorcists that

(504)
is Matthew of

to the Jewish of the Q material

and Luke used. the material juxtaposed understanding unanswered. is

And even to alter

the present

order

so that Ik. 11: 19 and 20 are no longer of little help for the problem would of Q's still re In

of the Jewish

exorcists

There up until between

is

however

another

alternative. not about

The pericope the relationship God.

Mtt. 12: 28/Lk. 11: 20 is exorcism

and the inbreaking accusatioh Jesus' and Jesust source

of the Kingdom'of reply have,

The Phariseest only to do with

so far, Therefore,

...... ........ of power-authority.

III'

221 that Q can possibly be saying about the Jewish exorcists

all

is that
authority as allies

they in some way share the same source of poweras Jesus. This notion of Jesus tolerating others

is made more plausible

when we note

Ik. 11: 23/

Mtt. 12: 30 and its against

Mark this Strange

positive

doublet

'Tor is not who ever In both Luke and

report operating not alone in of a

40). is 9: 50/Mk. 9: for us'ALk. us,

saying Exorcist follows he tried following tolerant at least John (the

disciple's) from

to dissuade Jesus. of other

because he was not seeing is said Jesus being to regard,

Thus Q is exorcists

whom he as allies.

to some extent,

(d) exciting finger

Then comes Mtt. 12: 28/Tk. 11: 20 - one of the most verses we shall deal with; tTut if in a spirit/

of God I cast

out demons,

then

the Kingdom of God and interpreting the ministry including Why in Q are of the -

has come upon you". this verse in the

But in understanding context of Q and perhaps

of Jesus,

we must face

a myriad

of problems in Q? the

What was the wording the exorcism of*Jesus

of this linked

verse with

inbreaking

Kingdom of God? historical , for Jesus? Jesus?

Can the saying and, if so,

be traced what was its

back to the significance

(i)

There

is

no need here

to completely

rehearse

the debate about whether Q contained

of 'Finger Despite 1(505) . his hesitancy

the word 'Spirit'

about his results

111

222

Dunn has in fact

original in

given good reason for (5o6)

taking

'Spirit'

as

In any case the meanings

of the variants

are the same.

(507)

(ii)

fhy are the exorcisms

of Jesus This

linked verse for

with

the

.... ..... .... ... . ... ..... ........... God? ....... the ........ inbreakin King dom of g of components, exorcisms attached the source (Spirit), to these

has three the

of power-authority

the exorcist two components

and the meaning the inbreaking of Jesus of the linked the in the Spirit these two with

Kingdom of God. So, are the exorcisms the coming of the Kingdom because exorcism of God? options? or because Jesus performs Or do we in fact

Jesus performs the exorcism

have to choose between

It

is

generally

recognized

that

the key element

in

this
Jesus about

verse is. 'Spirit/finge'r '(5o8)

operateso_ the previous that (cf, . verse

of Godt by, or in,

which
said

However from what we have just

(Mtt. 12: 27/Lk. 11: 19) where Q operate on the same

seems to accept side as Jesus

the Jews also the Strange

Exorcist

ik. 9: 49-50), as unique while

..... Jesus"source

............ , , of power

Mk.9: 38-41/ ...... . . . . authority may not be

other hand

as it

has been claimed. in is the same-sphere an aspect That

Yet on'the (of Mod)

operating there

as the Jewish that

exorcists

to Jesus' is,

i3ower-authoritv to his claimed

was hitherC-to contemporaries

unknown. (note

in contrast I

the adversative

) Jesus

III

223
wAs the, Spirit of God which provided him with his power-

it

authority.
Rabbis'

The Spirit
sources

of power-authority.

of God was not one of the Jewish (509)

So far

as Ican

tell

is making a unique claim for

Jesus.

Although be taken Stauffer

' is the use of r'-jW a contrasts

not

everywhere

in the NT to emphasisl(510)

as implying says -

or used for

"On the lips is relatively

of the Synoptic infrequent. It

Jesus is

the emphatic

xlyto'

found

in warnings, the sense

promises of His

and commands uttered divine

by Jesus with (511) power and authority".

And the only other

time Q-uses e-6&5on the lips

of Jesus

(Mtt. 8: 9/Lk-7: 8) it
Jesus.

is to draw attention
that

to the person of
of the in

Hence we. can suggest linked the Spirit with

the inbreaking exorcisms

Kingdom of God is because Jesii in

Jesus' casts

out demons.

In Mtt. 12: 28/Ik. Jesus

11: 20

is

put

on the lips

of

in Q. How much is difficult

to be made of the use of this So far time prior it as I know this is is -

word is along

to decide,

with

Mark - the first In literature (6: 18),

used in relationship for out', two

to exorcism. example but flee

to the gospels, Icast the

in Tobit (4r&X(J).

the demons are not into account

When we take

elements

of Mtt. 12: 28/Ik.

11: 20 - casting

(that demons out

is,

Satan (Mtt. 12: 6/M. 11: 18) - the enemy o God) and

III

L. C-7T

DL ,n,

the coming of the Kingdom of God, the LXX's may be useful in conjecturing the implication

use of of its use

in Q. Most of the occurrences

in a context

,tA)si in the LXX are of L"N

or standing his in the of

where an enemy, frustrating his purpose for

way of God fulfilling

chosen people

Israel,

is cast out

,,

so that God's purpose can the possession

by little will

be fulfilled.
the promised drive

This purpose is most often

land. Two examples: "Little you, until

of
I

them out

(zK/QAA&,, ) before (Ex. 23: 30);

you are increased God is

and possess your dwelling

the landn place,

"The eternal

and underneath

are the everlasting

arms. And he thrust and said,

land

(chRc(AA&,; ) the enemy before you, out So Israel-dwelt in safety ... in a

Destroy.

of grain

(Dt. ). 11 33: 27f. and wine ... the point it

Though I do in that the light Jesus was

not want to press

may be that,

of the IXX use of r-r,44XXw casting might

Q was implying order that

out an enemy of God in be fulfilled

Godts purpose

- the coming of the Kingdom.

(iii) saying? Jesus

What can we say about That the saying likely rightly from

the historicity belongs

of this

to the historical(1) The of

seems quite

the following.

theme of the public was a central ministry (512) (2) The fact that the Kingdom of God is Jesus. said to have already, (513) 400, (": a-xv), come Iwhich

'Kingdom'

corresponds

to
Jesus'

(cf.

own ministry.

Dn. 4: 21), suggests that (514) (3)

Also

the saying arose in

is part of

the verse

111 an antithetic (515) speech. dawning below). paralldlism (4) The early with -a characteristic church Jesus did not of Jesus' associate the

225

of salvation

exorcisms

(see pp. 3 5*Ff.

3.6.5 We conclude this

Controversy Luke's .-by briefly contribution

discussion
attention

of the Beelzebul
to Matthew of it. and

drawing

unique

and understanding

Matthew has rearranged ( 3: 28f. ) to bring

Spirit into

the order of Qj and follows

Mark the

the saying about blasphemy against

context. Matthew also

the present of

introduces and tradition removed of

the acclamation eschatological are identified the parable Jesust attack

12: 23 so that

the Messianic inherent in his

characteristics and highlighted. of the Returning There is

Matthew has also Spirit from

the context of Jesus' the

exorcisms.

to be no question Luke maintains (see above)

on Satan being on this

reversed. pericope

perspective the continuing Returning

and emphasises of the who hear

relevance

of it.

The parable

Spirit

and 11: 28*("Blessed along

those are ... with v. 23 -

the word of God and keep it") gathering readers with in their is

Jesus - show that ministry being

Luke is

encouraging

his

of exorcism. with

F67 MarkJesus-

the-Exorcist possession

charged hence in

madness and demonwith Satan (3: 23)

(3: 21f, ),

league

an unforgivable,

blasphemous accusation

(3: 29)-

226
3-7 The Temptations
(Mk. 1: 121 13 and Mtt. 4: 1,21

(516)
4: 19 21 13)

ii/Lk.

Manh. 4,1.2, ft

MWLI, lf-ls
12Kal dfk T6 wvdpa Ck T4VIRWV.
"00416"m

LuL 4,1.2J3

I T6m 6 Inook dv4xDn

TOO r4lopam 6W6 ds Iv lpnpov pava4wo W Too 610000U. mmI'A aw

dyin "Indoft61Irmm wvcdlmn"

lop&dvou.Rd bwdarpc#gv dw6TOO
IV T4 wvu$w IV ?a PAP*

a6l6v ImAd"

vlwm)mtw4ml
VORM Tioaqwxom,

Ticap"am

6" "S ca.. =946p" TOV POW4 pcf&

IV

Ta 44"

Is kdm

Ompov twdvam.

Tg"npdwm KcA boupOwm. 6pcv(n 6A 4v a6m wopa; Too ad 14am amb IV =FS 4pdp" lalva" W awmkahwav ubviiv kdvaam

lb4xn

It T6vf 6 WOO 64inmyq6T6v

13KcA ouvnMm WOMI

wdwa wopoopbv 6 dwimvi wabroo expo lunpo

Rd M VOW

dyt"-

wmd

vAli

xd Vo9v

sw

The reason is that

for

drawing of it

attention may help

to this to answer

passage the is Satan

an examination (for When -

question defeated,

the various

traditions)

in the Temptations,

the exorcismsi

the cross,

or at some future

time?

3.7.1
does not defeated

For a start
intend in

it

seems fairly
idea that

clear

that Luke

to convey the for

Satan was finally "The devil

the Temptations

he says that

left

Jesus until

an opportune time'? (4: 13). This is

at the rest of Luke where Satan

confirmed

when we look

is referred

to at (8: 12);

10: 18;

11: 18; and 13: 16. Thus

III we have an indication active throughout that that Luke thought of Jesus. that Satan was

P-27

the ministry the period from (518i

Conzelmann's

contention

described the activity

between Lk. 4: 13 and is 1(517) Satan! of

22: 23 was "one free thus hardly tenable.

3-7.2

Regarding Matthew's view of the relationship and the fall of Satan the situation to 'go$ tx; Ov' and However

between the Temptations is less clear.

In v. 10 Satan is told Jesus (6+71T-kv

-in v. 11 he 'leaves'

in view of 12: 26 and 16: 23 it Satan's activity continuing

seems that after

Matthew also saw

the Temptations.

3.7.3
as the defeat we are

If

neither
of Satan,

Matthew nor Luke viewsthe

Temptations

what can we say about 2? In fact as we were with Matthew

in much the same situation Reference

and Luke. leaving verse

angels

in Mtt. 4: 11a/1k. 4: 13 to the devil (519) However the second part of the ministry
(1: 13) though

comes from Q. probably

in

of the of the
3 (6oV'

does not.

Mention
Mark,

Matthew

comes from

his

and7r,ooriAlbov being typically (520)

hand. And although interest
he uses So it 4: 13. is (522)

Matthean are probably

from

in #(cyos
the phrase likely this

Luke shows no particular (521) he does favour -'clp( and only

11 OtXPI that is kc', OOCI it jr., Luke then (here and Acts the 13: 11)phrase at

most If

who adds

correct

the

Q Temptations

probably

ended only

with

a simple

reference

to the devil

111

2? -8
Jesus. From this we can hardly conclude that in we have expressed of Satan. the very from important other Q material,

leaving

the Q Temptations motif as with that of the defeat Matthew

In factl

and Luke,

we gain

the distinct

impression For, belongs not the to a

Satan was not defeated controversy

at the Temptations. and, (if it

Beelzebul

(p. 216 above)

the Return defeated

of the Seventy one in

(p. Atibelow),

portray

enemy but

the process

of being

defeated.

3-7.4 is attached
initial Best in it

It

is E. Bestts

view that in Mark.

the defeat (523) After

of Satan an

to the Temptation
tion there there

exam says that nor is

of the Markan Temptation is no overwhelming to indicate (524) For

pericope theme way

convincing in any clear this Best

evidence

the result

of the Temptation. elsewhere

says we

we must look have done, and its

in Mark - in 3: 19b-35. at Mark's account

This

now we look

of the Temptation

immediate

context.

Even if Baptism

there

is

internal pericopes

evidence exhibit

suggesting different

that

the

and Temptation

strands (That than between understand of of

of tradition'1(525) the present the Synoptics the literary is

Mark at least relationship indicated

has them juxtaposed. is at least earlier

by the same relationship

two pericopes passages

in Q. ) Thus in Mark we should to the significance some consistency

these

as contributing expect

each other

and we might

III

PP9
between them on the part of Mark.

understanding

The Temptation in Mark so it is

pericope

is

a mere two-brief

sentences what Mark

difficult

to draw out directly the role

has in mind here. in the rest

When we observe

of Satan(526) of

of Mark there

seems to be a consistency

use. In 3: 23 and 26 Jesus answers the Pharisees'

that his ministry is authorized

charge

and empowered by Satan.

In 8: 33 Peter attempts
mission and the retort two references

to deflect
is

Jesus from his intended

me, Satan*0011 criticism this of,

"Get behind

Thus these

have to do with Into

and deflection it the that is

of Tw4s (.-.- h,, s ministry. to fit

pattern destroys we find 10: 2; 12: 15)

not difficult 'mission' it

4: 15 - where Satan Turning

of the Sower.

to rrrt, a4yw (8: 11; with

3-6 used on three the context in

other

occasions

in a3_1 -

of confrontations interesting-for to prove

the Pharisees.

The reference are asking we should Jesus

8: 11 is

the Pharisees himself, with which

Jesus for

a sign

compare the Q Temptation his sonship

where Satan himself

tempts off the

to prove

by throwing

pinnacle suggestions Temptation

of the Temple. that

So perhaps

we have in activity in

1: 9-13 the

Mark saw Satan's to do with

as having

an attempt

to deflect

Jesus from his mission.

Best alone

says that

on the basis

of the Markan account the the of outcome of

6

we would

be entirely

ignorant

230 ... Temptation. (527) However in view of the OT background

of angels in the wilderness the safety be alert to to (528) of

_ the concept of the ministry where the purpose 'God's Chosen'

of the angels

was to ensure we should

in a trying that

periodl

the possibility even though

Mark is

assuming

a positive so. If

outcome, we can press to angels

he does not for

specifically'say on Mark's although

the OT background it is also possible

light that,

reference

Mark may have in mind there need be

the successful no thought passage

outcome of the Temptations, over Satan

of the victory a difficult

- simply

the safe

through

period.

Hence not only does the last us from our earlier that suggestion, it

part but it

of V-13 not deflect confirms mission the ideal that was that Mark

in Mark's Temptation

was Jesus'

at stake. immediately

And, when we take into following

account the fact

the Baptism and Temptation

has Jesus emerging on mission justified

(1: 14-15) we are further narrative as relati

in seeing Mark's Temptation

to Jesus, mission.

So there from

is

a victory itself, (529)

in Mark's but it is

Temptation, not

discerntble or the

the pericope of Satan: to his

the binding

overthrow relation (1: 14f.;

it'is'sus"overcoming*Satan*in

the preaching of the Good News mission, (530) So none of the Snoptic traditions cf. 1: 1).

III

231
of'Satan being represented in the

see the defeat Temptation

story.

III

232

3.8 Jesus' Answer io John(531) (Mtt. 11: 2-6/Lk-7: 18-23)

matth. 1111-6
2*0 M 'Iwdvvqs XPIOTOO dwoocas IV T4 Uopwyn* Ti Ipw TOO

MarL I
18 Kai dwiyyokvlw" MfMff3aim 4&406"a 6 lod"

Luk. 1,1843 at pa&Maj cloToowepi wtvmv KW Wj)O=dAadpCVo-j lbo Tvvft T6V PaNffff

001ma lip4as 616Tav Pa"v 4 Imw, po, 6o. C.,. qb r6 lpx6pln

11 lwcp*cv wpbs r6v Itiplov xt"V ob cl 6 lpx6pgvm J &wv wpoo6olicaptv: lowup Pml M wPbVck& ol Upes alwav- *Iwdvvm 6 PawnW* MOTCAIv APdl WP61 ci Alyov- ob if 6 IpX6pc &Mv WPO60!ftgv; a' IV fical" Tj rapq OlpdWevotv womoin 6W6v6mv Kca poartywv Xai T#CupdTwv WO pow ital rj*Aofs woAkofs ixapiawo Porciv. a itai *wol(plotiql lo" & Am civ, awaWtilan ilwcv GoTols. ImpeuMm xal Axodom - TV+101 6VOPIdWOV-

icpihis 6'Iqcocn ilwcv gT0it- wopfuhm 'lwdwq a dicom ical xdwm- 4tv410i aveoldwog. xnoi KaecpKovm Kai aiv Kai xwxoi 11Pllraloocnv , Ical vticpol dycipov-rei Igel wno. 1[W4oi agodouaiv, 6axion iv dpoi.

aimKai .4 dwayycmn

AgWi KC&GPKOVM KGI XWXOi WtpnMOO01Y, WTW Kw4Oi dRodaveiv, VtKpol lytipovTal. Xal a*u xal paxdpok lonv k ibv p4 cocciv. kkall tv dpoL

We must at least healing from unclean

briefly spirits

consider

this

pericope

because

is mentioned

in Lk. 7: 21 and As this in

we need to discuss

the origin

of the reference. Jesus'

passage may have to do with relation of this to his passage. activities We will

self-understanding

we need to consider also verses

the historicity

want to see what meanings in the course of their

were assigned tran mission.

to these

3.8.1

The Q, tradition.

It

is fairly

clear

when comparing

Matthew and Luke, that

the Q introduction

to this

III

233

pericope

contained

a reference

to John the Baptist 11-4vTwv -rairTry disciples

hearing Luke) to

of Jesus I activities and then sending

(i'Jzx Matthew, (two? ) of his some coming one,

to Jesus

"Are you-the ask -

or should

we expect

another? "

Lk-T: 20-21

does not

appear

in Matthew.

That

this

material

was originally

part

Luke uncharacteristically ruetAe by ve 21, and that such repetitions to be attributed

other
to the

could be indicated by _q (532) ' in leaving in a repetition of Lk-15: 21f; Lk. 19: 34) are (533) biblical On the style.
of a number of points
these (537)

(cf.

to traditional
cumulative
that

hand the
conclusion

impact

leads
two
(perhap_s)

Luke-is (534-) Si
CW

verses.

(a)Troel-epyacft, 10 (5319)

for responsible (535) JS39)

4V (5.3 7)

r 7.

and

?,A

seem to indicate

(b) V. 21 is an awkward addition into the Lukan redaction. (542) (c) It is probably-Luke who is responsible for context.
the aorist in v. 22 (EiTz-a jxdv'#'Qrrr wl' cf. Lk. 10: 23-24/

Mtt-13: 16-17) so that specifically

is then that

of John can indeed report (543) Our conclusion what they had seen and heard. the disciples
the Q tradiion responsible evil spirits" is best for the preserved in Matthew',

and that healings shall

Luke is "from ...

to Jesus' reference (544) (Lk. T: 5'1). On this

ve

camment in a m=ent.

III

.
The introduction to this question indicates that activity

234

pericope(545) as arising

Q understood (" :lipy-? -Mtt.

John's 11: 2;

out of the

7r4v7&Yv TOT&ry enquires

Lk-T: 18) of Jesus. to come, or In his reply

John the Baptist shall Jesus

4

"Are is he you who -

we look directs

for

(Mtt. 4/Lk. " 11: T: 19). another?

attention

to what can be seen and heard miracles. But it is not that to prove his

including is simply

the healing appealing

Jesus status,

to the miraculous John to see that is said shall the point. to the

but he is helping Indeed "then the hart"

kingdom had come. 5 and 6a ears of a

the passage Jesus the

echo - Is-35:

eyes of the blind then this

be opened,

and the like

deaf unstopped; illustrates -

shall very

lame man leap This but

passage makes only to the state

no'reference of affairs

to a messianic in the New Age.

figure(546)

It

is

this

state

of affairs

that

Jesus

is

said

to went 5/

John to notice. Lk-T: 22, bringing cf. the

Even in the also

allusion - all

to Is. 61: 1 (Mtt-11: reference-to what is

Is. 29: 18-19) dropped

the One emphasised

is good news

so that

is not the messenger but the good news which is being preached (54T) But as the climax of the core of the reply to the poor. comes with is a reference to Is. 61: 1 there in the is activities is the hint of the but the that Jesus

not without

importance "it says God's spirit

eschaton. one to the

For as Stanton -anointed with

not God himself who announces

good tidings

III

235
(548)

poor - Jesus". of the pericope

This

c'onclusion

is

enhanced by the appropriately

climax refers

(Mtt. 11: 6/Lk-7: hindering

23) which

to Jesus possibly of affairs. that

people

perceiving and Jesus' this

the new state preaching on the show

Thus for

Q the miracles

the kingdom has come and in turn of the One who performs poor. .

reflects

identity to the

the miracles

and preaches

3.8.2. with placed person context Jesus the their this

Matthew

and Luke take interests.

up this

Q perspective,

but

own particular pericope

While

Q seems to have

and authority, of the

in a context that emphasised Jesus' (549) Matthew has placed it in the 11-13) so that is

(chapters the Kingdom coming of

and the Kingdom are twin themes and in turn Jesus (550) in word and deed. Christ Luke has made the addition and plagues of 7: 21 - "In that

significant diseases blind Jesus' heard. doing

hour he cured many of were

he bestowed

and evil spirits, and on many that (551) This addition highlights sightti. of what John's directs disciples

command to tell But it and turns also

had seen and

more attention into proofs

the miracles study it is evil

to what Jesus was (552) of Jesus' status. that Luke includes of the evidence/

For our present the proof cure that

to be noted spirits

of people Jesus below, exorcism is cf.

from the

as part If

Coming One.

we note

10: 18 (see to

ppZ*zff. ma. rk out

4: 40f. ) it as particularly

may be that important

Luke wants in his

understanding

III

2-36

of the

coming of the Kingdom, the person in chap. of Jesus,

This

relationship

between be

exorcism, explored

and the

Kingdom will

IV below. -

3.8-3.
pericope

If

Luke is responsible
us very But vhat passage? little

for

7: 21 then this
understanding of the explored

can tell

about Jesus'

of his. exorcism. rem inder this of this

of the historicity Dunn has thoroughly that -- within

question "question

and concludes and answer fit of Jesus first that

so neatly and lack

the if

life-situation either Easter of the JesVsI

coherence

or both-were situation, account words

prompted the substance

by a postat least

must be regarded in vv. 4-6 only

as historical. make sense

really

as an answer to disciples

such a question (553) of the Baptist",

posed b

If important

this

conclusion

is

correct

then

it

provides in which

an

corrective

or balance There it

to the is his

saying

Mtt. 12: 28/Lk. 11: 20. focus not poor Jesus. of attention only

exorcisms

are the is

in relation but

to the kingdom. his is

Here it

the healings God's

particularly

preaching evident

to the for

in which (54)

eschatological'reim

III

237
(555) 3-9 The Disciples' Mission(s)_ (Mk. 6: 7-129 30/Mtt-10: 1-1/Lk. 9: 1-6; lo: 1-11,17-20)

matth. 10,1

Mark. 6,7

I Luk.9,1

Kai wpooicahadpavos TobsW. atica Pa*qTasGOTOD

Kai wpouxaletrai Tobsw.

atica Kai 4PICrTo

zu"aug4pm.

44 irobl id.

ao, robs-Amontutiv Wo No 18WKEV a6TO Kai 181800 a6TOTS -, Iloualav 7rvcupdTwv hah llOu(qav-Tdw ilogeiciv hd wdvT0 Nmudnm *v it 601u6 TWV 650C lxodxxcly OOT& Ital I xaadp
DepawtOciv 7rauav v6oov xal wd. GavPaAaldav

hpawdav. VA V6(rous

Luk. 10,17-to i? *y7rIwpc*Ov&, kOIlp6op4xOvTa

16601 PCT&xOpas Adyov-rts* Kopit, xal T& Saig6vto 67roTdcratral 'I dircv! 4ptv tv T 6v6paTI vo &Ira6ToISvav fh6pow T6v GaTa-

&S acrTpalfhv IK TOO ObPaU&M, 19 1600 wto6vTo voG . OpIV JAV IJOU(FiaV TOO 7[aTt'IV IN&W Kai lid 84twv gal OxOpvfwv, WdOOV TfiV BOVUPIV TOO

A 6pas fX&POLI, 06 gal ObUV 66IK4q. 30xmv dv Toom P4. owoldcr* OPTV 5TI wvgopaTa T& X(jfPqTj 6p&v R Wpm 51ro T& Cmn, XafptTt tw"co tv Tolt oOpmTs

111

238

It fully after

is beyond the the ministry Easter. of

scope of this exorcism

present

study

to

investigate

in the

Christian

community

But we must include of the mission charge

at least in

a brief may reflect of his of the

examination something exorcisms, disciples.

so much as. it

of the historical-Jesusl. and the relationship

understanding between

them and those

Four different come down to us. variety of traditions is

reports

of the Disciples'

Missions

have

Hahn has convincingly arises

shown that this (556) out of two sources. by Luke in chapter 9, (557) q. Matthew lo: 1-14 two accounts. (558) Do '

Mark 6: 7f. and the

one account is Luke 10,

followed probably

other

is to be seen as a conflation these two traditions From the paralleled one source represent pattern

of these

one common mission

discourse which are

or two? roughly see just

of the two traditions is

in Mark and Luke it behind these

probably best to (559) And two traditions. instructions to 10: 4(560) given to the

vhen in 22: 35 Luke ref ers back to Tvelve he alludes not to 9: 11f.

but

the mission

of the Seventy Two.

(561)

(a)

In view it

of the

contributions that

on this

material Jesus

by ever

F. W. Beare sent his

is pertinent

we should before

ask if Easter.

disciples

out on mission

On the

III

239

basis said

of the witness that "the facts mission

of more than of the

one tradition is

T. W. Manson

disciples

one of the best But, as we have

attested just

in the life traditions other

of Jesus". -(562) probably

noted,

these

go back to a common says "that us next to story if

tradition.

And on the took it.

hand F. W. Beare the gospels tell

such a mission nothing (asapart about

place,

In Matthew charge)

especially,...

the whole

from the

shrinks

to the words:

'These

twelve Jesus-sent
that they with

out'

come back Bultmann

and reported that

(10: 5); and Mark and Luke add only Oo) (563)
success". Beare the missionary charge produced mtst in by the

agrees the

included be end

among -the material

Church.

(565)

Yet there not all arise

are clear in the early

hints

in this (i)

material

that

it

did

Church.

Of the two traditions

(Nk. 6: 7-13 and Lk. 10: 1-11; (17-20)) the most primitive one is (566) it is Luke's that that Mark felt and noticeable probably commission (56T) The wholly negative for his church. were inappropriate (568) 569) (despite 4, Lk. 10: Hoffmann of and Schulz' character stringent suggestion to the contrary) is particularly the directive appropriate not to to salute the requirements of the (as in Lk. 10: 0

the Palestinian anyone on the

Sitz road its (ii) is

im Leben:

so out of harmony with origin in the post-Easter disciples

common courtesy community is is

in the East that (570) unlikely.

What the

axe to proclaim

111

240

the Kingdom of God. the disciples'

('Tl)

The absence of any Christology does, as Jeremias says, make it tradition. of

in

message

probable t.hat we have here a piece of pre7Easter (iii) The Palestinian milieu of the personification

(572)

"a son of peace"(573) and shaking ofFthe dust from peace (574 ) to the pre-Easter feet their origin of at also points (5T5) if this Thus the frameleast material. of some even work of the mission charge has been supplied (5T6) Church we have here clear evidence that by the Jesus early sent

disciples

out on mission

prior

to Easter

(cf.

Mk-3: 14).

(b) did the

The next disciples'

question mission

that

requires contain This

our attention specific arises specifically

is -

charge

instructions because giving (cf. only the in

to cast

out demons?

question

one of the'sources*(Mk. the disciples authority the other the

6: 7) has Jesus over unclean source sick.

spirits

Mk. 3: 15) vhile mentioning reference exorcism to

(Q/Lk. 10: 9) has Jesus

healing exorcism

As Mark may have added interest

(he shows a distinct ), in and view

(see ppll*Cabove not

of 10: 17 Luke it appears that

probably

would

drop any such reference) to the disciples.

no such charge was, given it is difficult to the

However, to to in

while

to show that-a*specific'charge disciples'it did the is not involve difficult

exorcise show that exorcism. tradition

was given the'disciples (i)

probably

themselves

We have seen that

pre-Markan

and historical

111

241

in 9: 14-29 assumed'the disciples' demons. exorcists pericope (ii) Mark himself

ability

to cast out to be

believed

the disciples

(iii) 6: 3: 15; T, 13. ' -

The Strange Exorcist the follovers (iv) of

(Mk. 9: 38f*. /Lk. q: 49f. ) assumes that

Jesus were exorcists.

The Return of being given has

the Seventy (Lk. 10: 19) mentions the disciples' "power over the enemy". which, at least
support

as we, will

see, probably

a Palestinian
for thinking

origin.

This variety

is of evidence

that'th6'disciples'probably*were*invol-ved (577) even though charge the we cannot be sure

in'exorcism that add preach Jesus

before*E6,. tter,

gave them a specific of Jesus'

to be so. disciples

We could out to

in view

sending

the Kingdom of God, and the fall

connection

he made between and have

the Kingdom of God and the exorcism

of Satan's that

kingdom

(see chaps. IV and VI below), his cc=amd to preach

Jesus would

assumed that

the Kingdom would

have

involved

exorcism.

(c) historical return

What then'of reminiscences

the' disciples in the

I' return?

Are there disciples

any I

accounts

of the

(Mk. 6: 30/Lk'. 10: lT-20)?

The Markan revision

betrays

the Evangelist's be entirely of inventing

hand to such an extent that it appears to (5T8)' As Mark is not in the habit redactional. (5T9) details-for literary we can perhaps purposes the disciplesIreturn Even the two part in Mark's was report on vhat

say that tradition

the'fact'of - but

no more.

111

242

the for,

disciples

had done and taught he is intent

may be from Mark's on holding both

hand aspects rely on

as vTehave seen, at least gain

together, Ik-10:

in Jesus' insight

mission. into

We must then of this

1T-20-to

the history

tradition.

The case for hand has not often

recognising

this

as coming from. Luke's

been proposed(580) nor' is it generally (581) It is the Q material that thought to be. from. L. (582) (i) Luke this tradition. The with supplies probably to v-lT is cast in Lukan language context and so we

. introduction should of the verses elements this release

vv. 17b-20 but the

from the subject

of the mission following

seventy,

matter

of the (ii)

demands a missionary in this pericope(583)

situation. suggest does the

The Palestinian origin between the for

an early connection

material

as especiLlly fall

exorcism early

and the

of Satan,

a connection

which

Church did

not use.

Of particular

interest

is

lO: 18 - "I

saw Satan

fall

like

lightning
Jesus taken

from heaven! '; - As this

is said to experience reflection

in that often, Tis

a vision

is an unusual'report (584)
it is of Jesus' (585) words.

to be a reliable

to a number of different verse has been taken to refer (586) things. For example C. J. Cadoux says it is possible (587) that we have here another allusion to the Temptations . it is only possible to refer this verse back to the

But

III

2k3

Temptations
victory over

if

one begins with

the assumption that

the

Satan was represented says that of the it

in the Temptations. "to the

Edward Langton original fall

has been referred to which

angels,

are made in Jewish view saying authentic is only

apocalyptic if

so many references (588) literature". Such a considered (589) context. is to be a However

possible

the verse present

detached

from the

Jesus-sayings

in the Beelzebul exorcism

controversy fall its of present

(see jPP. k/FFabove) -2: Satan that context. we would

so relate expect

and the

Lk. 10: 18 to be in

On the idea that

face

of

it

this

verse

seems to defeat

convey the was speedy

Jesus had seen Satan's

which

and is completed.
verse probably

(590)

On closer
a different

investigation
story. of lightning speed.

the
with, the

tells

To begin

modemeye the other idea

regards of light,

the metaphor but this above all

as conveying However, on the not on

occasions

is word used the

accent

is

speed but

on brightness

(Mtt. 24: 2T; 28: 3; Lk-11: 36; 1T: 24; This is especially the sti, 33ning duration and Thus mean it was

Rev. 4: 5; 8: 5; 11: 19 and 16: 18). case in Revelation and arresting speed being for that where the term of God's

is used of the activity with

brightness of no particular like

interest would

or significance. not necessarily but that

Satan to fall his fall

lightning

had been speedy and complete,

III

'511 IL r-=

both

manifestly

obvious

and stiinining. of this

We should verse

not make

too much of the imperfect; being linked

Greek tenses

-EJ-Lc-J/OOLrv but in fall is

IT r- Lr ov *ro( with exorcism

aorl'st this

participle) obvious

and stunning If this

of Satan would correct us that linked then

seem to be an ongoing pericope, particularly

process.

this

Lk. 10: 18, tells as

Jesus viewed*even'hit'disciples"exorcisms (591) the fall vith of Satan.

IV

JESUS-THE-EXORCIST

4.1 set

So far

we have done two things. against which

In chap. Il view the

we

out the background relating

we should

Gospel material in chap. 111

to Jesus

as an exorcist, data that

and then relate, to

we examined the In the

principal light

Jesus-the-Exorcist. out briefly We will responses ministry then a picture

of this

we can now sketch

of the historical-jesus-the-Exorcist. chapter ofthis to assess aspect the various of the

go on in the next

to, and interpretations of historical-Jesus.

4.2

The fundamental but which only

question

which

we have so far the evidence to

left

in abeyance, answer,

now we'have

is whether ! 1) an exorcist

or not the historical-Jesus

was in fact

4.2.1 the stories

Beginning of. Jesus

with healing

the

Synoptic

tradition

there

are

demoniacs

- Mk. 1: 21-28;

5: 1-20; From the we in

7: 24-30 last place

and 9: 14-29;

/Lk. Q, Mtt. 12: 22f. 11: 14. and the the evidence

chapter the

we have seen that of at-IL-ast

demands that stories

origin

core

of these This

the ministry also contains.

of the historical-Jesus. sayings of Jesus that

same tradition ability as

presume his

an exorcist

(Mk. 3: 22-26

and Mtt. 12: 24-26/Lk.

11: 15-18;

Mtt. 12: 28/Lk. 11: 20; Mk-3: 27 and Mtt. 12: 29/Lk. 11: 21f.; (2) Mk. 3: 28f. /Mtt. 12: 31-32/Lk. 12: 10.

IV

246
Synoptics and Acts there are also brief ); references (pars);

In the

to Jesus'

exorcisms;

Mk. 1: 32-34,39(pars.

3: llf.

Lk-7: 21; Acts 10: 38; Lk. (4: 39); 13: 32.

4.2.2

Names were used by exorcists

in their

incantations

for a variety

of reasons.

In Ant. 8: 42ff. in the use story (see

Josephus illustrates

an important

implication

of a 'name' of someone. Josephus begins this p. 93above) by considering cleverness, ability and musical field

Solomon's prowess in wisdom, composition. And to prove Solomon's the story of

in this

Josephus goes on to tell

Eleazar using Solomon's name in an exorcism.,

So probably
historical-Jesus material exorcists. practices. says-name ... perform

the

strongest

piece
is

of
that

evidence
a variety used

that
of

the

was an exorcist Jesus' in

shows that (a) In "Teacher, In

name was being the NT there John is

by other of such and your to you

Even

evidence

Mk. 9: 38(/Lk.

9: 49)

comes to out

Jesus in

we saw a man casting Acts 19: 13 the with the sons of

demons

Sceva -

attempt "I adjure

an exorcism

incantation

by the Jesus whom Paul preaches". Matthew's Lord, characterization of false

We could prophets

perhaps

add

"Lord, who say out demons 22).

did we not prophesy

in your

name, and cast works in your

in your

name, and do many mighty

(Mtt-7: " name?

IV

247

The NT also name in its "Lord,

shows the

Christian

co=unity return with

using joy

Jesus' saying,

exorcisms.

The Seventy

even the

demons are subject 16: 18 portrays charge

to us in your Paul casting

namel"

(Lk. 10 : 17). with to

Acts "I

out a spirit Christ the Church will cast also out shows in

the words, come out ending

you in the name of Jesus most probably evidence that later, the

And, though of Mark is also

longer

early signs

used Jesus'

in its name

exorcisms

"And these -

accompany those

who believe: (b) Extra

in my name they biblical

will

demons ... 11 (16.: 17). that Jesus'

material

name was thought for they do not get the exorcisms.

to be powerful In CC Origen

as an element says of the

incantations Christians

power which

they

seem to

possess

by any incantations

but by the name of

Jesus ... " (1: 6; cf. 1: 6T).

The magical papyri also make use of Jesus I name in its

formulae "I adjure you by the god of the Hebrews Jesu,

(PGM IV: 3019f. ).

To L lead to restore name into the Rabbis finally, later defixio the their from Megara R. WUnsch supplies a lacuna (3) Jews also took up Jesus' name'of 'Jesusl. repertoire. healing This is plainly in that evident (4) (c) And name. we can note being For that

prohibit

by Jesus'

on the in the

use of the

Inamel of'Jesus,

early

Church Jesus'

name was. still out demons.

used

as an effective

means of casting

IV example, flight Arnobius evil spirits" says that (Ady. . "when heard puts name (5) Gent 1: 4-6). Jesus'

248 to

4.2.3 incantations which betray

Apart there

from mentioning are instances relating

the

use of Jesus'

in name to

where Jesus to Jesus

is referred

a tradition preserve

as an exorcist. in b. San. 43a -

Thus the Rabbis

such a tradition

"Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve.

previously the herald had cried,

Forty

days
led

'He is being

out for
Origen quotes

stoning
Celsus

because he has practised

as saying up in and hired and after magical

sorcery...

,,,

(6)

"He was brought

secret

himself having

in Egypt, workman a as out tried his hand at certain from there,

powers he of those

returned

and on account the title

powers gave himself (7) 60). 1: cf.

(C-C God" 1: 38; of

4.2.4 consensus of

All

this

evidence opinion

rftuires - that

us to agree the

with

the

scholarly (8) was an exorcist.,

historical-Jesus

4.3

Another

question

that

rem ins

to be answered. is has entered in relation the

from other whether or not material (9) Jesus-tradition. This question 'pigs episode' in the story of the is

traditions arises

to the

Gadarene demoniac a sense in which this

(Mk. 5: 1-20,

esp-11-13).

There

37
aspect exorcism a dramatic few of the (10) Jesus. of the stories ending. exorcism story is out of character for is no other clear that with story the other

249

of Jesus, But it stories

has such have very to can

we only

which

were once related

And from different

perspectives

each story feature. Mk-T: 24-29

be seen to have its uniq_ue or uncharacteristic Thus Mk. 1: 21-28 probably is set within the synagogue;

is

a healing involves

from a distance, both the sick

and of a Gentile; boy and his father.

and So

Mk. 9: 14-29 perhaps elements here that by the it

is unwise

to begin stories. in did vas

by excluding It so far

'uncharacteristic' pointing is out

from the Jesus the early

is worth as it this

Church,

represented aspect of the

Synoptic

tradition, story that

not think

Gadarene demoniac Thus it is notable

'uncharacteristic' who so often did not

of Jesus. saw fit this to cut

Matthew', of Jesus or unworthy

and abbreviate

stories

delete

motif

as 'uncharacteristic' that the the cure, pigs but episode as part

of Jesus.

We showed above as a 'proof' transof

is not to be regarded of the cure - the

demon being course

ferred

from one abode to another. a number of parallels aspect of the Jesus

In the

argument Yet this

were cited story

of this (12) as evidence. appear to conform,

does not

or to be constructed or literary convention

to conform relating

to any particular (13) to exorcism.

practical .

There is,
of the opinion

however, another possibility.

that Mk. 5: 1-20 is a Christian

Midrash

H. Sahlin is (14)

on

IV Is. 65: 1-5. demoniac (15) As evidence Sahlin the says that as the

250 Gadarene so

in Mk-5 represents heathen

heathen God.

seeking

Jesus,

Is. 65: 1 has the

seeking

Then Sahlin

mentions

Is. 65: 4 - those sitting V-5 - "keep to yourself,

apart from the first you"

in tombs and eating

swine flesh,

and

do not come near to me, for

points these Although if there of two contact passages the early with is

I am set

- as being between

Mk-5less than made relationexpect but Mark

However might use ship more of at

contact

be thought. Em. 10: 21), passage

Church

Is. 65 (cf. this

was a literary we would surely used, in

between definite

and Mk-5 In the

contacts. (pig). In

LXX LJ-"'EtOSis people

usesXo^40S

Is. 65: 4 the

dwell

secret

places,

the implications And if

of Mk. 5: 5 is that

the demoniac was

out in the open.

Mk. 5: T does not have an incantationbut is modelled is so little seems then that

(against background al 65: 5 then it Is. on verbal contact

what we have argued), that there It

is surprising

between the two passages. as a Christian it

Mk-5 did not originate passage. 'foreign' Consequently material

Midrash of the Isaiah to conclude that the Jesus

is reasonable

has not found its

way into

tradition.

(16)

4.4
last

We can now draw together

which through to belong

those elements in the

analysis, of the historical-

chapter,

historical-critical tradition

seemed rightly

to the

Jesus.

IV

251

4.4.1

In three

of the

exorcism

stories

(Mk. 1: 21-28;

5: 1-20;

9: 14-29) there
and the

is an initial
demoniacs. but it as. it

dramatic

confrontation
residue over-

between Jesus of

(Mk. T: 25 has the

such a confrontation we should exclude

tones

may have theological UT) ) from consideration.

The first ation

element

of this

confrontation

is

constern-

on the part'of

the

demoniac.

In 1: 23 the man cries

out;

in 5: 6 the demoniac prostrates

Jesus, falls the

himself
demon tears

and cries

out;

and in 9: 20, on meeting the lad who, foaming,

or torments
t

to the 'ground. -ITojorK LrVtij

(see

5: 6) as used in the NT always has as its object something (18) (tr uly or supposedly) divine and so we would suspect that
this interpretation Nevertheless that was introduced we still into 5: 6 by the examine the demoniacs
if Mark

early I out
indulged ).

Church. possibility
and fell in

have to Jesus the

on meeting
to the

cried
has (20)

(ie. 770r7w)

ground historischen

(even

Vervielfltigung

eines

Vorgang

So, is the

it

likely

that

when a demoniac disturbed? that

and Jesus met We have seen in our

demoniac became extremely of exorcistic of the that material era demoniacs

survey exorcists possible effect on the

in the presence of other (21), Thus it is were disturbed.

as an exorcist sufferers

Jesus would have had a similar who were confronted by him. that the And

on those other

hand there

are reasons

for

thinking

IV early Church probably into the stories did not need to of Jesus. introduce this

252

element (i)

Matthew,

stories does not though instance. but that (ii) stories. of this (cf

who is decidedly reticent about the exorcism (22) (23) Yet he of Jesus, prunes the Markan accounts. obliterate the consternation of the demoniacs -

in 17: 17f.

he removes Mk. 9: 20, the most grotesque demoniac right barely

Thus in Mk-5: T the is toned is only

in Mtt. 8: 29 this the consternation

down to

4&mt) 1,' K/06'(S ,PL (24)

ex,, uSatv

77

so

evident. element as the in his expression

Mark shows no consistent

use of this

Thus in 1: 23 he has kot consternation; in 3: 11 Mark has in This

7oorine7f-roy

5: 33) -

fros-0 0 -'kW;

in 5: 67T140rT-KLrv? 9: 20 )Tzv and variety of expression shows, the

for

example,

no desire

on the

part

o Mark to portray Luke, to this of the (4: 33,41; element. early Churchts

demons worshipping

Jesus.

So also attention indicator of the

8: 28;

9: 42) pays no particular (iii) There is a third part

lack -

of interest viz. that

in this the lack

form of an exorcism in dealing indicates not with only

story the did they but

of consistency demoniacs their

consternation seek to they (iv) coopt

of the it into

not

theological draw attention point

enterprise, to this that

that

did not Finally,

even seek to

factor. the case for

here we can make the

inauthenticity established L verbal

rests on literary or oral dependence on an (25) form, but evidence is against precisely such

dependence.

IV

253

Therefore in so far interests the early

we are justified first early three

in concluding Evangelists is

here that the that

as the of the

represent quite unlikely

Church - it the

, Church introduced into it the

consternation stories like

of the On the

demoniacs other

form of the that

of Jesus. his

hand,

is probable

contemporaries, in the demoniacs

Jesus-the-Exorcist who confronted him.

evoked a disturbance

The second element confrontation

or dimension

of the

dramatic distress of these that these to

is the vocalization In dealing Fridrichsen's

of the with

demoniacs' the first

as in Mk. 1: 24 and 5: 7. passages we dismantled

hypothesis

exclamations defend Jesus

were attributed from the If the

to the

demons in an attempt in alliance distress, with

accusation

of being

Beelzebul. was the

demons did

vocalize

their

what

content

of their

words?

4.4.2
city of Jesus

In the last
being

chapter we established

the historiof The

Nazareth

by the addressed Son (Mk. 1: 24), Aof The Most High

demons as Jesus (God) (Mk. 5: T),

Holy One of God (Mk. 1: 24), know'

to do with

and that

the

demons used the

(Mk. 1: 24),
you'

tI

adjurel

(1&. 5: 7) and 'What have I

(Mk-5: 7) formulae.

It

remains for us to examine the demoniacs' use of

IV Son of God (Mk. 3: 11'and 5: 7).

Mk-3: 11 (pars. ) for it

254 (26) We must all but ignore

to be an editorial at least Jesus closely

recognised comes from what is generally (27) What we need to note is that summary. thought that the demons addressed

the Evangelists

as 'the

Son of God'. question,

But we must examine Mk. 5: T more did the demons address Jesus-

and ask the

the-Exorcist

as Son of God?

(i) hoped-for "historically

Because it bearer of

"was not salvation", unlikely

a Jewish

designation it

for is

the

KUmmel says that that

Jesus was addressed (28) KUmmel assumes by demon-possessed men as 'Son of God"'. (29) has a Hellenistic But can we that the title origin. extremely assume that messianic the title dimension, in Mk-5: 7 originally is. the title and had a deliberate

Hellenistic?

(ii)

Recent

NT research, clearly

notably shows that

by Klaus the quite

Berger

(30)

and Geza Vermes language Palestinian of Hellenistic origin saying

31)

father-son in home a at his survey for by (32) the

and the term setting. material,

tson of God' is In fact Hengel

concludes to the

in relation

search

of the title that the

'Son of God' in NT Chistology, "entirely are unsatisfactory".

results

If in the

we survey

the

use of the term dimension -

'son of God' of this

(33)

OT and Judaism emerges.

one important Hengel

word

(ben/bar)

To quote

IV "In contrast to 1huios' it not only (or even and

255

primarily) relationship, of

designates but is

physical

descent

a widespread. could

expression younger

subordination, pupils of

which

describe of

companions, membership characteristic.

and members or

a group,, or it a was

a people In this

a profession, extended sense

also

used in a number of ways in the to express belonging ways. court.

Old (34) were the

Testament

to God", there

Hengel has in mind three members of the heavenly Nebuchadnezzar

Firstly

in Dan-3: 25 Thus

sees a figure in the

a son of the gods"

"whose appearance is like (35) fiery furnace. Secondly,

4: in is addressed as 'son Ex. 22f. God's People Israel as (36) Thirdly, the Davidic King% after Egyptian of Godl. (37) . 'son of God' (cf. 2 Sam-7: 12-14). models, was called

(iv)

Moving to the Rabbinic were designated This evidence

material 'son'

we see that

some as

of the holy-men such by him.

by God and addressed

has been collected

by Vermes and for example, voice. Holy

can be summarized was designated And Rabbi Meir One himself study it is

as foljows38)

Hanina ben Dosa,

or procla: imed 'son of God' by a heavenly is actually called In the that "Meir context these my son" by the of this divine present

(b. Hag. 15b). important by the Voice)

to note demons

communications

were also "They hear

heard

(God's

from behind

a curtain

...

it

IV

256
So we hear of Satan or, Agrath, the Queen

(b. Hag. 16a). of the

demons, saying

to Hanina from heaven, I

"Had there

been no commendation and his

"Take heed of Hanina

teachingl"

would have harmed you " (b. Pes. 112a). Thus although actually refer in the Rabbinic to Rabbis that it material the demons do not literature ith God

as 'son of God' this standing

does indicate characterized the demons.

was a Hasid's - that

as sonship

particularly

concerned

(v)

In the Wisdom of Solomon there

are the

following

lines

(The righteous "professes man) himself God is his his to have knowledge of the Lord

of God, and calls and boasts that

a child father.

Let us see if and let his for help Thus again

denote5-

words are true, happen at the end of

us test

what will

life; if the him ... righteouan is God's ! 39) with,

with

son, he will

" (2-13,16b-18a)

'son of God' is
a special

connected

or; every--God.

relationship

Avi)

This

same motif

is

clear

in a fragment a tentative lines

from the English

Qumran material. translation

J. A. Fitzmyer

provides

a. 4QPsDan A of

The pertinent

read -

IV

257
'[But your sog shall
ZO' Kingi shall All

be great upon the earth,

make[peac6, be called be hailed call and all son o (as) him Son

(men) shaly He shall ...

serve[him.

theLureat[Goj, the

He shall

Son of God, and they shall (40) of the Most High ...,,. fragment is poorly preserved singular

As this

it

is

not possible refers.

to (41)

say to whom the third In conjunction of 'the with

person

masculine

the use of (cf. Mk-5: 7). parallel

'son of God' is the title They appear designations. here ts

son

Most High'

synonymous or at least

What this 'son of God' is

evidence

shows is

(1)

that

the

designation and

at home in Hellenistic-Judaism (2) signify that the one of close its

Palestinian-Judaism; functions righteous was to man to

important of the sphere with evil

relationship in the dealings may well

God or a being

operating

in God, to his relation of particularly (42) (3) KUm=el it that against spirits; a Jewish-messianic title.

have been

(vii) early this

This

last

point

would it

suggest appropriate

that to

the

very

Church may have thought 'messianic' title into

introduce

the words of the

demons.

However, as Dunn says "the earliest

have made much use of the He cites Heb. 1: 5 which title

churches do not seem to ,, (43)

.

Son of God as a confession that the early Church took

suggests

IV

258
association to the of Ps. 2: 7 and 2 Sam. 7: 14 in (44) than the exalted Jesus _ rather is, it denotes an ladoptionist'

over the reference pre-Easter Christology Christology. that "If little

Jesus. * That (45)rather

than

a birth that

or incarnation Dunn makes here is

The second point

the

confession role it

of Jesus

as Son of God plays of the earliest flower

in the witness certainly

Christians
within Jewish the

came to
of

full

widening

mission (46)

Hellenistic

Christianity"o

These tvo , relatively Hellenists

points late,

- that

the

use of the title interest

was to the

and of particular that the title

- suggest(

may not have been earliest Church.

added to the vords

t

of the

demons by the

On the other earliest

hand it

is more than

likely the

that

the into

Church did If

not need to

introduce

appelation

the tradition.

we keep in mind that words that opponent,

the words of the include then along is the name, with what

demons in Mark are defensive character and origin said of the the

just have we appropriate

about

'son of God' it the sphere

particularly Jesus operated

in designating That is,,

in which not

as an exorcist.

the

demons did

supernaturally

(47) I recogni ze Jesus. tradition authority, which often

He was an exorcist relied on 'God' to

in the Jewish as a source disarm of power-

so the

demons attempted

Jesus by

IV

259
his allegiance to God. We can conclude belong that to the

suggesting the words

'son of God' in all

probability

historical

tradition

of Mk-5: 7-

4.4.3

From the

discussions to

in the

last that

chapter the words of

we were able Jesus-the-Exorcist to the

establish

demons included

(a)

"Come out

(Mk. 1: 25'9 5: 8; 9: 25);

is your (e) "... (Mk. " 5: 9); name? and no longer

(b) "Be quiet"

(d) enter "(I) into

(Mk. 1: 25);

(c) "What
" (Mk. 9: 25);

command you ... him" (Mk. 9: 25).

On these (a) effect

far in

words of-Jesus held 48) that If

a number of points Jesus

emerge. to so

It

is his
this

generally exorcisms
study is

used no formulae

what we have been arguing

then that this Jesus which view did would is quite

correct seen

plainly phrases readily is correct

wrong. or parts

We have of

use words have Whether 'magical' been or

and

incantations by his these

recognized to call

contemporaries. words/incantations

not - as

it

that, value chapter

for

the twentieth - we shall

century.

-is

generally enquire

a-negative next from

judgment

have to

in the is time

(see p. Mbelow). that of his extent in other silence

For the moment it

plain,

our evidence, this this aspect is the

Jesus was a man of his healing to which literature. technique. Jesus' (b)

in at least with are

Associated

words as an exorcist Barrett says that the

paralleled charge to

in Mk. 1: 23 seems to have no parallel

49)

IV

260
in lines exorcists the that were quoted in chap. 11 difficulty 242, FF., some in see p. 31 no such of Jesus' vocal

Indeed ancient getting above). difficulty;

clearly speak

had great (PGM.XIII:

demon to

Yet Jesus in-the ministry

seems to have experienced earliest demoniacs recollections

exorcistic in his

were particularly

presence.

However although an element implications much stronger 'be bound' Barrett is is or of the

Jesus'

charge

to

Isilencel quiet'.

involves the

sense

'be silent/keep

involved than this

in the use of the word are clearly and best. understood (see pp. 131f. Jesus' in Mk. 1: 25 as Thus in Mk. 1: 23

'be muzzled' to

above). charge

incorrect (seen.

say that

unparalleled

+? oboye).

4.4.4
the the

At the close of the discussion

Woman's a distance activities this b. Ber-34b daughter probably (see it

oF the story
that

of

Syrophoenician healing from

was concluded went back to the

historical-Jesus' parallel to

PJ76above). - the

As a story of

was quoted

Ga-maliells story (from

son.

In this

connection

Van der Loos cites

a her at the with

R. Herzog)(50)of

a woman who dreamed that temple of Aesculapius with links

daughter Epidaurus. NT story.

had been healed However this 'Another is story the

in the story that

has few contacts does have closer

the MK-7 story

one quoted

from Philostratus'

IV Life 111: 38 (see p. gZabove). No literary story but links they are to be do both

261

found between this have 'healing

and the Jesus

at a distance' at home in both this against technique either

in common.

The phenomenon milieu him

was clearly and therefore specifically

a Greek and a Jewish of Jesus' background.

does not place

4.4.5
chap. 11

In the light
there seem to

of the material
be some aspects

presented
of

in

contemporary

exorcistic

technique

that

Jesus

did

not use.

(a) other device,

Mechanical

Devices.

A feature was the speech. it aid

cominon to most of some apparatus, ancient that and rite pJ9 to

exorcistts aid

techniques of

or character texts

In the

Babylonian hair, pottery expel above), used. flee. in the knots,

(see pp. 1+f. above) branches

was evident meteorites

water,

of tamarisk, with Egyptian

were used in association demons. for In the ancient human milk

the healing papyri (see

example,

and fragrant

gum were demon to and In a

In Tobit

8: 3 burning

incense

caused the

In Jubilees

10: 10 and 12 'medicines'

are used,

lQapGen. XX Abraham lays writing root, tells Eleazar

hands on the Pharaoh. ring containing story

Josephus' pungent Josephus spirit. abundant

uses a finger

and a bowl of water. of David using music aids

In another to

charm away an evil

In the Talmud material - amulets, palm tree

were particularly wood chips,, ashes,

prickles,

IV

262
pitchq cummin, dog's of rings. hair, thread, and trumpets. the also aids

earth, Lucian

of Samosata tells iron

exorcists'

threatening papyri

demons and using witness; in & to the

The magical

use of a wide variety For example the olive branches, pith,

of technical following oil are

expelling

demons. - amulets,

mentioned olives,

from unripe and special

mastiga

plants, by the

lotus exorcist.

marjoram,

sounds produced

All

this

seems extremely

remote

from

"Be bound,

and

come out of him"

I command you, 51)

(Mk. 1: 25) or "You dumb and deaf

of him, and never that the enter

spirit,
him again" of the

come out We have

(Ilk. 9: 25)

argued

destruction

pigs

properly

belongs

to the

authentic pigs

tradition

of the expel go

historical-Jesus. the after demons, but they

However the to provide

are not used to the

somewhere for

demons to

had been expelled.

Although another exorcism Jesus

the use of technical

devices

of one kind method of

or

seems to me to be the most prominent in the ancient world

- even among the-Rabbis in his simple verbal gaze he did

cannot

be said Although

to be alone the tone

technique. of his

of his

voice

and the success,

eyes was important words to effect

to Apolloniust the which exorcism

use only

in Life

IV: 20. - A us to see milieu.

more important Jesus' verbal

parallel technique

does not permit is

as unique

from a Jewish

IV

263
above Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai to have cast and Rabbi

As we noted Eleazar girl

ben Yose are said by calling

a demon out of a get out, these it two was not demons reBen

simply

out - "Ben Temalion Nevertheless, remains despite that

Temalion parallels,, unique,

get out". the Jesus'

impression simple

even if

unaided

words, of command to the characteristic of his

do .- stand ported

out as particularly

method.

But could of the against not. other early

this

characteristic it

pf Jesus be a construct sought to the set Jesu6 over era? Probably means

Church in that that

the techniques In other healings

pervaded is said

Jesus (i)

to have utilized the

than mere words.

To heal

deaf mute (Mk-7: 33),

the blind

man near Bethsaida is said is

(Mk. 8: 23) and the man, born blind as part showing of his that healing

(Jn. 9: 6) Jesus procedure. spittle

to use spittle

There

ample evidence

the use of ancient texts, (52) in the

was part It

of the healing example

technique

of the

is world. used for (53) the magical papyri Rabbis against there prohibit Calvin, is nothing ancient its

in the Babylonian (54)

and in Pliny. (55) And thus use.

And importantly,

so far

Fennerg, Strack-Billerbeck to separate world, it Jesus'

as I can see, (56) and Van der Loos from its

use of spittle he or the

in the use thought the

or that

Gospel rriters So

he was using

any differently not (ii)

from anyone else. endeavouring

earliest Jesus

Church was clearly from his milieu.

to remove or hands and

isolate

The use of his

IV

264
on of hands vere clearly (57)
ministry.

the laying
Jesus' healing Abraham's healing introduce In the

a characteristic
also was a part

of
of the story of This

healing

This

technique cure story

of the Jews as for

example the

of Pharaoh is

in lQapGen. XX illustrates. yet the early

an exorcism, the

Church did not of Jesus58) early of the So the Jesus is. Church

the method into of this it it

exorcism

stories

light

is hard to if it

see why the part

would want to delete

was already

historical-Jesus-the-Exorcist's characteristically simple

technique59) unaided verbal

technique

the

is in his to probably use exorcisms said (6o)

early Church, and should

not a construct
among the

of

be posited

authentic

traditions

about

the historical-Jesus.

If I

we note do not,

which it

healings is

in our period obvious with

rely that aids,

on 'aids' the cultic

and which

immediately is

or incantational and devices

sources of

tradition the

saturated

medicines, appeals to

whereby

generally
beyond

unknown exorcist
himself.

power-authority

What Jesus,,

Apollonius . their their their

and some of the. Rabbis ability to heal

have in common, besides tangible appear aids, is that than

reputed

without

power-authority own personal

base does not force. It

to be other

is to this

that

we now turn.

(b)

No Explicit

Prayersor

Power-Authority

Invoked.

One of the pervading we surveyed in chap. II

characteristics was the

of the exorcist's

exorcisms making

which

plain,

IV

265
of the is, the exorcism exorcist rite, either by what authority invoked himself the with aid some demon.

in the preliminaries he operated. of a source higher That

of power-authority to effect

or aligned the

power in order

submission

of the

In

the

Ebers

Papyrus,

from

ancient

Egypt,,

the

healer

or

magician authority

begai

with

the

announcement origin

of his

source

of powertechnique

by declaring-the remedies also

of himself

and his

and accompanying texts (p. 13above) himself

(see p. 19above). the

The Babylonian began by

showed that agent

exorcist

announcing of this

as the is

of a god.

The persistence papyri (for

practice

demonstrated

by the magical

example PGM IV: 3019).

It

has also

become clear was sought

that

a frequent

source

of

power-authority For example, period

in the

use of powerful

names.

one of the most conmonly

used names in our

seems to have been 'Solomon'

(see p. 1oZabove).

Not only

were the of

origin

of the

exorcist's but

powers and

the names invoked (P-100) the above found This papyri, in the is the

significance, of the

as we have noted was to be themselves. magical

essence

power-authority and medicines ancient

spells

or incantations Babylonian, and Rabbinic

in the case Jubilees

Egyptian,

Tobit,

material.

Sometimes where there

is no evidence

of a power-

IV

266
being called, located in a higher power upon which the

authority exorcist particular pray

in the or the

use of a strong exorcist technique. is

in or a name, said to

incantation,

as part

of the healing

The Qumran scrolls for the Pharaoh to using no

(lQapGen. XX) portray.; expel the evil spirit. prays to this

Abraham as praying

Hanina ben Dosa, though (b. Ber-34b (cf. Taan. 24b)).

incantations, exception

A striking of

is the

story

we quoted Eleazar

(p. 73above) ben Yose who daughter pattern

Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai exorcised a simple

and Rabbi

a demon from the RomAn Emperor's command. Another exception to this

with is

the tradition exhibits reason general conducted

about Apollonius

any power-authority, of his picture their personal remains healings force - that

who neither prays: nor blA t is an effective exorcist alone the (Life IV: 20).

by

But the period

exorcists

of the

using

a conspicuous or prayers.

or recognizable

power-authority,

incantations

Now we can look

at the words and technique

of Jesus

as an exorcist
Jesus does not This actual Jesus of is

(Mk. 1: 25; 5: 8ff.;

appear is to more call than 1. to

(7: 29);

9: 25).
of

(1) Firstly
powerof 11: 20 Spirit/ the of Holy

on any likely In view

source a clear of Mtt. basis saying Jesus' that

authority. Jesus' where finger Spirit

reflection 12: 28/Lk. of the

practice. confesses

operate

on the the of

God, linked

and Mk-3: 28 - whjere with is the question

about source those

power-authority--it

indeed

surprising

IV

267
for this the transmission in the exorcistic of the Jesus-material words of Jesus. did That is,

responsible not if his reflect the early

Church was attempting we might likes

to accommodate Jesus to Jesus to be depicted

environment

have expected "I

as saying finger

something

of God

adjure you by God/the Spirit/ 61 ) But we do not 2. We have already historidity of the Beelzebul Charge is

established

the probable

(Mtt. 12: 24/Lk. 11: 15/Mk. 3: 22; more readily his that, source understood if

see p. Attabove). Jesus So the did did

The charge

in fact 62)

not make clear suggests that

of power-authority of his technique,

evidence not - not

as part

Jesus

intimate

he relied 'Spirit/finger

on any outside of God'.

power-authority

even on the

(2) use his

A coordinate 'powerful

of this

point

is that

Jesus

did

not

name' as a power-authority That is, for example, (cf. if

or component of use the Spirit

technique.

he does not

name of God as other of God as we might to conform Jesus' It to

Jews did

PGM IV: 3019) or the the tradition saying that

have expected technique

was seeking

to the

in Mtt. 12: 28/ the early Church was healers for

Lk. 11: 20. attempting they

cannot distance

ievenbe argued Jesus

from his

contemporary

have retained

his

exorcistic of

words which

were formulae (a) above).

familiar

in the world

incantations

(see 4.4.3

Thus as we have seen, incantations which

Jesus with

did

use words or environment. To

were of a piece

his

IV

268
extent we should ask if that it was in these, incantthe early ministry it Church or Jesus of exorcism. that, the key words is own

this ational

words and phrases of the effect

saw the locus 1. it With

of his

respect

to the

early

Church

seems plain as. holding

did not

see Jesus'

words themselves If in his not they

to his as the

successful significant that ministry.

healings. factor they did

did

see Jesus' then it

exorcisms

surprising heling illustrated

emulate early

them in their

What the 16: 18,

Church does do, as is different wording

by Acts

is

use quite

'XQ (nweo, roi rather jjc

and take up using

than say
a 'powerful sign that name' the early

as in Mk. 9: 25)
'Jesus Christ'. not

And the most important place any particular words, emphasis

Church did

significance and that it did

on Jesus'-actual not see Jesus placing any

exorcistic special allusions It is

on them,, is exorcisms that

to be found

in the brief are recorded.

to Jesus' stated This

where no 'words' out

simply

he cast is

(see demon a eg. Mtt. 12: 22/ confirmed in that of Jesus though in

Lk. 11: 14). the Synoptic

conclusion

further special

tradition

preserves

relation

tobther (64)

healings

"Talitha not felt

vords (63) (Mk. 41) 5: and cumi"

"Ephphatha" to the force the

(Mk. 7: 34) it'does 2. If Jesus

seek to do so in relation he was relying on the of of the

exorcisms. of his

incantations is, if

to bring the particular then

about

the

subjugation

demons, that

form and content they is display

words was of vital divergence

importance

a surprising when we

of form and content.

This

noticeable

IV

269
exorcistic words. of him" (Mk. 1: 25).

set out Jesus'

"Be bound and come out "Come out, unclean

spirit,

from the man ...

What is your

(Mk. 5: 8f). nameT" daughter"

The demon has come out of your (Mk. 7: 29)). "Dumb and deaf spirit, I charge enter him" you,

come out

of him and no longer (Mk. 7: 29 is not excluded (1: 25) is

(Mk. 9: 25). to be command (5: 8f. )

a command to the )

demon and so is

from consideration., a binding and then

The form of the a direction; and then the

first second

has a direction, and the third directions. form save that kind of

an address,

a subjugating a binding,

question;

(9: 25) has an address, Thus there

and two any some

is no consistency

in representing

each has the minimal word - different is consistently

commands involving in each case, represented indicate

subjugating which

and the

directive This variety

"Come as outl" any particular in so far that as the

does not the

seem to me to correct formula

interest

in using is

save that

an exorcism demon is

involved,

the words obviously

require

overpowered

and expelled.

Finally prayer Jewish Jesus. was in milieu. (65)

here,,

it

has just of

been noted

how important in the was for has

some traditions Others

exorcisms

- notably prayer

have shown how important ambunt of this to the early

A considerable

importance

probably

to be attributed

Church.

Luke in

IV particular seems intent regardless on enhancing of the to notice the extent that practice Jesus' prayer life

270 66)

In any case, here it is

of the historical at no point of prayer So in view Jewish

core

significant seek to

does the to any of the and for by prayer

tradition part

attribute

of Jesus'-. exorcistic of prayer

technictue.

importance

in contemporary agreed

healings

the Gospel traditions' Jesus, is best the technique taken

importance

of prayer

of exorcism

--unaccompanied Jesus'

as faithfully

reflecting

healing

procedure.

Thus one of the cannot invoked particular prayer claim no it

outstanding

characteristics, unique is that -

though Jesus saw any

we

to be entirely power-authority,

and neither incantations of demoniacs.

significance as part

in his

nor used

of the healing

(c) technique

A third that

element did

of not

contemporary use was

exorcistic

Jesus

The use of this section, but its

word could reported of

have been treated absence from Jesus'

under

the

last

words to the it deserves

demons is potentially separate treatment.

such significance

that

So far

as I can see from our discussion with incantations or spells

Wfabove, on pp. If xow means to 0/0 being'. This

in connection 'charge, meaning is adjures clear

or bind

someone by another adjure you I)Z Z you ]?

in Mk-5: 7 "I

God, do not to=ent

me",

in Acts and

19: 13 "1 adjure

IV the Jesus whom Paul preaches" (cf. lThess-5: 27) ! 67)

271

In the light the transmission its into way

of this

it

is

indeed

surprising 'S'w did ojont of Jesus.

that not

in f ind

of the Jesus

stories lips

the material

on the

The use the early is used

of a form of

, 0/0 o6fw in 1 Thess-5: 27 shows that object to its

Church did not totally in relation tradition power for to has it Jesus'

'Of use. I, ro

an invoked

power-authority,

and the*Synoptic invoked such an of God. into the

in Mtt. 12: 28/Lk. 11: 20 that technique did was the Spirit/finger this

That the tradition incantations again of the

not translate

across

used by Jesus antiquity

seems to me to be an indication incantations reportedly used

of the

by Jesus.

The use of practice of the of invoking exorcist.

in

exorcistic

formulae carry

is

part

of the

a superior apparently

power to neither

out the wishes the

Jesus

acknowledged

use of a source f r of kt'&j its or

of power-authority equivalent. is the Instead,

nor used the and in line appearance

accompanying with of this

convention

of Jesus'

congruous

in his incantation
is

at Mk. 9: 25.

The emphatic.? j14

(68)

infrequent relatively on the lips of Jesus in the (69) it is in Synoptids the words of used and not consistently Jesus to the the early demons (only is not at Mk. 9: 25). responsible for This it suggests that The of
I

Church is not

in Mk. 9: 25. incantations

use of ipS

a feature

of contemporary

IV adjuration(70)and is it so is possible that its use by Jesus

272

of some'significance

in understanding

him as an exorcist

(see pAll-below).

(d)

No Proofs.

The question involved 'pigs

of whether seeking episode' that of proof

or not Jesusof success In

the-Exorcist's hinged

technique

on the nature that

of the it

in Mk. 5. the

discussing of the pigs % integral an decidedly surprising element already doing

passage

was argued as proof

destruction but as

was to be seen not part of the cure.

success, of a proof and it is

The seeking of Jesus did not

would perhaps this

enhance the that in the there.

reputation

the tradition stories Since

either if

maintain it

of Jesus, the tradition

or add'it

was not in so

shows no interest of being

and as Mk. 5: llff. take it that

shows no indication this element

a 'proof'

we shall technique.

was not part

of Jesus'

The natural last three

conclusions are that,

that

we should

draw from these no reliance but on a in "I"),

sections

in declaring

power-authority, simply ordering in

and not the

using

or proofs, (once using the

demon out that his

emphatic

and then finger

saying (i)

power authority technique

was the if

Spirit/ not and

of God -

Jesus'

of exorcism,

innovative, (ii)

would

have at least that while

been very

conspicuous

Jesus believed

he was operating he believed that

out of his in his

own resources,

at the

same time

IV

273
it was God who was to be seen as operative.

activity

(e)
physical

In 1943 Campbell Bonner called

acts of violence (71) departure. by which,

attention

to the
-a demon in

in our period, the the

marked his

Bonner mentions the person

story

Ant. 8: 45-48 where, turned

on leaving

demon over-

a bowl of water,

and the

IV: 20) where the violence destruction it may also is

demon breaks in the

(Life Apollonius story of (72) A similar a statue. stories of Jesus. The but

observable of the pigs be found this that

in Mk-5 is

the best

example,

in Mk. 1: 26 and 9: 26. to the stories

That Mark did of Jesus consistency, the violence but this may Jesus' this is clear of could

not s,

-a441 from the fact interest in its

violence

he shows no particular Thus in 9: 26f. Jesus'

function. portraying of for

be a means towards could hardly

compassion

be said

5: 13 and in 1: 2T the dramatising it that

violence

have been a vehicle authority. reported the first

and heightening probability

We can take violbnce report of the

in all

departure activity.

of demons goes back to So in contrast to his (apart

of Jesus'

contemporary from the pigs p6wer-authority, there

exorcists

Jesus used no mechanical no explicit prayers

devices

in Mk. 5: 1-20), no powerful

invoked or though with

name, and no proofs, associated

seems to have been some violence

Jesus'

exorcisms.

IV

274

4.4.6
The "unity

Miracle

in Message Jesus' and

Ministry

of word and work in the divine plan of ) has been discussed on a number of salvation"(73 and the theological between these (75) This-is the necessity o*f the

occasions(74) relationship proposed, here is to

two elements issue for

has been us. Our task the exorcisms an and

not the

analyse ministry

relationship There the

between is

and wider intimate his

of Jesus. between is

in the

Gospels of Jesus

relationship There of the This

activities that

preaching. result

no doubt

much of this Evangelists

picture

is the

activity relationship

of the is

and their

-predecessors. the Evangelists level miracles

apparent

in the work of basic to

on a number of levels. and message are said in association all gospel infirmity with

On a very by the

Evangelists - for

be conducted

each other t,.&aching

example: synagogues every

"And he went about and preaching disease Mk. 1: 39). Mtt-l3: actually 53ff. the

Galilee

in their

of the kingdom among the

and healing

and every

people"

(Mtt. 4: 23/ Mk. 6: lff. /

See also

Mk. 1: 21ff.

/Lk. 4: 31ff.; level the

/Lk. 4: l6ff.. in

On another

the material'is preaching/teaching two cycles,

grouped

such a way that - for

and miracles

are associated

in the example are included

Mk. 4: 35-6: 44 and 6: 45-8: 26, there

in rough

parallel,
And the Jesus'

sea miracle,
first part

preaching,

healings,
is

and a feeding.
so that followed

(76)

of Mark's of the

gospel kingdom

structured

proclamation

(1: 14f. ) is

and

IV
elaborated miracles by a healing. are related

275 (77)
On yet that another level the can

in order

a-particular to Jesus.

point

be made either

by or in relation is

Thus in Mk. 4: 41/ so that the

Mtt. 8: 27/Lk. 8: 25 the miracle point it is "Who be then can made clear story that one of the

related ...

primarily ?"

is this

And in Mk. 9: 28f. preceeding Evangelist Finally, can we

reasons is

why the so that

miracle

has been related some teaching

the

incorporate can note miracle single

of Jesus

on prayer.

another

level

of this

relationship. that /Lk-5: in the

On occasions they 7ff.; Fourth form a Mk. 3: lff. Gospel /

and message are so woven together fabric as in Mk. 2: lff. but /Mtt. g: lff.

Mtt. 12: gff. for

/Lk. 6: 6ff.,

in Jn. q: lff. example

especially 78 ) This intimate

relationship ministry is In

between miracle also found

and message portrayed in, the mission are "sent

in Jesus' of the

reproduced the to disciples cast out

disciples. and have

Mk-3: 14f. authority

out to preach 6: 12). heal the

demons" (cf. is "... -

In Lk. 10: 9 the sick ... and

command to the say to them, (cf. Mtt-l0:

disciples

"The kingdom of God has come near to you 7f-; l0: l/Lk. q: 2).

(a) whether iraced

In spite a relationship

of all

this

it

is

important and action' or whether

to

enquire is to be is a

between

'word

back to the historical-Jesus, which has itsorigin

it

conception community. sayings

in the

primitive

Christian some

Our most productive

way forward

is to note

of Jesus where his

proclamation

and activity

are

IV

276
and also to notice those in the stories very where miracle structure of the

related,

and message are interwoven story.

(i) particular

There are four. sayings attention here, the

in particular Spirit/finger of the reply

that saying

merit

(Mtt. i2: 28/Lk. 11: 20). (Mk-3: 2T/Mtt. Baptist

the parable 2lf.

Strong

Man

l2: 29/Lk. ll: 5/Lk-7:

)q the and the

to John the on ChorazinWe have already first three

(Mtt-11:

22),

judgment

and Bethsaida discussed logia.

(Mtt. 11: 21-23/Lk. the .

10: 13-15)..

and upheld

authenticity judgment

of the saying

On the

(Mtt. 11: 21-23/

Lk. 10: 13-15)(79)

it... since

Bultmann says that

a community look

formulation, activity

we have here the sayings

back on Jesus' completed,

as something the failure

already of the

and presuppose in

Christian-preaching

Capernaum".
KRsemannsays that 'curse prophetic

(80)
the Revelation of John demonstrates Christian particular forms that of is

and blessing' proclamation

are among early and that this

passage

one of them, Mtt-7: Mtt-T: form

the Christian-formulated and it recalls (81) 22f. However there is a minimal link with 22f. ('mighty works') and the 'curse pairing and blessing' of 'curse evident the failure

in Revelation (cf.

does not have the

and blessing' in Mtt-11:

Rev. 8: 13) nor the parallelism The passage does presuppose

21-23.

IV

277
but the towns. mentioned post-Easter And notably are not determinative shovz no

of mission

of the tradition,, interest that Finally this

and the (82) in Chorazin. form is

Church Berger

to be found evidence Aramaic

has shovn (83) in the Wisdom material.

there

is

in the

comes from an early suppose that to be traced far it as to

passage that the tradition (84) It seems best tradition. Mtt. 11 : 21-23/Lk. '10: 13-15

to is

the tradition

behind

back to the historical-Jesus. "If there over is

Mussner

goes so then.

say that,

one pre-Easter three cities

logion, of his

is the lament

of Jesus

these

native

Galileel,,

(85)

These four

sayings

that

are to be seen as originating associate miracle and mission. In

from the historical-Jesus,

Mtt. 12: 28/Lk. 11: 20 Jesus makes a direct-connection qxorcisms and the of his proclaimed coming of the kingdom (cf. message gives the

between his

of God - the essence (86) Mk. 1: 14f. ). Nk. 3: 2T/ exorcisms, of Jesus a wider

Mtt. 12: 29/Lk. 11: 21f. significance viz. the very than

the. mere casting out of unclean spiritsq I downfall or destruction of Satan and his kingdom; that the establishment downfall of the of the the

(pplisfFabove) have and we seen kingdom kingdom mighty that brings of God is of Satan. miracles men should with repent directly

related

to the

And Rtt. 1-1: 21-23/Lk. a characteristic (cf. mk. 1: 14ff.

10: 13-15

links

of Jesus' proclamation (8T) ). Mtt. 3-1: 4/Lk. T: 22 as signs of the

the words and deeds of Jesus age.

together

eschatological

IV

278

(ii)
with Lk-5:

Two miracle

stories

in particular
(1) Mk. 2: lff. friends.

are interwoven
(/Mtt. 9: lff. the

Jesus I teaching/preaching. lff. ), the paralytic and his

four

Here

combination may be the separate the early

of teaching result of the (88)

(Mk. 2: 5ff.

) and miracle

(Mk. 2: 1-4) 6

amalgamation Thus all

of what were once is that

traditions.

we can conclude link

Church saw an indivisible and what he was saying. ), the man with of a block thinks that a withered conflict

between what Jesus (/Mtt. 12: 9ff. narrative is /

was doing Lk. 6: 6ff. the last Bultmann the

(2) Mk. 3: lff. hand. This

of three the

stories

(Mk. 2: 18-3: 6). over the as

origin

of the

controversies than

Sabbath usually in the points early out,

cannot Church. the

debates 4Urmann

be put (89)

any earlier On the'other not

hand, face

early

Church did (go)

conflict of Jesus

withtheTcws

about

Sabbath

healings.

The saying

in v. 4 is the centre
not decisive for the

of the story.
early it Church's is probably

As it

is both harsh and

of the saying

abandonment an authentic

seventh

day observance

of'JesusPl) like its the

And as the saying presupposes a specific act (92) take both the saying and one described we will setting as authentic.

present

What does thisstory his miracles

tell

us about

Jesus'

link

between

In short, and teaching/preaching? aP and the teaching are/a piece in Jesus' radical Halakcth on the Sabbath which

the healing rejection of

the Rabbinic

prevented

people

IV from fulfilling God's commandment conclude is that to to the love (cf. Mk. 2: 2T')") relationship ministry of

279

And we can go on to between 'word

integral to

and action'

be traced

the

historical-Jesus.

(b).

We have,

in

the

last

few paragraphs,

been

able

to

trace

the origin

of a relationship

between miracle Having

and

message back to the historical-Jesus. that nature with often one does exist,

established on the

we can now focus. attention between miracle of Jesus.

of the relationship, respect to the exorcism

and message has That

The relationship 'sign'.

been characterised have little

by the use of the word or no intrinsic to something Van der-Loos

that two

is the miracles but point

significance more important has collected - the together

view. As says ! 96)

beyond themselves ! 94)

coming of the kingdom

a number examples that of scholarly

statements mention serve only

support 95) of

this

we need only miracles

opinions!

Ridderbos power

Jesus'

as proofs

Jesus'

Fridrichsen miracles

gives

pride-of

place

to Jesus'

accompanying

and confirming

message, with the ! 97) the proc: lamation but he also

of that the

Van der Loos does not. mention

the ing view miracles, of the especially coming kingdom least the 98 )

Bultmann here,
exorcisms, There is

sees
dawn-

as signs no doubt of

this Church

was held

by at

some sectors

the. early

represented

in the NT,

Ihe most important Jesus' miracles

being

John's

Gospel which understands

as authenticating

Jesus and his message. For example -

IV ff

280 ... even though the works, is you do not believe that me,

believe

you may know that

the Father Father" (Cf.

in me and I am in the

(10: 38). (99) In Acts the miracles andeinach Jesus'

2: 23; 4: 54; 12: 18; 20: 30). only

of Jesus are mentioned case the miracles

twice

(2: 22 and 10: 38), authenticating

are seen as signs

mission.

When we examine the four mentioned above, the picture

sayings is

of Jesus which we have different. ' In

significantly 10: 13-15)

the judgment

saying

(Mtt. 11: 21-23/Lk.

the relationall that is

ship between miracle said ance. miracles this Jesus' is that'the This could

and message is not clear, are expected to bring

miracles

about repentsaw his

be construed his

to mean that mission. of traditions

Jesus

as authenticating

But over against that relate and

we should refusal

set the variety to give a 'sign'

Mk. 8: 11(/Mtt.

16: 1-4)

Q (Mtt. 12: 39/Lk. 11: 29) - and see the Gospel of Thomas 91. \1
This is strong evidence against the view that Jesus used his

miracles

to authenticate

his

mission

(cf.

Mtt. 4: 3/Lk. 4: 3).

In the reply
miracles of and the

to John the Baptist

message of are equated,

(,Mtt-11:
they In 2lf. the are

5/Lk-7: 22) the

equally of part the

a whole

- events

the

New Age. ll: the

parable

Strong do not

Man (Mk-3: 2T/Mtt. illustrate the

l2: 29/Lk. of

) the

exorcisms('00) of the kingdom

message

downfall

IV of Satan,
fall. Jesus the

281 but they

the

themselves
Spirit /f inger

constitute
saying themselves

that
(Mtt. are extend,

very

down-

And in says that

. 1 101) 12: 2 8/Lk. 3-1: 20)( the or coming even of

the They

exorcisms do not In the

kingdom.

illustrate casting place, out being

confirm

Jesus' of In

preaching. itself in in is

of

demons the or are

mission fulfilled. kingdom

Jesus short,

taking

actualized of Jesus

themselves (102)

the

exorcisms

the

*6f*God

operation.

So far to Jesus' overagainst other faint miracle especially aspect

as I can see it

is this

conclusion

and dimension sets him out every a of

exorcisms his

more than

anything

else which

background

and environment.

Even if

of Jesus'

technique it

may have had at least is this indivisibility of Jesus

echo in other

material,

and message which makes the exorcisms unique. Jesus' exorcisms

were not simply We will

'healing' take up

but vere the coming of the kingdom of God. this point*in chap. VI when we discuss to his exorcisms.

Jesus'

self-under-

standing

in-relation

4.5

Conclusions.

The whole of this

chapter

has in a

sense been a conclusion

previous his two chapters.

and gathered the results

We have tried, in setting

of the
Jesus in

enviro=ent,

to draw a picture

of him as an exorcist.

4.5.1
which

Our study
view

so far
Jesus,

has shown that

and'the first

the milieu
century would

against
have

we should

IV viewed him is
have that Jewish us believe. the background

282 far wider

It

than-some
error

scholars
of Fiebig

hitherto
that of

would
he thought were to the have

was the of the (103)

miracle It

stories

Jesus of Hull

miracle

stories.

was the

error

attempted
an almost

to see the miracle

exclusively Hellenistic

stories

background.

in the Gospels against Uo4)

The last

two chapters aspect

have shown, and we will chapter) that

continue

to

explore

this Judaism
to place

in the next

clearly

to demarcate
against which

and Hellenism

as alternative

backgrounds

Jesus-the-Exorcist the evidence. the two cultures admit material and depict

and to understand

him,

is to misrepresent between

As Hengel has shown(105) was not at all from both times

the boundary

clear,

and we need to to assess

cultural-streams

in order

the historical-Jesus-the-Exorcist.

4.5.2
the

From this

chapter

we are left

in no doubt that
and extrahe was an in the is healing incantations around of him. his no doubt twentieth an over-

historical-Jesus material also

was an exorcist. leaves us in

The biblical no doubt We are that left

biblical

extraordinarily that

successful his

exorcist. time'. healed

he was a 'man of notion that

We can see that with a 'mere of word'

century

Jesus

simplification, procedure. which would

even misrepresentation, He was an exorcist have been Jesus readily who used recognized a herd

Jesus' or

words

by those of pigs

On one occasion technique.

even used

as part

IV

283

4.5.3 Miracle material

miracle

In his

treatment

of "The Form and History dealt with the ancient

of

Stories" that
stories.

(106)

Bultmann

bears

a resemblance

to elements
was attempting

in the Synoptic
to show -

What Bultmann

through tradition traditions

such

these

'parallels'

was that on Jewish

early

Christian

oral folk

was dependent for its

and Hellenistic motifs.

the

(10T) stories
may for

and miracle
some reduce century contortion categorically important is that

While

a situation first

Iculture-shock' this

between historical for is it

and twentieth and hermeneutical

Christianity, is that factor all stories the

unacceptable Bultmann's which evidence

needs

to

be stated case.

an unproven has

The most to notice

Bultrann which motifs of

failed to

he produces have

show that the oral

folk

and miracle on the exorcism,

into come later So over to

tradition of it

demons is

than

the

formation Bultmann

the is

Synoptic as likely and miracle tradition

tradition. and reasonable motifs

against suppose

just

that

folk the

traditions early

have made their

way from

Christian

to these in part, at least NT for

other

traditions.

of Goodenough's the NT Apocryphal some of its miracle at least

This has been one of the results) (108) We have shown also that work. material motifs was dependent (see pp. Wabove). upon the And

we have seen that

the use of Jesus' into other

name made its traditions. In

way from the Christian chap. II

tradition

we were able to show that

the whole of the ancient

IV world was permeated

the NT.

284 with
In

motifs

which

are familiar
chapter

to
our of tradition

us through study

this the

and the notion onto are at

last of

militates of

against miracle These

an accretion Synoptic

elements from belong

traditions motifs Jesus

the

outside. in, the

home with,

and truly

original

tradition.

4.5.4
very ordinary

Thus in many ways Jesus as an exorcist

exorcist; presence, demons were distressed there was a struggle

was a-

and threat-

ened by his exorcist,

between demon and between when Jesus there

there

were familiar

incantational-exchanges

Jesus and the demons, and we know of one occasion healed a demaniac. from a distance. of Jesus' exorcisms

On the other'hand, which, although of his

were aspects

not unique, procedure. or

stand out as particularly Unlike probably

characteristic

most exorcisms

he of era no mechanical the laying on of hands or proof

medicinal special his

aids were used like artifacts.

Jesus neither

used nor offered

of

cures - save the evidence to others

of the healed

demoniacs the

(Mk. 5: 15);

in contrast power-authority that Jesus' fellows success, other

he did not even declare

source of his not even to mark of his aid for his

when he was performing upon God.

an exorcism,

he was dependent exorcistic is that

Thus what begins

ministry not only

out from the technique did he claim no outside his resources

but also

he emphasised that ("I

were none

than his

own person

IV

285

(a) hazardous
Jesus' beyond

And, to

although

in

historical as unique
a dimension demented

investigation it
of

it that

is

claim
his

something
exorcisms

appears

giving the

significance was just

mere

healing_of

individuals

that.

Jesus

was the of era

first

one to with

link

the

relatively Jesus on his that in

common phenomenon stands out in his for

exorcism

eschatology. only but that relied claimed

as one who not in action exorcism,

own resources them God himself of God's

success was in

and that kingdom.

action

was the

coming

eschatological

(b)

The historical-Jesus-the-Exorcist as a stranger

strangeness that

does indeed to our time.

from the

come to us as One unknown,

But we must Jesus. to not excise it that

(109)

historicalgo on and

How important how his how the this Christians to

may be then

we should to him,

discover

contemporaries first Christians of their

responded assessed Jesus. century,

especially interpreted we, the

him and For thereby a way

dimension of the

twentieth

may find

of beginning for our time.

understand

interpret and

Jesus-the-Exorcist

V AS OTHERSSAWHIM

We are now in a position other people in the first this

to explore

the ways in which to Jesus-thesecondary to the

century is,

responded

Exorcist. purpose

Although of t he last

in a sense, (an attempt

two chapters

at recovering

the historical-Jesus-the-Exorcist), some impression aspect of Jesus' of the early ministry it

if least we can at gain to QnC( responseXassessments of this will,

our principal picture available writings to realize Church, may also Jesus' NT there exorcist responses plain inquiry categorize tesponded that

objective

in turn, contribute to to by helpinfill out our tentative For us, response the most readily

of Jesus-the-Exorcist. materials of the early not only for this

to Jesus are the be able

Church.

From these we -may

the responses these

to Jesus of the early and responses we to

but behind be able

interpretations

to recover

some of the initial audiences.

responses Apart

exorcisms is other

by the origial literature not

from the

which ignore this

acknowledges in salvaging It is

Jesus as an early to be made an historical. understand era or

and we will to Jesus'

exorcistic place

ministry.

in the first

we are conducting how we should

and so we are not asking Jesus-the-Exorcist to, and understood

but how those of his him.

5.1' gospel

In order

to do

this to Jesus'

we shall exorcisms

(a)

analyse

the

material

relating

to see what it

V can tell (b) with cally first us about his the aid audience's biblical response material, to him,

287
and then critiin the

of extra

we will

examine some of the suggestions and second century assessed

as to how people

or categorized

Jesus-the-

Exorcist.

, 5.191

If

we scrutinize four broad

the gospel categories that

material

relating are

to

Jesus-the-Exorcist preserved. the observers (a.) It

of response exorcisms

is often

said

Jesus'

moved

to fear

( and amazement

Mk. 1: 27/Lk. 4: 36; (b) on

Mk. 5: 14/Mtt. 8: 33/Lk. 8: 34; Mtt. 12: 23/Lk. 11: 14). occasions exorcisms possessed said that the tradition some bystanders (Mk. 3: 21,30; it proposes declared that as a result

of Jesus'

him to be mad and demon(c) Some

(Jn. 7: 20; 8: 48; 10: 20)). that he cast (d) others

was by Beelzebul

out demons are said to

(Mk. 3: 22/Mtt.
conclude that

12: 24/Lk. 11: 15) and;

Jesus was the Messiah

(Mtt.

12: 23).

Our task

now is

to assess the historicity

of the gospel

records

at

these points.

5.1.2
exorcisms.

Fear and Amazement as a response

This is generally thought

to Jesus#

to be a stereotyped

closing dealing

motif with

in the miracle Mk. 1: 27 inthap,

stories. III

When we were

some considerable unable gospel to decide stories.

doubt. on this on the historicity

we were able to cast ("). but we were assumption, of this element in the

288
A way forward there in approaching this problem is to ask if that might

could have been anything fear

in Jesus'

exorcisms

have created

or amazement in the bystanders.

(a) - Taylor

In relation admits that

to Hk. 1: 27 - "And they were all

amazed"

were not unfamiliar on to suggest Jesus casts

Da#,,, Aat is remarkable since the Jews (2) But Taylor goes with exorcism. astonishment spirit (3) is with due to the fact a word, without that the

that. "the

out the unclean formulae... that ,

use of magical in the last

But we have already 'magical idea

shown, formulae' that

chapter,

Jesus was using exorcisms.

'incantations' or Jesus' technique

in his

(Taylor's

was a mere word may come from Mtt. 8: 8/Lk. 7: 7 asks-Jesus to 'say a word' . and his boy

where the centurion will be healed (cf.

Mtt. 8: 16 and Lk. 4: 36)),

(b)

We have shown, in chap. aids in his

IV,

that

Jesus'

lack

of

the use of mechanical ture introduced healing it into

exorcisms

was not

a fea-

the tradition. alone'

We have also was probably not

seen that unique to that

although Jesus, it

by 'words

seems to have been sufficiently

extra-ordinary

may have been the cause. of some amazement in those who his of his exorcisms. healing The same could technique. also be said on the

witnessed brevity

(c)

In Hk. 5: 14 the drowning As the pigs

of the herd of pigs episode properly

caused

the herdsmen to flee.

belongs

289

to this exorcism fear

exorcism should

story produce

it

is not

surprising

that

this of

such a response.

The mention

at this

point,

may, however,

(p. IbS above),. be as we saw

redactional.

In conclusion, healing

it

seems that

while

nothing

in Jesus' to

methods can be seen to be, unique or amazement, there is sufficient

and thus certain evidence to

cause fear

more than counterbalance this motif indicate and accounts

the doubt about that it quite

the pagan origin

of

probably

goes back to

the earliest

of the historical-Jesus.

5.1.3

Mad and Demon Possessed As his introduction

(Mk.. 3: 21, (30; Jn. 7: 20, to the Beelzebul contro-

8: 48; 10: 20)).

versy himself friends Mark has

I ITV3 c'(4--roCsay that Jesus was beside oL (4) (id'rrj pt ). Whether were the oc Troer *&-ro& , (5) That this need not detain us. of Jesus or family

charge goes back to the first for into it is hardly

Sitz

im Leben is quite

probable

a charge that the Church would introduce (6) In fact Matthew (12: 22; cf. 46ff. the tradition. 8: 19ff. ) suppress the incident (see of the account the to

(11: 14; cf. Luke and p.. Z/ z above). charge is independent further

our confidence increased

in the historicity

into take when we

tradition

of in. 10: 2D where Jews are said Vorivx-rort mad ).

charge Jesus with

being

290

But did connection

this

charge Jesus'

in Mk, 3: 21 originally as an exorcist? narratives

have any The Fourth preserves

with

activity

Gospel though containing

no exorcism as we shall

the charge of madness, but shifts teaching testimony all criticism

see, John consistently of Jesus to his of his

away from the activity

and so we cannot be sure of the relevance on this point.

We are left obviously related

with

Mark.

The Beelzebul

controversy

is

to Jesus as an exorcist. the motifs them. (7)

However we can-

not be sure that that play Mark gives

in 19b-21 the position of-3: were place these verses dis-

In the first

a Markan hand

and in the second place as an introduction that

Q (Mtt. 12: 22f. / to the Beelzebul

Lk. 11: 14f. ) has a miracle controvers.

However when we note charge (3: 22) is that

the Markan account

of the Beelzebul (see p. A/Z above)

one of demon possession it, is most probably auth-

- so severe

be demon-possession to thought equivalent that was entic - and (8) (and brought 30) 3: 21,22 .. being were we can see why to mad together report. if even they were not originally part of the same

So in conclusion probably possessed. sure that

here,

Jesus-the-Exorcist observers)

was most of being demon-

(by the original accused Although

the charge is equivalent Jesus was considered

be we cannot mad.

as an exorcist

V
5.1.4 to conclude brought response into Did the exorcisms that of Jesus lead his This observers is

291

he was the Messiah? by Mtt. 12: 23 which healing

question

focus

specifies

the crowd's be the

to Jesus' (9)

a demoniac as---I'Can this

Son of David? ",

When we examined the Beelzebul III we concluded that the acclamation redactional that

controversy

in chap,.

by the crowd had its It would be did not, at

origin natural least matter

in Matthev's then for

activity. Jesus'

to conclude

exorcisms

the crowd,

evince there

his for

messiahship. Matthew might to Jesus. that

However the be reflecting Also the

cannot be left tradition

an earlier

about a response suggests

work of a number of scholars hopes of the time involved (10) would cast out demons. 'did

the messianic that the Messiah open that he

the expectation So the question

remains

the exorcismS- of Jesus lead

to the conclusion

was the Messiah? '

A positive two points. expected that (a)

reply It is

to this

question that

could be based on there was a hope which (11) evil spirits. 12: 11f.; Test,

suggested

the Messiah would that can be cited Zeb. 9: 8; Test.

deal with is: Test.

The evidence

Levi

Jud. 25: 3; Test. 10-12;

Dan 5: 10f. -; Test.

Reuben 6:

Ass. Mos. 10,1,3;

Siphre-

Lev. 26: 6; PR. 36 and be the

1 Enoch 10: 4.

(b) With Mtt. 12: 23 in mind - "Can this

Son of David? " - and in view of the tradition

of Solomon's

V
-_ expertise in _ combatinIf demons (see p. joz above), it

292
might

be thought
title for

that
the

'Son of David'
Coming One in this

is

a particularly
context. To this

appropriate
we can add

that

the title

'Son of David'

comes from the very used outside

earliest Palestine. (12)

Christian And despite

traditions

and was little

history the uncertain to the of this title prior (13) Christian there is some evidence that it was in use era (14) among the Rabbis in the late first century.

What are we to make of this of 'Son of David' in connection

evidence? with

Firstly,

the use

exorcism.

pre-Christian are not related

uses of the title to exorcism

in a Messianic with

The certain (15) context For

or dealing

demons.

"raise 17: has Ps. 23 Sol. the example the Son of David... expressed
raise

11(16 0)

up unto them their king, (17) Here (vv. 23-46) there is (18) that
off it

the hope (based on 2 Sam.7)

who will, for example,

God will
alien Ie o f/ eathen is made (19).

up a king

throw

domination, and rule of dealing in

recapture purity with

Jerusalem

and purify But the

and righteousness. demons. Even later

no mention

Rabbinic

material

does not

link

the Son of David with If we look

exorcism at this

or dealing

with

Satan and the demons. side we see that battle with evil

from the other

that the Messiah would do the expectation (20) does not involve the term/title spirits The title
Test.

'Son of David'.
control of

is used in conjunction
Sol., e. g. par. 5.

with
However,

the
this

demons in

is,

(p. 95 have seen as we

above)

if

not

a wholly

Christian

V
document at least that it cannot so thoroughly reworked by a Christian of the

293
hand

be used to establish

the nature

Messianic

hope in relation

to the use of

'Son of David'.

As the title from the Ps. Christian with Sol.

is used frequently on, it

in Jewish

literature

designation.

cannot be seen as a peculiarly (21) But the association of the title does seem to be a Christian by using the one available of healing Messi- and

a therapeutic-Messiah that that came about had strong it

innovation anic title

connotations had never here,

even though exorcism, (22) So, in this way. Christian circles

previously prior to its

been used in use in with the

short

'Son of David' dealings support

was not with

connected

Coming One's thus evidence

expected does not

Satan and the demons, and that with Jesus' the

the possibility to his exorcisms

observers acclamation

would have responded of Mtt. 12: 23.

Secondly cited

we should that

examine

the literature Messiah place it

which would is

was

as evidence

the expqcted In the first

deal with

Satan and his that much of

demons.

to be noted of the

the evidence

comes from this

the Testaments as part

Twelve Patriarchs. background for it

In using origins

material

of the

of Christian

-some care must be exercised that the Testaments (23) of There is have at present which

has long been accepted Christian

undergone

interpolations. over

a considerable

debate

the origins

the Testaments

v
was inaugurated debate primarily us only by de Jonge's in so far (24) work. alerts This

294

need detain

as it

us to the

necessity Testaments lines

of examining cited

each of

the passages or not

from the, the pertinent

above to see whether origin.

have a Christian

Test.

Levi

18: 11f. with (25) Test.

The whole Jud. 6f.

of chapter probably

18, which

has

some agreements glorifies Christ.

24 is

a hymn, which baptism.

Verses

describe

Jesus'

"The heavens

shall

be opened, of glory shall come upon him sanctification,

And from the temple With the Father's glory

voice

as from Abraham to Isaac. shall be uttered over'him, shall

And the

of the Most High

And the spirit rest Verse reflects , His with 3-

of understanding and sanctification (; z6) .,. in him the upon water "And his star Verse shall arise

in heaven as of a King" give power to

Mtt. 2: 2.

12b - "And he shall spirits"

children

to tread

upon the evil

can be compared shall be

Lk. 10: 19-

The origin is difficult

"And 12a Beliar of v. to judge. If it the is

bound by him" with

compared man, ' How(27)

Mtt. 12: 29/Lk. 11: 21, where Jesus binds v. 12a could Beliar is well

strong origin. for

then perhaps ever, it though

have. a Christian late hiftory. title (28)

a relatively

Satan,

does have a brief that it is

pre-Christian difficult to

On balance being

I think

see v. 12 as certainly

pre-Christian.

V
Test. (vv. 3-5) text Lord's Jud. that 25: 3. This verse is part

295
of a section (29) One problems. for the

has considerable

textual

(A) does not have v. 4b ("And sake shall be made rich") But in view

they who were poor which of A's is clearly

dependent in chapter be said texts in (31) to

on Mtt. 5: 6/Lk. 6: 21. 24 (2b) which be a less are little v. 3 for

omissions it cannot

is nottlearly text.

Christian, (30)

Christianized help

Thus the differing of the motifs elements. is

in discovering has its

the origin Christian of deceit' of

each text

apparent

In v. 3 the reference of

to a 'spirit

reminiscent of

1 Tim. 4: 1 (and 1 Jn. 4: 6). him into

The idea for

the destruction

Satan by casting Mtt. 18: 8. Christian

the fire

ever may reflect in thepre-

Thus we have little origin of these

confidence in v. 3.

notions

Test. two lines divergent. Christian reflects fashion

Zeb. 9: 8. of this (32) hand;

Most of with

the the

texts last

only

have the being

first

verse

two lines

However it the treading (33)

is more likely upon spirits God will

to be from a of deceit clearly

Lk. 10: 19f.,

and that

be seen inthe hand (though see in the

of man may come from a Christian That reference of probable pre-Christian to the defeat material

Ez. 1: 26). context in its

of Beliar reduces

is

Christian origin.

our confidence

Test. _bute

Dan

5: 10f..

once again lines

we should of vv. 10f.

probably

attri-

the second and following

to a Christian

296 "for after the usual arise land for you and the salvation tribes of

writer

the Lord will there

Beliar... passage

from the

of Judah and LeV2.1, wage war against

a Christian

follows
'. dealing

immediately.:
This is with the the

land he will
beginning Messiah". of (34)

We should for plain. addition king its

exclude

Test.

Reub. with

6: 10-12

from-the.

evidence

reference

to dealing

Satan and the demons is not

6: 5-12 looks like a later In any case the section (35) in v. 12 to an eternal and the awkward reference in wars visible (36) Thus in and invisible little quite likely refers can be of the

dying

to Jesus. placed

conclusion,

confidence

in any of the references for portraying

from the Testaments pre-Christian

Twelve Patriarchs hopes.

messianic

In the second place part of the Similitudes 37-71 being

we must leave of Enoch. found

aside In

Enoch 55: 4, of none this

the light of

of chapters material Christian

at Qumram the date placed in

can no longer (37) period.

be confidently

the pre-

In the third Billerbeck's PR 36 (38)

place

we have to consider

Strack26: 6 and hope

(IV: 527) citation in relation the defeat

of Siph: re Lev.

to the pre-Christian of Satan and his

messianic

entailing

demons.

However

V neither of these references can be admitted hope.

297 as evidence of

the nature

of the pre-Christian

The former reference

than the middle of the second can come from no earlier (39) and the PR is-dated between the fourth and century AD (40) ninth centuries.

Fourthly as a possible count its

we are left useful

then with

only

the Ass.

Mos. 10: 1,3

reference. for informing

However we must now disthe minds of Jesus' him in connection with

usefulness as they

audience his

attempted For in

to assess

exorcisms.

the Ass. is

Mos. 10: 1 the hope - "And not is tp the work of any what will (42) (10: 1). One') but

no then Satan shallbe/inore" individual messianic figure

related (41) but

simply

happen when the Lord's Verse 3 does mention related but

Kingdom shall an individual destruction

appear Cthe

Heavenly

he is not

to the

of Satan and he is not In 9: 1 there of is

" human figure

God himself

(cf. 10: 7).

" hero who seems to precede but his task is not part

the appearance

the Kingdom, of the

of either

the establishment of Satan. His

Kingdom or related is simply to exhort

to the destruction his hearers

task as

to good works,

(perhaps

a preliminary Thus as far certainly do battld

(9: 7; 10: 1)). Kingdom the to the coming of as we can see the author of the Ass. figure Mos. would who would

for be looking not (43) with Satan.

a Messianic

298
Fifthly told to "Bind ". we can consider Azazel 1 Enoch 10: 4 where Raphael and cast him into is is

hand and foot, God's

the -

darkness... ekorcism

Here thbugh

representative said' , the Kingdom, always'found

involved

is not.

Thus as Russell

'Messiah' (44)

was not

indispensdble 'messianic and

to the eschatological concepts' are not

'messiah' and (45) together.

The conclusion this material is

we should that

draw from our examination literature individual there

of seems

in pre-Christian between a messianic

to be no connection specific Thus it battle is with

and his exorcism. what selfin

Satan and the demons through to see Jesust, in their observers

difficult

connecting

*occurrence was a common evidently general it a/the Messiah.

day with

Jesus being concluding that

I am not here for Jesus'

was not that

possible

audience that, is

to come to a different of by-

the conclusion question. But,

he was the Messiah, that little Jesus in

I am concluding there is

the observation that

Jesus as an-exorcist standers for

to suggest and his

would have so assessed frames

significance, from which to-

they had no adequate

of reference says his

draw such a conclusion. "The argument sign of

When Barrett that

of Jesus,... of

exorcisms

were a be

the proximity

the Kingdom of God, would

perfectly with he is its

disagreed those to who even comprehensible (4 6) assumptionif - , in so far as. such an explanation of the signi-

correct

ficance

been have comprehensible. would of exorcisms

But we
4

V must dissent from this

implication as being that (47) was self-evident. to explain the origin of a sign (see

299

pp..z-gofabove) and the of the exorcisms we must attempt between exorcism

interpretation such an In the next chapter

the relationship

and eschatology.

5.2 ture out

In view

of

these

responses

to Jesus, which

and the picwe sketched - how or categoras a or a that

of the historical-Jesus-the-Exorcist in the previous the bystanders Jesus? chapter, the question

arises,

would ized

or observers. for

have assessed

Would they, Smith),

exarple,

have seen Jesus (Kraeling),

magician Charismatic

(Morton

or a Necromancer Can it

(Vermes)

or what? at All?

even be said

Jesus was so categorized

5.2.1 that

We begin

with

one of

the most recent It

suggestions, Morton

Jesus was seen-as belief that

the

a magician.

is Professor

Smith's

"'Jesus

Magician'

was

the

figure

seen

by most

ancient "destroyed

opponents

of Jesus" after

(and that

this

picture

was) of

in antiquity (48) ' the Roman empire". point of Jesus

Christians

got control

But the most important considers-this only was Jesus view

about

Smith's

book is (49) but

that

he not

to be correct,

so that Jesus

cons-idered
in

to be a magician,
terms of the first

actually

was a magician

century

understanding

of

that

category,

V As we will
ordinarily the

300
discover
lengthy

Smith's
reply that

book is so poor that

we are about work to give would

not be justified. across able the path debate with

However, of our study him.

as Smith's

cuts

so directly

we must engage in some consider-

To support the reports Jewish before with

his

theory in

Morton

Smith

first

goes through at the

about

Jesus

the gospels.

Then he looks

and pagan material. returning

These two areas

the picture

to the gospels I that had emerged thus I

are assessed th Pto see how evidence accords far - that Jesus was

a magician.

(a)

As the

later

Christian,

Jewish,

and pagan material to Jesus

is where we first being Smith's a magician work. it

came across is best

explicit to start proceed

reference there

in assessing up points that

And we shall

by taking case.

seem to be the most important

to Smith's

Two of the early the Outsiders the Magician generally and that as Jesus.

corner-stones Outside (and its

in Chapter the Gospels") variants) is

4-("What of Jesus the "name (50)

Said - Evidence are that Pantera

given

by Jewish

tradition

to Jesus' is

father .,,

Ben Stada, (51)

the son of Pantera,

to be identified

(The key passage, at one. time censored from (52) Smith gives no evidence as the Talmud is b. San. 67a). to why any of these names should be identified as denoting

301
Jesus and his this particular family. point However R. Travers a precursor of Smith, Herfordt' rests (53) an his case II:

for-the

identification mentions saying

on a passage healing the that "irk

from Tosephta

Hullin

22-23 which Panthera", "it is

the name of Jesus ben of these two passages is to Jesus this of

that-in to doubt

light

impossible (54)

the reference evidence

Nazareth". * argument

The considerable that the title (55)

against

slim is not

is

firstly

Jesus ben Panthera that

uncommon in the Talmud, a century identifying Jesus rightly and his denying after Jesus.

and secondly (56) Smith

Ben Stada lived for

then has no good. reason

the names of b. San. 67a and t. Hul. family. Epstein quotes

11: 22-23 with as and the

H. Derenbourg Jesus,

the identity simply

of Ben Stada with prophet executed

regarding-him second century

as a false (57) at Lydda.

during

The reason these connections

why Professor is that

Smith

is

so anxious the following

to make passage from Egypt upon his

in so doing, be made to refer forth

from b. Shab. 104 -"But did not

could

to Jesus witchcraft charms)

Ben Stada bring scratches (in the

by means of

form of

f le sh?"
"tattooing that this says (58) Then a bit later Jesus". Smith "Moreover, 'the that Paul claimed almost Smith certainly refers to

says or branded with

to be tattooed

marks of Jesus', Jesus carried"

Gal. 6: 17 - most likely (59) (P. 48).

the same marks

V For evidence Galatians he relies on Hans Lietzmann's let (60) note on me; for in turn

302

6: 17: - ("Henceforth

no man trouble Lietzmann

I is

bear on-my body the marks of Jesus"). dependant Papyrus The spell upon Deissmann's the Leiden use of

the Demotic

and Greek to this verse.

J. 383 of reads: -

Museum in relation

"Persecute I carry Abydos, it

me not,

thou

therel

-I

am PAPIPETOU METUBANES; it to

the corpse to convey it

of Osiris to its

and I go to convey resting place, Should (61) says: that

and to place

in the everlasting use it

chambers. against him".

anyone trouble

me, I shall In the light

of the spell resist

Deissmann

"One can hardly metaphor all

the impression

the obscure Let no in the a talisman

at once becomes more intelligible: k,-riovs m4w'Yrtr of for me, for I possess

man venture R! rr4rZe v against Whatever to note There all

the marks of Jesus (62) such things'. here,

we may make of Ddssmann that he sees it that

as a metaphor disposes that

(and Smith) need we (63) - and no more. And

is no evidence

us to do otherwise. suggest that Paul

Smith produces thought

no evidence

would the

he was tattooed

after

fashion

of a magician.

(ii)

In his

effort

to make Jesus to his

a magician Firstly

Smith he quotes

summons Suetonius Suetonius' Christians, Life

and Tacitus

aid.

"Penalties 16: Nero 2 of (holding) of men

were imposed on the (that

a kind

a new superstition

V involves (which the practice) Smith here (64) of magic". On the use of maleficus we shall

303

translates It is

as magic),

have more

to say later. that this

sufficient

to note

in anticipation

translation

is by no means certain.

Secondly

Professor

Smith quotes In this

Tacitus passage not

(Annals Tacitus

XV: 44.: 3-8) says

on the persecutions that the Christians as for

by Nero.

were convicted, (odio) it of "is

so much on the count of the

of arson last

"hatred

the human race". most plausibly could only it.

phrase

Smith

says that

understood be the case Smith con-

as referring if one's that "that still

to magic"

(p. 51).

This

mind was predisposed the usual it is explanation-

to so seeing

tends

an application group,

to the Christians,

who were about Jews in

a Jewish is

of the Roman belief from. Tacitus'

general,

derived V: 5, promises, but

comment on the Jews they to pity scrupulously and help (p. 51) of

in Histories keep their (each other), is inadequate

'among themselves and are quick outsiders of

they hold

as enemies"' hatred

because when speaking consider it

the Jewish for total

others mination Smith,

he does not of

as grounds

extersays

them as he does for a different (p. 51).

the Christians. of what

This,

indicates

notion

the Jews and

Christians

were doing

But Smith Annals Tacitus

fails is not

to see two things. levelling charges

Firstly against

in the

the

V
Christians - he is attempting to give reasons

304
why Nero should W. H. C. Frend odium could fails have. that as

have persecuted suggests that

the Christians. "It -

And further

been it legal the term grounds at all Tacitus different

charge of

does not seem... that (65) Secondly Smith the human race' (66) persecution. assume that the Christians is

to note

'hatred

used in antiquity is

for, Jewish

There

then no reason the phrase of anything

why we should thought that

in the use of were guilty

from the Jews.

But is to magicians It is not of

"hatred

of

the human race... imagination seems that with

a charge

appropriate (p. 52)?

as popular but it

conceived Smith wishes

them"

clear,

to equate he

'hatred

the human race' shows-was magicians that thought

cannibalism,.

which

adequately with magic,

in antiquity

to be associated

and witches.

However Smith has offered connection between is -

no evidence 'hatred

we should

make the prior and cannibalism.

of the human race'

Thus there definition

in to see more no need involved damage but fellow not to turn

the phrase

than Frend's

so much the desire one's

to do personal to one's

back on obligations

men, and it

was regarded

as a characteristic

Jewish fault".

(67)

(iii) Younger letter

Next and his

among Smith's letter

Pliny the witnesses (68) The section of to Trajan. here is Pliny hearing of

is

the

of particular

interest

305
Christian "that before apostates it habit on a fixed by turns day to assemble ) (carmen, hym, a l,.,!,
0

was their daylight

and sing

to Christ The operative has reviewed

as a god". word here the possible answer to sing is is of cours4carmen. Sherwin-ldhite and he says: is ordinary It for mean an of is (69)

interpretations that

"The short Latin true for that

carmen dicere

a song or to intone

verses ... of,

carmen may mean the set an oath,...

formula

example, invocation

and carmen dicere rite.

might

in as a magical

But the normality

the phrase with

from the pen of a literary christo favour (70) treatments to counter in

man, the contrast

maledicerent deo, all

5: 5, and the conjunction interpretation as

of quasi

the original

a hymn of praise". Smith but calls

Sherwin-White's no evidence

a 'whitewash' Sherwin-lihite's that Pliny

(p. 180)

as he offers it

conclusions not here simply

seems reasonable to magical

to conclude incantations hymns.

is but

referring

or spells,

has in mind the Christian

Uv) reference (pp. This,

With

the Dialogue

With is

Trypho at last

by Justin clearl

Martyr Smith again

to a charge

of magic his is

55 and 81) centres as we shall see,

argument indefensible

around for

the word -TT>4vos iT9voS is by no 69 .

means a synonym for where Justin

'magician'.

This'is

clear

in Dialo "For -

distinguishes

between

the terms

they dared

V call him a magician and'a deceiver (71) reference is. noting . that the to this Jewish of the people".

306 Strangely potenopinion need is

Smith relegates tially important - that

to a footnote, passage.

Justin

of Jesus

to be mentioned from those and sddondly being false.

he was a0 acpS ,, here. Firstly to discredit is

Two important this

points

charg e of magic of Jesus,

who wish that

reputation to refute

JuStin

at pains

the chargeas

(v)

Smith

is

also

correct

in seeing

a contrast as lying Quadratus -

between behind which

the work of Jesus'and a fragment is preserved "But

the work of magicians unknown Apologist The fragment

of an otherwise by Eusebius.

reads

the works

of our Saviour

were always

present,

for

they were true,

those who were cured, appeared

those who rose as cured only and the

from the dead, who not merely risen, Saviour but were constantly was living, but

present, even for

not

while ("Irl

some time

XPovov

) after cKotyOv vived p. 55). But I think see here against that even till

he had gone, our own time

so that

some of them surSmith

(ILE 4: 3: 2, cf.

we can go beyond by Quadratus

Smith's-'contrast' of a charge

and of magic were made

a refutation Jesus. point

Here the same two comments that apply - the charge Christianity, of magic

on the last by opponents roundly

is being

made is

of orthodox

and the charge

refuted,
t

307
(vi) is The next major witness (df, 38), did for 68). Professor Smith's case

Celsus. (CC. 1: 7,28, clear magic import that

Here again Jesus

the evi-

dence is practised obvious

Celsus

consider Smith

to be one who recognises thought the that

(p)*)I*x('ce, of these

rightly

passages magic.

- that

Celaus

Jesus was one who practised beyond his Celaus evidence

But where Smith i0e$_ the picture

is where he suggeststhat (p. 59).

gives

"may be correct" us

Summary. In chap. + things. raries Principally (pp. 67,68,

Smith has been trying to show that Jesus'

to do two contempothought that we

he wants

df. 53f. ) outside

the Gospels of

he was a pagician, will leave for

The second objective is that view this

Smith which

the moment,

notion

of Jesus being Smith gives

a magician no evidence.

may be the correct

of him,

though

On Smith's should sion be said. (p. 64) that for

princip&t Firstly

objective Smith gives all

a number of

things impres-

the misleading

he has reviewed

of the non-gospel But there is at

evidence least

the outsiders' of

image of Jesus.

one snippet

information not all

from Suetonius' to Jesus

Claudius can be consays of

25: 4 wh; th shows that strued to refer

references a magician.

to Jesus being

Suetonius

of Claudius the riots instigation

"He expelled in which

the Jews from Rome, on account indulging$ to Christ at the

they were constantly 11. This reference

of Chrestus

V.
'Chrestus' being a popula'r mis-spelling but of

3o8
the name 'Christ'(7Z) seems to (73) was a magician. at many evidence Jesus was that he is the

- is by no means compl; mentary, have no wish Secondly points. he cites, a magician. dealing views with held to give idea any that

Suetonius

Chrestus

Professor He failed Suetonius, Thirdly, Jesus'

Smith's

case fails us that or Pliny is under

to convince the Jewish thought that

to convince Tacituss Smith

the delusion He does not

contemporaries.

show that

by those he cites Fourthly, cited there his

were the views

of the contemfor

poraries Smithl) clearly

of Jesus. the material shows that and that

(arid more enbouragingly from Justin, Quadratus that

and Origen Jesus was by magic. is of-this, of Jesus there

were those miracles

who said

a magician

were performed each of

But as has already forcefully and without was correct. is no alternative (meagre) shall evidence rebutted. other

been noted, And it evidence, is

thesecharges in this, the face picture

untenable

to say that the correctness

To determine but

of the charge

to return

to the NT to see if

from the This we

we can, come to some conclusion.

do later.

(b) thought

Having him to-be

attempted a magician

to show that Smith

Jesus'

'contemporaries'

("What in chap. -5 goes on 'contemporaries' Smith to his recog-

the Outsiders

Meant") thought

to spell

out what these

meant when they nises credit,

Jesus: to be a magician, task (pp, 68f. ) and,

the difficulty

of, this

sees the need of

defining

magic not

in a twentieth

309
century
that,

but in a first
treatment picture of is

context,

The weakness of Smith's

an adequate general century magi-

although

he gives

the various

notions

of what a first these notions is that to'his

cian was, he fails in the previous spectrum Smith,

to relate

evidence

chapter.

The result (p. of 80),

of the whole know, from the we

of possible (or one

choices more)

we do not

which

these

might

have been in This also

mind of say Celsus. or Quadratus' shall have to correct later.

opponents.

(c)

We can now return

it.

to the Gospel material

with (74)

and see
he first the
society,

what Smith makes of considers

opinions for

In dealing SaidN
sectors (pp.

the Gospels He deals

first

"What the Outsider

of various relevant

with

of 21ff.

century

example, (pp.

"Common Opinion", 24ff. Smith almost of ) "Herodians does is to

)"Family (pp,

and Towns28ff. of he (Hk. 3: 20ff. was said (p. 21). / ).

people", What these notes Mtt. to

and Pharisees" catalogue adverse. the For

Professor groups, the 12: 22ff.

opinions example,

invariably casting ), that out (p.

charge

demons by Beelzebul 81) and that Jesus

/Lk. 11: 14ff. and

be a Samaritan,

he had

(Jn. 48) 8: demon a

Smith

contends

that

Jn. 8: 48 "You are a Samaritan

and have a demon1105) Jesus was a magician, that, himself "'had'

- means that the accusers thought that (76) His reason for arguing this is to mean that he was of a demon

a demon seemed sometimes sometimes that

possessed,

he had control

310
and could make it do miracles" that (p. 77). Smith (pp, 31f. ) is

Yta doest in some cases, mean to have il', correct (77) it is doubtful-if But this control. something under (78) in the NT. Hanse has pointed out that meaning is intended in noting in Greek philosophy two meanings namely that it, if of 'to and religion have', there is, in the use of these distinction;

an important for good, it

linguistic is

the daemon is but I in in relation the spirit's

the man who it is the man (79) have

possesses is who Turning in one's relationship

to. evil

spirits

passive

possession

of him.

to the NT Hanse says power' or 'to possess'. bear It

does not mean 'to expresses a spatial ( 80)

'to and means

in oneself"',

In the light formed miracles difficulty. is here But

of this,

the accusation 41 iXre

that'Jesus

per-

(Mk. 3: 22) may seem a concept of demonic ` z1rX E(v

(1)

although

"the

is still Beelzebul no more than the chief extended... (81) (2) (3: 23), by The Jesus, Mark demons". reply given of of "How can Satan using cast out Satan? " implies not that but Jesus is

or manipulating in

the possessing

power,

the reverse. the

And (3) Beelzebul spirit"'. already mean to this

3: 30 Mark adds to the controversy "for they

section

following

had said

'He has an unclean what has

We can conclude been said 'have that in

here

then by repeating 'E'Xc(v

the Gospels but 'to

I does not in I

in one's

power' spirit.

be controlled'

case by an evil

V Nevertheless
feel that Jesus'

311 it is clear that two of the Evangelists

him with having a

(82)

contemporaries here

charged

demon,

What we must decide (at

V VP is what &!, Vvaov zY. the Evangelists with and why

would have meant for Matthew

least)

and Luke do not

agree here

John and Mark.

(1) Matthew

The point

at which

to begin

is by noting

how

and Luke deal with

their

tradition

Mark has Ajov (3: 22). position,

Wupx

lTivp. ( 'ofk;Garov '2: yxi seem from

at, points where ;. (3: 30) an YtS. Lx Ic .c the

It

would (at

the sense (C'rri Aqov and the vocabulary

the end of

a pericope),

4K&Gy-rov ) (see p.; kl:s

tradition. does not Matthew take

above) that

3: 30 was not in
Mark and though

Mark's Q, (83)

(12: 31f. ), phrase.

conflating

up Mark's

Luke (12: 10),

more faithful phrase. nificance earlier

take

to his Q tradition,

does not take up this

final sig-

These points it were

of themselves would-be of little situation just

not for a similar

a littld

in the Markan material.

iXs(v at

Neither

Matthew nor Luke

altering the sense and/or a

up'Mark's

3: 22, effectively

of Mark where the accusers demon, to the Beelzebul. (84) sense that

say Jesus has'BeelzebulJesus acts by or in

the power of was a

We saw (p. 2.11 -above) that Satan.

Beelzebul

for synonym pseudonym or the idea performed clearly that his

Thus Mark is or controlled aegis. CP and Luke.

transmitting by Satan and was

Jesus was possessed exorcisms under his

Such a notion

unacceptable

to Matthew

312
(:Z) In John's different in-the authority Gospel v OV(O is used in an entirely is used

way from the Synoptics. context for of a debate his miracles; over that

In Mark the term Jesus' is his source

of powerappear to

miracles

the accusers Similarly

as being

authorized

and enabled

by Beelzebul. is used

in Matthew

(11: 18 and Luke (7; 33) the term against Gospel the activity

as an accusation Baptist. hide

directed

of John the to

In the Fourth that

there

has been no attempt (7: demon 201 8: 48ff.; a the context relation of Jesus'

the accusation it

Jesus-had

10: 20) but activity

has been removed from in

and is now to be found

to the words of

Jesus.

John 8: 48 ("The saying 8: 52; Jesus that

Jews answered him,

'Are

we not

right

in

you are a Samaritan The accusation and then

and have a demon? "' has two elements; se.condly that first

(cf'. 7: 20; that

10: 20)). is

a Samaritan, element (85) only (86)

he has a demon,

The first interpreted. supplies a demon". exactly of ing

"You are a Samaritan" The best reply way forward

has been variously is to note that Jn. 8: 48

a single

to the accusation even if

"I -

have not are not

Consequently

the two elements of the

synonymous

an understanding

second element the mean-

the accusation of being called

("You have a demon") may clarify a Samaritan.

In Jn. 10: 20 &! pov(ov f'-', Yit

0 VLT, e( 1U*', . There is

is

immediately
to see the

followed
latter

by
phrase

no reason

V
as more, than are little are four supplementing the first (87) so that Besides

313
the two phrases this verse there

more than other it

synonyms.

occurrences

of the cases good news.

in the NT. In each of awlLv5mcq ,, a disbelieved characterizes messenger'of in Acts 12: 15 Rhoda is disbelieved Peter is stan-

Firstly

(14"t,vT7) when she relates ding Felix that at the door. says that Secondly Paul

the good news that in response

to Paul's

defence

is mad (Mvi'v?

to which is

Paul replies the sober says

he is not mad (06 &we -rc) but ., (Acts 26: 24f. ). Then thirdly truth" that when outsiders will strictly they hear not an assembled

"speaking

in 1 Cor. 14: 23 Paul Church speaking )? in

tongues is not

say they

acftvjTE)t are mad is

This by

or directly interpretation the verse

good news but may bring in which

inspired

God and its 13-19). ested is

(1 Cor. 14: 5c, good news we are presently inter-

Finally

a response

by some of discourse. but It

the Jews put at is not words,

the end of to Jesus'

the Good Shepherd miracles

a response

or activities

to his

and in particular, 48f.; 8: 20; 7: -

(as in the other note

references

2Xxc S&PoMav to of Jesus to Cod.

10: 20b) a response and his

to words

pertaining_to_his As the two parts of

own status

relationship

the accusation conclude that:

in in. 10: 20 appear for John some of

to be synonymous we can

what was for

them an unbelievable

the Jews were characterizing (88) message.

The phrase

in 8: 48 is

the

same, and the

situation

is

similar

to that

in 10: 20.

We can then approach 8: 48

314
SwpOVtov1"Xic
To confirm

assuming that
meaning element with this for of

could well
this

have a similar
the first agrees

John.

we see that

the 8: 48 acusation interpretation* of contrast After (89)

("You

are a Samaritan") the points Samaritan

noting between

of contact theology

and the points and the Fourth

Gospel, Bowman says is sufficient suggest in the Johannine Jesus

"As to John 8: 48 there picture was not these faith, religious historical not of Jesus which as the scribes Rabbinic instead would

would

to Jews that if

and Pharisees writings. of the

we can judge emphasis on

by later on belief acts

His fulfilment If

of ritual there is any is

seem strange. for the

foundation

speeches

in John 8 it him as a

that surprising (90) Samaritan".

the Jews regarded

Bowman is well

aware that the Jews would not have meant their (91) if but it literally Jesus were acting as accusation was (92) forth the Samaritan by putting such unbelievable opinions.

We have been trying thinking that Jn. 8: 48 is Jesus. the

to show that to be taken

Smith

is mistaken of

in .

as an accusation

"inst aga: magic tradition

Matthew idea

and Luke have altered 'having the view

their but that by and from

to excise tradition

of Jesus

Beelzebul' is not

in their even Jesus Satan. unlikely is

(Mk. 3: 22,30) a demon but a criticism that

controlling This is surely

he is possessed

of the severest'kind different

to have originally

been anything

V this. The early Church that is unlikely to have altered

315 a charge

of magic criticism.

- whatever Finally, that

might

have been - to the present Jn. 8: 48 expresses

we have shown that Jesus'

the judgement

message was unbelievable.

(ii) Jesus

Vital

to

Smith's his _is

program

of

trying

toshow, of -frAvo, (

that as a

was a migician

interpretation

(93) magician'
by Fr. that But in in J. Samain

The mainstay (94)

who, it

of

Smith's
says "has

case is

an article
argued (95) P vaS

Smith

persuasively 'magician"'. the

the fact

gospels what

OTA44,1oS ) means shows is that to

Samain

outside determine

NT -1 the

can mean magician

and that

one has

from

context go-on invites

I

how to translate to suggest that

(96) it. the context, 'magician'

only

after

this

does Samain 63, 27: Mtt. of to

the-translation

particularly (97) is necessary It . as with, Smith,

brief some make though to a far

comments of our own, for lesser extent,

one senses with to examining

Samain that

he has made up his

mind prior

the evidence.

In Greek an early The active sense of shift It is this aspect

meaning is

'w of-irAkvN, late

'deceit' to its

was 'lead astray'. (98) and rare _ with a 99) aspect. negative into up for the LXX. trans-

of the word that the word "group will is

was taken

Braun says that gression for

used generally

of the revealed

of Cod and more specifically And interestingly he says

instigation

to idolatry".

V
"transgression forces like is brought but about, not by ungodly

316
metaphysical

the devil,

by man, or even by God himself"!

Notably false prophecy.

the word group is used in the rejection of (101) This glance at the pre-NT use of the illustrates that there with is neither magic, nor a is it

7o-Ao('voS word group direct use of

the word in

connection

used as a synonym for

a magician.

We can now turn the term was either (102) magic evidence categories. or that it

to Smith equivalent actually

and Samain who suppose that to a direct accusation (103) means magician. into three which of The broad uses the in defence

produced Firstly

by thes. e two men fits there of early there

of

is

that

evidence

word in the conte. xt of Jesus;

in pagan

Christian is

apologetics

and secondly
condemnation

the related
Thirdly

use of the word

and Samain

Jesus.

SmIth

have drawn on the use of Christ.

the word outside

the debate

about

It

is

the

lasiL

category

of its

the-use

of

the word that to such words '

is most useful

in discovering

relationship

as yo
little 7r4VOS pretenders Josephus parallel

Ooo and oekS . ,

evidence (104) . indeed.

But at this
He relies here

point

Samain has very

use of

on Josephus' puts (105)

Samain says that and

Josephus

messianic What in

among X,?) -rzS in fact 6

of 17%XO(voc

does in using -1-0vos rogue,

is

to use it as a

(cheat, with/4,9-d-r-, &v

imposter)

317
(106) synonym. This is of little about help these to Samain as people is that would

Josephus mentions suggest they

nothing

were magicians. i Vas other is best

There

in Josephud'no or

need to translate 'deceiver'. 'magician'. Even

than by 'imposter' translated

'charlatanthan

As we have transferred

noted in

above the

the

7rANvc'4j time is

word used

group-in primarily

the in

sense

pre-NT

relation It is not,

to erring so far

from right as I can tell, (p'js). is

teaching

or correct

doctrine.

its on used It only

own to describe meaning later debate

the work of a magician where it concerning is linked, Jesus,

has this to the

as it with

in relation

miracles.

When we examine

the use of -riAxvMtj

nikc; vv it

and is never group

7r,kc<VOS in the NT by or in relation related to miracles

to Jesus

or the work of Jesus. to do with being

The IrAII've'hi in relation

of words has always to the truth exception false of

deceived

the Christian

message.

(The one possible false Christs and

to this will

is Mtt. 24: 24 - "For aiise "

prophets

and show great But even here it

signs is

and wonders, not the signs false by that any

so as to lead and wonders Christs means of for

astray...

that

are themselves who will

in question do*the I would leading

but

the

and prophets signs

astray then

and wonders. )

propose did

the Evangelists

the use of-r)A(k'voj

not mean that

V
aspersions his miracles were being-cast but that Jesus' on the way that accusers astray. felt

318
Jesus performed that in general

Jesus was leading

the people

It
centuries in such

is

only

when we move into

was linked makes it clear rejecting his says

the second*and*folloi4ing
with that the those the of miracles attacking of of Jesus and the

that'nAt-i'vos a way that Christianity of Jesus. of the

rejecting miracles in talking

were Thus miracles, in

validitz the Gospel

Proof

Eusebius,

he has

been

"arguing and either

with

those

who do not disbelieve

accept in it,

what we have said, and deny that that if

completely

such things

were done by Him at all, they

astray

or hold

they were done,

for the leading

were done by wizardry

OrAdv-pp) of the

(yoj: r1P<4
as

spectators,

deceivers And earlier over against

(7rXckvo( ) often do"" (Bk. III (107) Eusebius sets' the accusation the character the ditinct were, and teaching impression in using

chap. of

4 (end)). 65-rrX4vos in such a with whom to

of Jesus that those

way as to give Eusebius

was arguing

VlXovos

referring ,

Jesus' miracles.

Thus it itself, Jesus' cannot

is necessary be equated nor

to conclude with

that

SiTA4vcS and that used

by

'magician'

neither

contemporaries

the Evangelists It that

0 ITXIvOS later in the

to designate

Jesus a 'magician'. centuries

was only this

second and following

word was linked

V with the accusation that Jesus was a 'magician'.

319

(iii)
k4ef<01 V01^0 accusation xgxx; v

Yet another

item

on-Smith'A-Agenda
_ with

is, tc)'eqtiate
so that man were the not

',,, -ffoeav and k., K, by the Jews in

_magician' Jn. 18: 30 ("If this have handed him

we would

not

over")'becomes

(108) a charge of magic.

This

can be dealt (110) and Cyprian

For

with

relatively

quickly.

Tertullian

in citing

1 Pt'. 4: 15 use malefidus

that'malefidus is in turn

for

Awxo7io',aps .

evidence

equivalent Justinianus (113) cited.

to

'magician'

Codex Theodosianus (111) is there

IX: 16: 4, ''C6dex (112) are for the (114) at

IX: 18: 71 Lactantius, However not this only

and Jerome

no evidence

in use of k%KaTrJ'L*s but least also when maleficus

sense in Greek legal is used, even if not carry

terminology, synonymously, the idea of

in a context or

where the its

term rAght magical

'magician' explicit fying

'sorcerer',

connotations

are made or quali-

in the context word(s). principle So for

by the use of some related example(115) maleficus 'magician'. a soothsayer

in Codex Justinianus is qualified so that it

(Smith's might

witness) of

take

the meaning shall

"No person astrologer

consult

. (haruspex),

or an The silent. whom of

(mathematicus), of augurs and wizards call

or a diviner'(horiolis). (vates) (magi) shall'become and all (maleficil), the rest

wicked. doctrines The Chaldeans

the common people

magicians

because

320
the magnitude thing But, against of their crimes, '(Codex quite is shall not attempt any-

in the direction" Smith, it could

Justinianus

IX: 18: 5). that

readily not

be argued

even in thispassage (etc. ) but a generic

maleficus term simply

a synonym for'magic any evil

used, to describe

activity.

However even if
still no evidence , to

Smith's
show that (116)

evidence
in using

'is

granted,

there
for -

is

maleficus (117)

kwko7loco'S

Tertullian

and Cyprian

understood

1 Pt. 4: 15 as being For in every other

a reference

to

'magician'

or

'sorcerer'. used it the

case where I have seen maleficus translation than 'evil doer'. That

demands no other sense of under 'evil

doer' (118) regular

is is

too vague. to be a legal an unsupportable crimes notion.

accusation For apart for

Roman law

from the major Italy, governors

condemned by Roman statutes largely left to their their

elsewhere

were very crimes

in discretion recognising own (119) sentences,

and determining

At this. maleficus qualified is

point

we conclude term for

in

the

first doer',

instance

that is

a general

'evil

save where it

to take

on a specific

meaning.

Thus in the second

instance
by early they finally,

we conclude that
Christian the writers lader

the use of maleficus

is not to be taken I magicl.

for

Koxart175

thought

term equalled in

to mean that (120 ) Therefore a

the Jews'

charge

the Gospels

of Jesus being
7

V votZw cannot Kwp<O,, Evangelists be taken as being understood by the

321

as a charge

of magic.

Civ) li' Z erature Opponents Eusebius

As there

are clear examine

charges

of magic

in some later (1)''The

we should of*Ouadratus.

them more carefully.

In HE 4: 3: 2 (see p. 3o6 above) an Apologist during the time of

mentions

Quadratus

Hadrian.

Quadratus is quoted as saying that

present because

the Saviour's
S

works were always that healed Jesus' charge do with is, those (or

they were true only seen being present

who were healed

were not

raised

from the dead) but as well that as after is his

remained departure.

during

ministry of magic

Now the to give it', fact a

Quadratus but with

omotering

has nothing acts, which while

'incantations'

performing

the impression they

or appearance

of being

miracles

are mere tricks.

(2) Dialogue Christ

The Opponents With Trypho this those

of Justin_Martyr. quotes he

In chap.

69 of the

Justin

Is. 35: 1-7 and says how

fulfils "healed

prophecy;

who were maimed, birth raised ...

and deaf, the dead,

in lame and and cause(d) they

body from their them to live... asserted it

But though art.

they

saw such works dared

was magical

For they

to call

him a magician, This passage is'set miracles

and a deceiver in the context

of the people". of a discussion and it is over of against

counterfeit

by the devil,

V
this which that Justin sets the reality, to be magical Justin of the miracles (0mv-rar&V is clearly

322
of Christ, ) and thinking their of

in turn

are said In this

deceptive. the charge ticity

connection Christ

against

as having than

to do with the*meAns

authenthey

or materiality

rather

by which

were performed.

(3) just

Celsus.

The charge

of Celsus

is

that

Jesus was by-the of

the same as those What,

sorcerers

who were trained characterized

Egyptians. these people

says Celsus.

the activity

was their expensive which banquets and dining-tables and

"displaying

dishes and cakes things not-really (I: 66f. ). Celsus people, has in mind the as well is

are non-existent, they were alive appear

and who make although they are

move as though so, but

only

as such in

the imagination"

stories

of

few loaves the dead.

feeding Again

many

as Jesus raising that Jesus'

the essence in that answers Jesus one mira(121)

of the charge they only

miracles place.

were magical Origen

appeared along

to take lines

And indeed

the charge

these

by trying Origen's

to show that reply is, would

used no tricks. whose moral cles

In essence

character

was above reproach call

fabricate

his lives?

and by these

fabriactions

men to holy

(v) show that

Summaryl. his

In our response

to Smith we have tried on at least three counts.

to

programme has failed

v (1)
Suetonius dense;

323 Smith has not been able to show that Tacitus,

or Pliny thought that Jesus was a magician irk*any

(2) Quadratus that these

Where the charge and Celsus) opinions

of magic

is

clear

(Justin

Martyr,

Smith has not are not

only

failed

to notice of Jesus, in these against or as'in

from contemporaries of magic

but he misunderstands accusations. Jesus did particular Arnobius miracles portarit who if (etc. tance results ), not That relate

the notions is,, the substance to him having (this charge 1: 43). 'magic' the

involved

of the charge incantations used

methods Adversus

comes sometime'later, In relation here revolved

Gentes of

to performing around two im-

the charge factors. as a miracle

Firstly,

life-style

of the

individual.

liar worker, was a cheat, or murderer (122) impor Secondly, was a magician; of singular and longevity aBove). That is, of the if his 'magician's' work proved

was the authenticity (cf. Quadratus

to be a fraud

he was deemed a magician.

(3) Jesus

Smith has failed

to show-that

charges

laid

against

in the NT relate that

to a charge

of magic. critics of

What we have were concerned 'magic', but that

shown is

what Jesus' allegiance

contemporary

about was not his

to any realm

he must have been demon-possessed

- by Satan himself.

324
As the-second are quite-different cannot see it and third from that century reflected charges in against Jesus I

the Synoptics

as being assessed cannot

any value

in understanding

how Jesus'

contemporaries tradition wIth itself

him as an exorcist. support it that it the view is false that

And as the-Jesus Jesus was charged that Jesus'

magic we can take

to think (123)

contemporaries

considered

him to be a magician.

"Was Jesus accused of Necromancy? " asks (124) C. Hi Kraeling. And his answer is 'Yes'. Kraeling's 5.2.2 case centres Herod's raisedol, heard view around his understanding "Johng is of Hk. 6: 14-16(pars. has been Herod has mighty is the It of works. )

of Jesus,,

whom I beheaded, as follows. of Jesus' What then Jesus for

His argument of Jesus no miracles that

(briefly)

a report

- most likely On. 10: 41).

But John'did connection cannot Jesus

Herod is making Jesus is

between

and John?

be that

John redivivus (Mtt. ll: is 2-6/Lk.

the ministries

and John overlap that

7: l8-23). (125)

' So Kraeling The backsayings 10: 20) and the the locution

suggests

the connection case is

necromancy.

bone of Kraeling's relating reference

.0

that-apart

from the

to Jesus

in John (7: 20;

8: 482 49,52;

in Lk. 8: 29 to the Gadarene demoniac, "to means

66(5#Vfoy 'S, Lv

and to make him do one's impression occasions. And Kraeling that In this fact it

have a demon under one's control (126) bidding". Kraeling gives the is used on a number of other only for in Mtt. 11: 18/Lk. 7: 33, thinking'that this verse

phrase

appears

gives-us

no evidence

V was intended under his charge in to convey the notion also having John of mentions a demon

325

control. this this

Kraeling

the Beelzebul

connection interpretation severely

(Mk. 3: 22). of

However we have just charge is

seen that incorrect. Kraeling's

the Beelzebul if not

This case.

undermines

destroys

5.2.3 their that

Would Jesus'

audience

have seen him as one of

charismatics? Jesus is being

In Jesus represented

the Jew Geza Vermes considers in the Gospels abilities derived, contact not with 127)

"as a man whose supernatural from secret God, (which) This conclusion in powers, proves

but. from, immediate him to be a genuine define Jesus'

charismatic"*( activity and

may adequately terms

character
But

of our understanding
as to say -

of a charismatic.

can we go so far

"that

the person

of Jesus

is

to be seen as part

of the

first-century example In other

charismatic

Judaism

of the early would

Hasidim

and as the paramount (128) '1?. devout or (by his charis-

words,

Jesus have been considered another of their

contemporaries) matic Rabbis?

to have been just

Vermes answers yesl charismatic healer, with Rabbis

(129)

He places

Jesus

among the as a him

through

an examination

of Jesus

particularly

as an exorcist, ben Dosa, (In

and by comparing relation

Honi and Hanina

to exorcism,

V
the material Jesus is Vermes produces Jubilees, to set up the background for

326

from Tobit, literature).

Josephus,

Qumran and the

4

Rabbinic

Over against as an exorcist, provides for,

Vermes,

particularly to set out

in relation some evidence

to Jesus that

we are able

a corrective

to Vermes' last his

position. three

I say 'corrective' Jesus was But I

as we have seen in the an exorcist

chapters, milieu.

indeed also

at one with

Jewish

say 'corrective'

means that of their

because we have produced evidence that have Jesus I audience may not/classed him simply as one

rabbis.

Firstly, probably (see not

and most importantly, the only exorcists to chap. (130) II like

the rabbis in Palestine above).

were most in Jesus' time

the conclusions like Eleozar,

There were-probably

exorcists Apocryphon, of Seeva,

the Abraham of the Genesis in the PGM, the sons as rabbis of like Honi

the exorcists

represented as well great

the Strange Exorcist, (131) This and Hmina benDosa. Jesus' audience

variety

traditions

means that variety only

was probably

aware of a great the rabbis as

of exorcists one part of that

and their Variety.

methods with

SeIcondly, Palestine

although

of all

the exorcists most like

in

first there

century are

Jesus was probably differences

the rabbis

some important

between him and the rabbis.

327
(a) technique 73 above), Although on occasions we see the rabbis using no

save the command to the demon to get out Jesus is almost (cf. Mk. 5: 10ff.

(see p.

) consistently

simple this

in his

exorcistic Jesus

technique,

Even Vermes recognizes contemporary

d4foreme between in that

and many of his

exorcists

"no rite
ments. methods, city

is mentioned in connection
In fact, his compared with

with

these achieveof other is simpli-

the esotericism in the gospels,

itself".

own, as depicted (132)

(b)

In the last

chapter

we spent

some time

examining the gospels, this

the relationship

between miracle of is that

and. message in discussion

One of the conclusions unique Jesus. relationship So far

was that

to be traced

back to the historicalmade any

as I know none of their miracles

the Ijasidim

connection

between

and a message.

(c) significance That stood is, his

Closely that in

related

to this

point

is

the specific miracles. under-

the historical-Jesus chapter (in we also

gave to his saw that Jesus

the last

exorcisms Not only

particular)

to be the Kingdom of God preoccupation significance with is not with he the some-

in action.

is Jesus' but

general this

the Kingdom unique, attributed to his

is so also. This

exorcisms.

preoccupation to exorcism (133)

Kingdom of God and its thing found in Judaism's

relationship charismatics.

328
(d) probably early We noted important (pp-Z670 above for that although and prayer prayer was the part

the historical-Jesus, this importance, There

Church enhanced technique

was never

of Jesus'

of exorcism. healing

are examples but with

(eg. a (see

b. Meil. 17b) of Rabbis simple command.

without

prayer,

However this

seems to be the exception

m. Ber. 5: 5; b. Ber. 34b).

If

our argument

is

correct

Vermes'

view needs at

least

some correction.
Nazareth and his

Although
disciples

the nearest
are the

parallel

to Jesus of
pupils Jewish

rabbis

and their his

and although

Jesus-the-Exorcist

was at one with

environment
against would I hasid?

the one thing

is his

that

seems to mark Jesus off

ministry. him as another

over
So

the rabbis Jesus' If

healing/exorcistic viewed

audience did

have simply not

they

is. it

probable

that,

as an exorcist,

Jesus would that

have been seen as displaying from his contemporaries?

characteristics

set him apart

We have, three possible

in

the second part it

of

this

chapter,

examined Jesus'

ways in which

has been suggested him.

contemporaries

would have assessed it is that

our discussions of 'magician' overall as an

have shown how unlikely or 'necromancer'

the categories While

would have been used.

Jesus'

ministry exorcist

basid, have be him to a as caused seen may it is doubtful if those who witnessed of

him at work In

would have considered

him just,

another

their'rabbis.

V the conclusions
tions in this

329
to this
connection.

chapter we will

make our own sugges-

5.3 look at

In this, the response

the last of

section

of

this

chapter

we will

the early in

Church

to Jesus-the-Exorcist, Thus we will Jesus as an

as the Church is see how Mark, exorcist. placed here.

represented

the gospels.

Q, Matthew,

Luke.

John,. viewed -and significance

I do not mean any special on the order in which

to be

the Gospels

and Q are treated but I treat

Q may or may not because t. it is

be earlier

than Mark, we learn

Mark first

from him that

most about

Jesus- the-Exorcis

5.3.1 understand, most about first

So, what

is Mark's

interest (a)

in,

how does 'he or -

Jesus-the-Exorcist9. Mark's that attitude,

In 1: 21-28 we learn It is the

to Jesus-the-Exorcist, after being

miracle

Jesus performs the Spirit.

commissioned Jesus-theis also

and empoweredby Exorcist evident (3: 28ff. miracle conflict Jesus

That Mark believes

to be authorized from his ). Also telling in

and empowered by the Spirit of the Beelzebul controversy of the

the immediate with

background Satan.

first* of that for is

is Jesus"conflict was, as we argued to his

The result a victory

(p. 2 3o above), which, with which

in relation in part

mission

in Mark's the demons. is here

dominated, Another part

by a conflict mission, is

view, (134)

of Jesus' of exorcism

linked

with

the ministry

the preaching

of the Kingdom of

V
God, For Mark there his were two complementary and his parts

330
to Jesus' (especially went beyond This first for

ministry, exorcism), the

teaching/preaching

healing

Jesus was a teacher taught

whose authority happened,

law - when Jesus story is

something

exorcism Mark.

indeed,

as was argued,

programmatic

(b) of Mark's

In the summary statements understanding

there

are also

indications (135) the

of Jesus-the-Exorcist. among the healings. not permit

In 1: 32-34 Then at

Mark emphasises

the exorcisms

end of v. 34 Mark says that speak, like because

"he would

the demons to

they knew'him".

As we will

see in a moment, significance

Matthew

(12: 23),

Mark highlights

the messianic

of the exorcisms,

In 3; 11-12, tion status. f6h-

another

Markan section exorcisms above)

(136) reflected

Mark draws attenhis is divine that

to the way that

Jesus'

We have seen (pk2s4f. other Jewish exorcists

that

it

probable

may have been,

Jesus-the-Exorcist to

was addressed defend cal puts

'son as

of God' by the demons attempting picks up a piece

themselves. (adding

But here'Mark the article of his o

of histori5: 7) and Jesus(3: 11)

data it

to v: ceoS - contrast

to use as part is

Christological

programme,

the-Exorcist by his

the Son of God, and is the demons of for the historicity Satan

even worshipped

enemies,

(3: 12). of much of

Thus even though the dialogue of this

we have argued between Jesus

and the demons,

the preservation

V material implicit may be due to Mark's in the exchanges interest in'the and Christology the demons,

331

between

Jesus

Vefse not

12 says that

Jesus Wred6ls

strictly theory

ordered of (137) this the

the demons 'Messianic

to make him known, is now generally for first regards

Secret' look

discredited of

and we should verse. While the

elsewhere

an explanation to penetrate

demons are the Mark probably take into

the mystery of Jesus

of Jesus that does not (138) Thus to the 'not yet'.

any assessment event

account for

the cross

as defective. (in

the time time

the proclamation

of Jesus 'kingdom

contrast is

of the proclamation

of the

(1: 15))

( *) C
closely Although is not

It

is plain
with

that

the. theme of 'discipleship'

pericopes from 7: 24ff., in Mark,

is

connected

the exorcism are absent

the disciples absent in the that centre

the theme

the woman's-faith of attention. but

and submissive In 1: 21ff. Jesus the disciand of that be empMark They of

adoration-is ples heal Jesus. like with' hasised

are not merely a demoniac The idea the Twelve Jesus. is

present, their first

to hear

preach

exercise is

as followers

of discipleship (3: 14), the. healed the role

present

in 5: 18 in 'to is that

demoniac wants of the disciples above)

In 9: 14ff,

by Mark.

Best has shown (p. oq* as paradigms and are unable as Jesus for

used the disciples fail to understand

the early

Church, expected are

to do what is did but -

them - heal

the possessed

they

V
taught that by prayer they would be more successful,

332

But this 9: 19, and this disciples'

is is

only

part

of

the disciples'

lesson

for the

in

the second dominant faith in all here is stressed, of

theme there, Faith

need for present both

as a specific pericopes but it

'theme is not is emphasised

the exorcism 7: 24ff.

and in

as the appropriate seeking help) who

dttitude wish

of those to be healed.

(disciples

and those

(d) able at that

From our

discussions

in

chap, III defeating

it

is most probSatan either the exorcisms

Mark did not

see Jesus-as exorcisms. of being

the Temptation

or in'his

But in

Satan was in the process

defeated,

(e) the idea to press that

In response that

to Morton

Smith we have just John Hull to Jesus, by magical earlier in

discussed sought

Jesus was a magician. the Gospel traditions influenced

has not

behind

Mark has been deeply according

but he says (139) beliefs. this chapter,

But this, is a gross

to what we said

misunderstanding of what then

of Mark through congtituted that the 'magic'.

incorrect an In chap. III

perception we supplied as being technique

ample evidence

Jesus was, contemporary

and was portrayed exorcists in the

in many ways like he used,

But none of these techniques ) The decisive thing been seen as 'magical' '(140 was the source of Jesus' power-authority,

would have for Mark,

and that

was the

V
Holy Spirit, So we can repeat to MarkIs Mark, that to use the tem is quite

333
Imagicl to mis-

in relation represent

Jesus-the-Exorcist

5.3.2 about material

From what we said

in

the

introduction and extent in this nature,

to chap, of the _q

III

the uncertainty

of the nature exorcism

what we say about

material

can only

be of a suggestive confine ourselves

and very*tentative to the following

Thus we will

brief

comments.

(a) rightly exorcism

To begin regarded story

with

it

seems that, source, l4), it

although did (b)

Q is quite an

as a sayings

contain

(Mtt, l2: 22f, /Lk, ll:

Most important is Mtt, 12128/Lk,

in Q's understanding 11: 20; Spirit), This that is,

of Jesus-the-Exorcist (authorized

in Jesus exorcisms is held pericope

and empowered by the

*and his same view

the Kingdom of God was inaugurated, and Luke, unlikely (c) that The end of Q thoughE From the l4ff, )-the

by Matthew

the Temptation that

in Q makes it defeated pericope that in

Satan was finally Controversy

the Temptations, /Lk, ll:

Beelzebul Q material being cast

(Mtt. l2, -22ff. in

seems to suggest out, perhaps

the exorcisms destroyed

Satan was

even finally

(Mtt. 12: 26/

Lk. 11: 18).

5.3,3 when he said

(a) that

Although

Hull

had more than exorcisms purified

Matthew was a "tradition

in mind (1+/) of magic"

if we must see

this

is an accurate

description

of

334
Mat thew Yi- t-Teatmeirt-* of J6siis-th-', purified (see also fashion. his gospel his tradition section) fact of -Exorcist, Has Matthew already

Imagic".

As we have said

next

Hull Hull

used 'magic' means is that

in a misleading Matthew has purged contemporary

What in

of the'techniques But in the story the defensive of

used by Jesus'

healers, (8: 28-34) altered

the Gadarene demoniac(s) and speaking transference elements story, us clear (though of the

confrontation

for

dogmatic

purposes),

and the (both

demons from one abode to another

of pagan Contrary indications used a to as

in Matthew's retained are exorcisms), (142) Matthew does give Hull's opinion to how Jesus single conducted hii healings,

In 8: 32 Jesus In M18 for Hull Jesus to

authoritative It is

word - "Go", also misleading disciples actions

I-telaukes'.. Jesus to
I

the demon. never

say that

handed on to his

any secret or instructions

or committed

them any form of words, (143) did not know any, simple authoritative told - faith. the

because he Jesus used the Jesus

As we have just

noted

(8: 32) and in command disciples the secret

17: 18fi of

specifically exorcism is

successful anO exorcism

Hull's

assessment

of Matthew

obviously

defective.

(b) that

It

has been reasonably motivations

established in retelling in chap,

by Held

(144)

one of Matthew's is 'abbreviation's with

the miracle III, had no

- stories

We have, this suggestion,

cause to disagree

335
(c) However our investigations factor that have suggested Matthew's another, interthe plight elements

more important, pretation of

has directed

of Jesus-the-Exorcist. is emphasised,

In Mtt. 8: 28-34 the more grotesque behind

the demoniacs

of the story stood

are deleted,

the tradition and is

8: 29 is underthe demon's cry on Jesus to the

as an attack

on Jesus

softened,

is'softened, is eliminated,

the idea attention

of a supernatural is

restriction I.. coming'

drawn to Jesus' torment but of is

demons, -in exorcism Jesus is not is

the final

the demons is begun, the Son of God and on the demoniacs. we sugges-

a mere miracle-worker firmly focused

the story

on Jesus

and not

In Mtt. 15: 21-28 Jesus ted (see p. 171 nature is also (v. 15). of Jesus, highlighted

is motivated

by mercy which reflect the divine words

above)-was-intended-to And in in 17: 14-21,

the divine nature of-Jesus "

the father's no help - Jesus

"Lord,

have mercy... of

Jesus asks for unsuccessful

and there is

is no indication

Jesus being

the authoritative

healer,

If
of

the last

paragraph
of of

is
his

a faithful
tradition,

summary representation
then is a desire what not to motivites, an embardelete and

Matthew's

treatment protrayal

Matthew's rassment 'technique', everything

Jesus-the-Exorcist 'magical', or

over

anything but

a certainty serve to

that'Jesus'is highlight that

the. Messiah conviction.

must

(d) Christology

The centrality is obvious

of

the term

'Son-of

David'

in Matthew's The

from his

it use of

in 1: 1.

336
messianic connection use of it 20: 30f. ) (21: 9,15). of (145) - And it into significance of 'Holy of Spirit' the title with the is highlighted title of in by his

1: 20 and in his (9: 27.;

in relation

to the healing

the blind

and the entry

intoJerusalem the use 15: 22).

is Matthew who' introduces the exorcism associates stories the (12: 23;

'Son of*David' tradition

Matthew's with

already

'Son of David' of the

hetaling of

(Mk. 10: 41/Mtt. 'Solomon'

20: 30f. ) and in view in the NT era

importance above) it

in exorcism that

(p. 10.Z

is not not between

surprising only it between

Matthew made the specific and the 'Son of David' Thus Matthew's of. the last stories parawas

connection, but also

exorcism

and Jesus-the-Exorcist. the conclusion

use of the title graph - that

reinforces

Matthew's

interest'in

the exorcism,

Christological/Messianic.

(e)

On Matthew's

I understanding

and

interpretation

of

Jesus-; the-Exorcis actively Teacher maintains

t we should

not neglect

to mention

that

he

the traditional

and Jesus-the-Exorcist.

association of Jesus-the(146) In 15: 21-28 the story the context is one of And

of the Canaanite teaching (p, 10

woman's daughter above)

on cleanness

and uncleanness.

in 17: 14-21 the undergirding

the disciples' (p. 19,3 above),

theme is

'Jesus the Teacher of

(f)

Finally

it

is

to be recorded in the Temptation

that,

for

Matthew, or

Satan was not

defeated

(p,; ',:Z'? above)

V in the exorcisms. Though the torment finally destroyed had begun,

337
Satan and

the demons were not

(pp. 140F. above and pp.

26)Fbelow).

5.3.4 is is, book, century first Luke's "penetrated

In relation by magic".

to Luke Hull (147) (148) weak.

says that

his

tradition of Luke

But Hull's Like

treatment

to say the least, his treatment

the rest

of Hull's a twentieth

of Luke is nullified of 'magic' patterns. to interpret Hull's

by using

perception century

and understand main thesis regarding by penetrated The use of yet Luke

thought

treatment

of the miracles thinks

has been undermined is 'tradition a

Achtemeier. by magic' foreign in

Thus what Hull fact

makes surprising in

omissions. healing, (149)

words was important "Talitha cumil'

'magical'

(8: 45) omits draws attention healing

from Mk. 5: 41, that although

Achtemeier the the

to the fact

Luke interprets he omits of

of Peter's that (cf.

mother-in-law implies that

as an exorcism the stilling

Markan material was an exorcism In relation

Mk-4: 39 and 1: 25 with thesis Achtemeier is

the storm (150) Lk. 8: 24). correct to conclude

to Hull's

that
"there magical presents is as much evidence of Jesus' that Luke has toned as there is down the that he of the prac-

aspects

miracles,

such stories

under

the particular of magic. influenced In

influence fact,

the Hellenistic

understanding less

Jesus of Luke appears tices than the Jesus

by magical

in Mark! '.

338
How then does Luke treat (a) Though he does not stage, place Jesus and his exorcisms? in the centre of the key

Jesus-the-Exorcist

of his

Luke does make exorcism,

the preaching

Kingdom, factors (p.: z33 highlights Jesus but

and being

empowered by the Spirit Jesus (p. 101 above). it

the three

in understanding above)

From Lk. 7: 21 Luke

(p., 10: 18 x4; L above) and of exor cism not of the presence

seems that

the place in evidence

so much in understanding of the Kingdom.

work

is God himself as an exorcist at (152) (8: 3q; cf. 7: 16). This has influenced the way he For Luke Jesus the exorcism Jesus' stories. in 4: 31-37 So as we saw over the demons is emphasised The above)

(b)

has related

(pp"; Zf above)

authority violent

and the demons are pathos

less

and more submissive. is heightened (P. IZZ

of the healing principle

situation motivation

and so Jesus' He asks for stage healing simply

is mercy and compassion, is no hint of a two-

no information (p. )R9

and there

above).

The Jesus of Luke does not demon is commanded.

demon the to - the speak

(c)

We have seen. that

Mark was interested involvement

in

the Luke

disciples'/early-Church's also are maintains involved in this

in exorcism. in 9: 1f.

interest.

In fact

the disciples But

the same areas minimize

of ministry the disciple's

as Jesus, inability.

Luke does (in

9: 37-43)

V (d) We have concluded that Mark did not think

Satan was defeated conclusions does not-see in the Temptations,

339 that

We can draw the same From 8: 31ff, defeat Luke also -

from Luke (p. 1-2.1 above), the exorcisms as the final

of Satan and

the demons (see p. 353 below),

5.3,5

If,

as we saw in chap. IV, a significant ministry involved tradition dealing with

part the

of

the historical-Jesus' 'possessed' flect this,

and the Synoptic

has attempted That is,

to refrom (1,53)

then we are faced with

a puzzle.

the Fourth Gospel we know nothing How are we to account for

about Jesus as an exorcist, this?

(a) in John is,

One possibility in so far than that

is

that

the Jesus who is an exorcist, in

reflected

aq he is not reflected

historically,

more accurate This light fact is of

the view. implied this study

by Grayston, it is

the Synoptic Tradition. (154) However, in the that Jesus was in is omitting a to his

so far,

clear

an exorcist part

and that of Jesus'

the Fourth ministry

Gospel in not

significant exorcisms.

referring

(b) exorcisms

Equally from his

unlikely portrayal

is-the

view

that

John removes because he the stories, (155)

of Jesus'

ministry of

was embarrassed John cannot methods

about

the, 'magicall

aspect

be attempting

to remove Jesus only

from contemporary a healing

0

of healing

because not

does he include

, rTv

7,11 r%

from a distance spittle (9: 1-7).

(4: 46-54), (156)

but he also

includes

the use of

-(c) are not into in

Fridrichsen found

offers

the suggestion all

that

exorcisms

in John because and the 'World'

demonism has been condensed and to suggest fought against that it was

'Darkness' isolated

exorcisms

that

Jesus

be to portray this explanation

a fragmented does not is being

campaign stand

against

Satan would (157) But Satan. in the light miracle of

when viewed that this in

Jn. 9: 5. is 'part' a

Here Jesus of his

saying

'isolated' the 'world',

the light

(158) There are two other solutions that are worth consideringv

(d) 20: 30f. . "Jesus

The Johannine

theory

of miracles

is

in summed up

did many other which that

signs

in

the presence in this that

of the but these

disciples, are written

are not written you may believe believing

book; is

Jesus

the Christ, in

the Son of God, and that his name". are important be led this that

you may have life

So the miracles that people will

works

of Jesus performed

so and is

to faith should

in Jesus

as the Messiah

Son of Cod. said,

With

be compared 2: 11 where it or sign , disciples it is

in effect, glory

the mirade to his

was a manifestation in him that to

of Jesus'

and led

believing to be noted

(cf. 12: 37; 2: 23; besides

3: 2; 6: 2).

Also

the word sign,

the'Fourth

Gospel uses works

V
describe 'works' 5: 36; should God for miracle which Jesus' are also 7: 21; 9: 4; manifest. John's story they miracles (e, g, 7: 21) and importantly the work of _God That Jesus' these

341
seen as being 10: 25-38; his glory (e, g, 4 t43; miracles,

14: 10f, ),

and messiahship not but

and be the work of only also the'choice the way in of

Gospel has determined included in the Gospel,

are related,

A glance

at

the miracles

show how spectacular century readers,

most of I can find wine (2tl-12)

them would have seemed to first no exact but being healing be very parallels, pared with At first at all literature, parallel to the

the Dionysus miraculously of

changing of water into (159) legend the story contains filled with wine,

of empty jars hand the appear to

On the other does not of history it

the centurion's or unique nor in

boy (4: 46-54) in the light

special (160)

of religion

the way John has related traditions of similar (5: 1-9)

the Synoptic the healing

when com(161) healings.. does not seem

-the of paralytic there

for special (162)

are many such stories

in ancient special in

However John makes this being sick

miracle for

the mention Bultmann (6: 1-14),

of

the paralytic Rabbinic

38 years, feeding Celsus

cites (163)

'parallels'

to the miraculous Origen quoting

But more interestingis displaying choice

who mentions that

magicians

meals and tables of this said and

were only

apparitions story

(CC 1: 68), appears proportions

' In the light

the feeding

miracle

spectacularl

Food is

to be multiplied

in vast

to feed thousands,

V
there is more food of left over than was originally (6: 15-21) (164) available, has many

342

The story parailels blind

the walking

on the water to gods,

- notably also

related

The healing significant of all

of the for, the in the

man would

have been particularly

as we have already healings OT is

mentioned

(see P- '2-07 above), one not having

in the NT the only of sight

a precursor And areceive the story

the giving

to the blind. the blind

hope for their of the

the Messianic sight. raising ular It

age was that

would that in

hardly

needs mentioning (11: 1-45)

of Lazarus

John chose to relate

a spectac-

miracle.

Thus even though, parallels

and sometimes miracles,

because it is

there

were that John

to the Johannine

clear

has chosen to relate

extraordinary

miracles, stories

From what we would not fit into

have seen of the NT era,. exorcism this by all category kinds as they

were comparatively Moreover, aspects of

common and performed not only do the significance

individuals. of symbolize

Johannine of

miracles

the total

the incarnation darkness

in particularly into light

appropriate to life) world'

(for ways but the symbol

example

and death of this

of liberation thought better

from the portrayed

'power

was probablydays

dead than by an exorcism,

by the raising (165)

of a man-four

(e) of Jesus

In the Synoptic is closely tied

tradition to the

the exorcistic

activity chap, IV

'Kingdom

(see God' of

V above), But in the Johannine tradition little is not not is made of surprising feature, of It the

343

the theme of Jesus' related

the Kingdom of God, so it exorcistic John is activity using

that may

should

may also

be that

a different to the Synoptic

concept

Kingdom of God,

In contrast

tradition, 18: 36), it is

where the Kingdom of God is mentioned not not fit of this world (18: 36), (3: 3). Into it already this it

(3: 3,5; exists

(3: 5) and is to

seen by all the notion

would be difficult

of Mtt, 12: 28/Lk, ll,. 19 (cf. M. ltl5) inaugurated present for by Jesus all and strongly

where the tied to

Kingdom of God is this world, and is

to see (cf, mtt, 11: 4/Lk.

7: 22),

These seem to me to be the two most likely there it are no exorcism stories to be found another

reasons

why

in John.

However

may be worth M

considering In 5,2.1

possible that

contributory John does criticism of the to what if at

factor, mention

above it but -

was noted only

'demon-possession' opponents, towards rather

as a severe saw that in all

of Jesus by his criticism directed

We also Jesus

arose

relation words,

Jesus was saying this point

than

doing. is

In other faithfully

the Synoptic

tradition

reflecting

history,

John has redirected

criticism With

away from the miracles this in mind it to Jesus' . Justin, (167) and (including is miracles

to what Jesus was proclaiming, instructive in to take into account

the second century. (168) Celsus that reveal

Quadratust

attitudes (166)

the miracles

of Jesus

V the exorcisms)'suffered
The way the Johannine Jesus, to later and its

344 heavy attack

traditionlrames-th6 of exorcism stories of Jesus,

for being fabricatedl

criticisms of

avoidance of

criticism

the exorcisms

may be a response (169)

Conclusion.
with might some of

In this

chapter we have been interacting

as to how Jesus-the-Exorcist or categorized on two of It is by his the major contemsuggestions in

the suggestions

have been understood We have cast

poraries. that

doubt

have so far his

been offered.

unlikely

that,

observing

exorcisms, (or a the)

bystanders Messiah,

would have deemed Jesus or a

to be either magician. that

or a necromancer, a corrective

And we have suggested

to the notion as just

Jesus-the-Exorcist (170) rabbi.

would have been viewed

another

How then might poraries? Firstly methods

Jesus have been assessed be prefaced there

by his

contem-

our answer should in chap. and types II

by three

points, variety of

we saw that of exorcisms like

was a great in

and exorcists papyri there

the traditions, primarily of

There were traditions preserved healings exorcist those

the magical of exorcists,

which

the techniques in which, like

were stories the

that

of Eleazar

by Josephus,

was of little

significance,

there

were stories, was of

like central

in healer 1 Qap-Gen Abraham the of , where there contained was material, stories both Hellenistic

interest; which

and Jewish and

of men who were exorcists

V
prophets exorcisms relied which variety or philosophers, relied on special force There were traditions techniques of of and others in which which

345

on the personal relied

the exorcist, these

and others On this be applied depenothers their as

on a combination

extremes. that could

the most reasonable is that

categories of

to the material

the success of special

some exorcisms while for

ded on the performance depended on the person effectiveness. I can see, to portray accusation chap. no hint reviewed category 'good' cannot or II apart Secondly

traditions, himself

of the exorcist it is

conspicuous tradition's

that,

so far objective

from the Synoptic

Jesus as. the Messiah of magicp

and later material

generations' we surveyed in give

the background layers of

and the earliest of an attempt earlier brought 'evil' in

the Jesus-tradition Jesus In fact along the lines clear

to categorize this chapter. on Jesus'

the only

to bear

activity ).

was one of Thirdly it

(Mtt. 12: 24ff. that

/Lk. 11: 15ff.

even be maintained the divine

have suggested story

the exorcisms of Jesus would (171) for as the origin of Jesus 10) indicate the upright

Q4, (I ) Abraham FGtn and Noah (Jubilees of could of the simply 'exorcist'. be used to reflect

such stories character

It discussion Jesus

is

appropriate with

then

that

we should not that of the

conclude

this

the suggestion, the categories

as an exorcist first (172) century,

'transcended'

but that

it

is improbable

that his

contemporaries

attempted

346
to use any categories exorcisms - save that or 'labels' to assess him and'his reflected Acts on whether 10: 38). For

they or

probably 'evil'

'good' he or not was a the, early aspect

(cf, man

Church the exorcisms ministry, albeit

of Jesus were yet. another a most important part of Jesus' aspect, ministry, that to do per-

of his

haps for

Mark the most important into

which was conscripted Jesus was the Messiah. this we will see in that

the programme of showing

How the early chapter,

Church was able

the next in

And we have seen, stories of Jesus for its the own

(p, IqS early healing

above)

the exorcism

Church found ministry.

the pattern (173)

and motivation

vi

JESUS-THE-EXORCIST (His Self-Understanding)

In the introduction suggsted that part

to our study

(P. 7 above) picture not

it

was

of the historian's involves features as it

of the only the of his of

historical-Jesus-the-Exorcist recovery ministry Jesus' of the outward but also, so far

of this is

aspect

possible,

some idea self-

self-understand mar be not for its

The recovery only something is

of Jesus'

understanding by the historian interest exorcism.

to be undertaken perhaps also of on

own sake but

to modern theology (1)

and the present

day debate

However in of the nineteenth consciousness rather denied

the wake of Schweitzer's century reconstruction

exposure of Jesus'

of much selfcentury been about

telling

us more about centuryit

the nineteenth has generally

than of the first that it is possible

to know much or anything For example

the mind of the historical-Jesus. Fridrichsen wrote place in

in 1926

'What took always

the depths

of Jesus' will

soul be able

will to

remain

a mystery

no source

uncover...
But this view

JIM
is now being called into question. For

example James Dunn says -

vi

348
'Uhile a biography of Jesus in is indeed impossible,

particularly traces out

a biography the hero's

the modern sense which in self-awareness and his world, that and does Jesus'

growth

in understanding not mean that

of himself

we can say nothing. and spiritual (3) ministry".

at all

about at

self-consciousness some points in his

experience

So what we will last about statement Jesus'

do in it

this is

brief

chapter

is

test

this

and see if understanding

possible

to say something viz. did how he think

of his

exorcisms,

Jesus view himself he was doing?

as an exorcist?

and what did

From our analysis sayings 20-30 above) of his now found

in

chap. III 'Beelzebul 43-49/Lk. deal

it

is

the col I ection (Mk-3:

of

in the

Controversy'

and Matt, 12: 22-301 which tells

11: 14-261, see ppxo4ff. about Jesus' views

us a great ministry.

exorcistic

Arguably is the

the most important Sayingt its

saying

in

this

collection 11: 20. We have but of his this

'Spirit/Finger argued for

of Mtt. 12: 28/lk.

already

authenticity Jesuql

(p.. Zajabove) understanding

what does it exorcisms? question that

tell

us about

In Jesus and the Spirit and one of his answers is

Dinn has addressed that "Jesus believed

he cast

47). demons by the Godtl(p. out power of

However

vi

349
is better to Bay that it was by the Spirit of God

it that

Jesus cast it

out demons for,

as we have seen (pp, 31cadJZ2. the Jews were the Spirit that is

above) already

was by the power of God that casting out demons, and it here. is

mentioned conscious wholly simpiy quarter. that

in the tradition that

In a+se

Jesusjs'4uite is in the

............. the source of his 'Spirit'

........... loower-authoritv

new eschatological in himself, Also it verse is

of God - and not nor in any other to say

nor in his unhelpful,

techniquesl

even unimportant Jesus is

in this

we can see that

aware of an

here,

lotherly' M' -

power as if
for

this

was particularly
with

significant
whom we have dealt

most of the exorcists

were aware of,

a power-authority

and relied
outside

on, just

this

kind of power, -

of themselves.
0

But we have also of significance (p. 213above). claiming that If in this this

argued verse is

that but

not

only

is is

fSpirit' the 'all simply the

so also

correct

-rT then Jesus was not by or through

the exorcisms Spirit that

performed

eschatQlogical

of God meant that those exorcisms Spirit

the Kingdom of which he performs

God had come but (by or through that

the eschatological

of God) meant words we can not

the Kingdom of God had come. In other for Jesus the hoped for

say that only also

Kingdom had arrived Spirit but casting.

because because

of the activity it

of the Holy in

was he who was, is only half

the Spirit, to say that

out

demons. Thus it

correct

"where

vi

350
is there is the Kingdom". (5) Jesus' consciousness

the Spirit

is better
operative

reflected
in Jesus

there

by saying - 'where the Spirit (6)

is the Kingdom'.

is

From what has been said exorcism Kingdom(7) were not preparatory but were themselves

so far, for

for

Jesus,

the

the coming of the in

the Kmgdom of'God

operation

come upon his

"the longed-for Kingdom God had of already, (8)

hearers".

Another pericope the Strong above). exorcism

authentic

saying

in

the Beelzebul is

controversy of

to which

we need draw attention

the Parable

Man (Mk-3: 27/Mtt-12: in

29 and Ik. 11: 21f., this parable or defeat Jesus

see PAIS takes his

We have shovmthat to be the casting

out

of Satan

(see

p.. 24 above).

The binding Satan was expected 1 Enoch 10: 4ff., reviewing saw that was that suggestion Jesus this cast is

of the powers

of evil

or the demise of

in the Messianic liff.;. 1QS. 4: 18f. ).

Age (Is. 24: 21f.; (9) When we were we

the way others'assessed the commonly suggested Jesus as an exorcist is represented

Jesus-the-Exorcist contemporary

acclamation This

was the Messiah.

in Matthew where on seeing

out a demon an amazed crowd says - ItSurely The consensus that of the

the Son of David? " (Mtt. 12: 23). among scholars is that it was

opinion

vi

351
would defeat That is there Satan is by casting (see demons pelcil out connecting the in

Messiah below). exorcism evidence exorcism Firstly exorcism, that

nothing of Satan.

new in Jesus But'in

and the defeat that

examining involvement

speaks of the Coming One's of Satan between

and the defeat all connections and the defeat

two things a Messianic

emerged* individualg in material

of Satan were found or redacted which is

had been either

written

by Christians. useful simply in

Secondly,

Ass. Mos. 10: 1,3, first century

potentially

understanding anticipates above).

Messianic-expectation in

the demise of Satan

the New Age (see P-k97 prior exorcism to and

Thus (as we concluded is no connection

on p. allgabove) made between that but

the NT there eschatology. is found

From what we have said, words of Jesus,

the connection not found before

in authentic it

Jesus,

that

was Jesus himself and eschatoloal.

who made this

connection

............... between exorcism

But what was the nature Jesus had in mind? That final
.......... -.. .0. .

of

the defeat

of Satan the

that

is,

were the exorcisms or perhaps arises

and complete

defeat

the beginning because quite

of the

defeat different

of Satan? This notions

question

of the defeat

of Satan

can be detected

in

the Gospels.

What are their

origin?

Matthew, has the Beelzebul

sayings

about

the defeat

of

Satan

tied

to Jesus'

exorcisms

(12: 25-29)-., But along-

vi

352
this we =t is place three other passages in particular.

side

The first

8: 29b where Matthew the notion being

(see p. 131above) to adds of being that in tormented before

the demoni', question their that Jesus'

time, 9 the implication the torment exorcisms.

Matthew the future

thought beyond

of the demons lay With this future

element,

the two 'torments

passages

we are about

to mention,

and the use of

in Revelation

of the last'time

(20: 10;

14: 11; cf-9: 5;

18: 7,10,15)
torment

it

seems likely

that

Matthew
time.

places

the

of the demons in

the last

Second to be noted

is 13: 36-43 - the interpretation

Tares which Jeremias (10)

of the Parable of the

shown to be the is at'work and all until evil the doers

has convincingly Here the devil

work of Matthew. final will judgment be thrown

when all into

causes of sin The third

the fire.

and perhaps Satan will

clearest

expression

of when Matthew

thinks

finally
cursed, his

be defeated
into

is 25: 41, 'Tepart

fire prepared

from me, you

for the devil and

the eternal This verse that

angels".

comes in a unit is

on the Last

Judgment it may all

(25: 31-46) be his two,

Matthean that so thoroughly (11) In this verse, own work. and the for Matthew is at the end

previous of time,

the end of Satan Judgment.

the Last

Mark's

view

is

less

clear.

However at least of the post-Easter

in so far Church of

as the disciples (see p. )91above)

are paradigms and they

have been given

the task

vi casting out'demons (6: 7-12; (Cf.

or completely of Jesus.

353 16: 12))

defeated

he does not
in the

see Satan as finally exorcistic ministry

Like Beelzebul

the other sayings

two Synoptic relating that

Evangelists

Luke has the out Satan,

exorcism Jesus

and casting

and in 10: 18 he records falling included active while

says he saw Satan that

the disciples

were away on a mission

casting after

out demons. But he still healing

sees Satan ministry 31). in Satan's Notably Thur. in

the end of Jesus' of Judas? betrayal

inspiration

(22: 39 cf(Acts

Luke has Paul performing for

an exorcism

16: 16-18). defeated

Luke Satan was not finally exorcisms or any part

or completely of his ministry.

Jesus'

John's

Gosp el has a number of verses of the defeat of Satan. in

that

let

us see

what he thought discussed

We have already the Fourth hardly Jesus Gospel be linked is of

the absence of exorcisms defeat the of Satan is

(p, 339above)

could 12: 31.

to them. Particularly talking this trace defeat linked over about his world this be cast

important death down!.

and says "now shall It is unlikely that (12) world, is

the ruler we could Here the directly

back to the historical-Jesus. the ruler of this

of Satan, with against

the death this

of Jesus

(cf. 14: 30 and 16: 11). Jesus' prayer "that (13)

Yet

we must put

thou So

shouldst

keep them from the evil

onett(17: 15).

vi

354
John saw Satan as being defeated in the death of

even if

Jesus he was certainly destroyed him, for the early

not saying Satan was finally community still had to deal with

So all have their

the future origin

references

to the defeat writing,

in the earl'Churchls writers thought that

of Satan ( 14)

None of the Gospel

Satan was finally

defeated

the exorcism authentic of Satan ik. lo: 18) place

or destroyed (15)
. sayings in Jesus' iO is

in Jesus'

ministry

let -

alone in
in the

On the other on the final (cf. y

hand the emphasis and complete Mtt. 12: 29/Ik. this

destruction 11: 21 and

minist;!

Yet over

against

the future

expectations into account

conclusion we must (17) In particular of Jesus.

we need to take

(Mtt-13: Wheat the among Satan's influence

the parable of the Weeds (18) 24-30) - which considers until 'the end'.

to be apparent

What then exorcism future

shouldwe

conclude

on Jesus'

view

of the

and the defeat expectation that

of Satan? We have just cautions Satan's

noted

of Jesus which Jesus considered

us against complete demise

concluding

to have taken conclude that

place

in his

ministry. his about

But might ministry the final of Satan's

we not

Jesus understood have brought to that

- particularly and complete activity

of exorcism defeat would

of Satan but

a32 traces

not be removed until

the end of time?

vi

355
When we examined 'The Disciples evidence to Easter. charge that 'to that I Miasion(s) Jesus did I (pp; t37Ff. send disciples we could there in not seems

above)

we found

clear prior

out on mission establish plenty exorcism

But although cast

a specific of evidence and that

out demons'

the disciples

were involved

Jesus saw their

work as part

of the

fall

of Satan.

Exorcism of central ministry. against exclusive

was then probably to Jesus

of great in

importancel

even

importance But his thinking reply that

the conception

of his

to John the Baptist. Jesus saw his exorcisms

warns us as of lReply to

importance. above) his

In our discussion we concluded that

of the

Johnt(pp*23zff. did not mention

Jesus probably the lk, 7: 21)of his

exorcisms to John's

when he was describing disciples (contrast because

'signs Thus,

of the times' for Jesus,

the Kingdom was present because (19) of

exorcism

also and ,

the preaching

to the poor

and the other

miracles*

We saw in with powerful

chap. II

that

powerful

exorcists

or names as powerabove). using his

repu, -tations for their

were used by others (see p. 103 othenwere

authorities We also

exorcisms

saw that

Jesus was aware that

name in their
Might we not

exorcism
then

(mk. 9: 38f. /Ik. 9: 49f.;

this

Ik, 10: 17-20),

presume that

would have been that he was

reflected

in his

own self-consciousness

vi

356
a powerful exorcist?

indeed

We have seen in to say somethin3

relation to his

the. last Jesus'

In

few pages that self-consciousness

the words of

it

is in

possible

about

exorcisms.

Dumn (refe3#fig

particularly Lk, 10: 18) -

to the claims

in Mtt. 12: 28/lk.

11: 20 and

"These claims ............ distinctiveness were in his

imply

a clear power:

sense of Jesus'

the eschatological mighty acts

of his

own eyes as epochal

the Exodus and likewise

of as the miracles (20) heralded a new age".

vii

CONCWSIONS

The aim of this is possible), that

study

has been to recover

(as far It was

as

the historical-Jesus-the-Exorcist. this the was potentially between a profitable

suggested for

objective

we noted lack

contrast

modern scholarship's Gospels' great is or is it fails in

relative interest

of interest ministry justified

and the Synoptic of exorcism. in this

in Jesus'

In otherwords neglect because of exorcism

modern scholarship its view

present

of the historical-Jesus into account fully the

unbalanced importance

to take

the ministry

of Jesus?

The first which variity currency

century

Palestinian

background

against in the

we can place of notions

Jesus

seems to have been rich on exorcism. than simply

available

The intellectual that represented First and

of the time Rabbis

was Wider and their

by the Jewish century practised Hellenistic on exorcism Babylonian later Scrollsj Lucian,

healing well

methods.

Palestinians forms

were probably that

aware of,

of exorcism

were well

known in more aware of ideas

cultures. that

They were probably

are represented texts Tobit,

in the ancient and papyri as well as the

and Egyptian papyri.

magical

Jubilees, Josephus, it

the Dead Sea Rabbinic literature, legitimately

LAB, the NT itself, and Philostratus,

was arguedcould

vii

358
to Jesus' exorcistic on the

be used to fill ministry.

out

the background seems illegitimate Sol.

However it

to rely

NT Apocrypha information

and the Test. on first century

to give

us independent

ideas.

If ranged because

this

is

right those

then which in

there

were exorcisms

that

between

were thought the

to be successful and done in were These both as

of what was said

incantations, that

the rituals, successful individuals figures individuals

and on the other because with

hand those

of who performed of healing

the healing. are portrayed These Palestine

powers

in literature

and then to first

in hisiory. century

indigenous -

were men whose reputable to be reflected or actually

character

and wisdom was thought in their name

in miracles

done either

by them.

When, in the light data

of this,

we examine

the principal. emerge.

on Jesus and exorcism

a number of points

1. We are able opinion that

to unhesitatingly

support - probably

the common an

Jesus was an exorcist successful one.

exceptionally

2. Exorcism the Gospel in the light tradition

stories from

have not been either other traditions

qppended to

or been rewritten the

of other

traditions.

And the Jesus behind

vii

359
is at one with his its environment tradition but not because because the time. the Church adjusted

Gospels early

historical-Jesus-the-Exorcist

was a man of his

3. Virtually

all

of the historical-Jesus' to those with who observed vocalized

'technique' him. The

would have been familiar dramatic confrontation conversationg

the demon's Jesus'

defensel to from

the ensuing

words or incantations leniencyl to provide his healing

the demons, the demons' a distance, home for his using objects

plea

for

(pigsl)

an alternative with fellow

the evicted all

demons, the violence made Jesus appear

associated his

exorcismsq

at one with

exorcists.

Yet we cannot factors exorcists. mechanical his lack that

ignore

some quite set Jesus

significant from other not use by

most probably Although aids

apart did

some of the Rabbis exorcism his -

Jesus'

are marked at least technique was limited

ofany

form of aid

to simply appeared probably authority binds rely

incantations

and questions

and commands. Jesus contemporaries

to use no prayers, did,

as some of his

nor did he seem to invoke

any powernever adjures or

or use a powerful

man. So Jsus instead "I

a demon by another on his own authority

authority; by saying

he is

seen to

command... "o

On investigating

the various

proposed responses to

Vil

36o
Jesus-the-Exorcist we concluded that the evidence thought Jewish may be the On

this

does not permit him a magician, Rabbi though -

us to say that'his necromancer perhaps from

contemporaries another that

or even simply our perspective for

most appropriate the other of notions century

designation

him as an exorcist. such a variety available not

hand there

seems to have'been and exorcisms

of exor: cists that

in first categorized why

Palestine

Jesus was probably We can no longer

beyond being

good or evil.

recover

Jesus-the-Exorcist perhaps it

was thought other

to be evil/from aspects of his

Satan ministry of the in

was because offensive

were found Sabbath

(for

example his connects

handling

which

Luke actually

with

exorcism

13: 10-17)-

Apart exorcisms complicated Synoptic

from

the Fourth

Gospel

which

ignores is far

Jesus' less -

thd response

of the Evangelists

than has sometimes portray he is

been suggested. in the light

The

Evangelists that view

Jesus

of their

own convictions determines exorcisms Christology the first their

the Messiah;

Christology In fact the

of Jesv -the-Exorcist. soil 'demonic for the growth recognition'

were a fertile for green in the

of a there were

shoots

of a messianic

confession.

UP to the present
Messiah was expected

scholars

have thought
with Satan

that

the

to do battle

through

Vil

361
But so far data as we could the connection see from an analysis between himself. exorcism and of

exorcism.

the pertinent eschatology declaring exorcisms

was one made by Jesus that in the very act

Jesus was ordinary

of relatively

Satan was being

defeated

and the Kingdom of God own experience so that it the took *'tup

had come. Perhaps early

becau e of their this that

Church loosened expectation

connection

an earlier

Satan would

be defeated

at the

lend of time'.

'The Spirit/Finger
elucidates eschatology. that Satan is Jesus' connection

Saying'

(Mtt. 12: 28/Ik. 11: 20)

exorcism Jesus and considers

between idea

Over against defeated

the

that

and that

the Kingdom of God has the eschatological Spirit

come because of the coming of we suggested of Jesus' that it

may be a more faithful of his are exorcism there is

representation to say that the Kingdom. Jesus would in his God

understanding

where Jesus and the Spirit This mean that

we can probably

say that

have been aware of some considerable relation was doing to God and in relation around him.

unigimess

to what he thought

9. *If what we have been concluding

Jesus defeat then saw his (and his disciples')

is correct

that -

exorcisms

as the'final

of Satan and the coming of the Kingdom of God to neglect what was of central and fundamental

vii

362
to Jesus is to misrepresent Jesus it the historicalexorcisms expected until the

importance Jesus.

But even though of Satan

may have seen his he still evident

as the defeat traces end.

seems that to remain that

of Satan's

activity

I am not suggesting only as-an

Jesus was only on , or saw or that most of his time was

himself spent support is that

exorcist, exorcisms

in performing such a claim.

the evidence -

does not to claim to be

But what does seem right of his bringing ministry in

Jesus saw the vanguard -a battle with Satan

exorcism

the Kingdom.

.0

I INTRODUCTION (Notes) 1. The Times 4 September 1980, p. 2. Ef. 2. Casew The Times 26 March 1975, p-41 the 'Barnsley 27 March 1975, p. 6. 3. For example the English informed they publishers me that have sold almost two million'copies Blatty's of William (Corgi, 1971 and Blond and Briggs). London, The Exorcist in John Richards 4. See the bibliographies Us But Deliver (Seaburyr 1974) pp. 226-40; New York, From Evil and Exorcism, , (Grove Some Pastoral Guidelines Deliverance and Healing: 1976) p. 24. Books, Nottingham, 5. Exorcism. The Report Convened by the of a Commission (ed. ) Dom Robert (SPCK, Petitpierre Bishop of Exeter 'reports' 1972) p. 26. For other Church London, see Richards Exorcism p. 3 n. 2. 6 in D. Cupitt in Theology Explorations 6. Reprinted 1979) pp. 50-3, (SCM, London, from p. 50. quotation (ed. ) Exorcism 7. Cf. J. H. Crehan in Pdtitpierre pp. 11-5; "Exorcism in the New Cupitt'Ibid. also K. Grayston p. 51; Ep. R 2(1975) Testament" pp. 90-4. 8. See James D. G. Dunn "Demythologizing of Myth - The Problem in New Testament*lnteri3retation (ed. ) in the New Testament" (Paternoster, 1977) p. 289 and n. 20. Exeter, I. H, Marshall (ed. ) C. H. Talbert 9. Reimarus: (SCM, London, 1970) Fragments, (1906, Quest of the Historical 10. See A. Schweitzer'The Jesus London,. 1910) pp. 52 and 57. ET, Black, (1864, ET, Fortress, 11. The Life 1975) Philadelphia, of Jesus p. 209, cf. p. 205. 12. Schweitzer Quest p. 64, cf. Schleiermacher L ife p. 224. (1835, ET, 1846, reprinted 13. D. F. Strauss The Life of, jesus 1892, SCM, London, 19731. 14. See Dunn "Demythologizing... ". p. 289. 15. Schweitzer Quest pp. 97ff.. 16. Ibid. p. 111; cf. James D. G. Dunn and Graham H. Twelftree "Demon-Possession in the New Testament" and Exorcism Churchman 94(. 1980) p. 210., 1900). 17. (1899-1900 ET, Williams Norgaie, London, and , 18. Ibid. p. 24. 19., Ibid. p. 25. 20. -Ibid. Cf. Grayston Ep-R 2(1975) pp. 28f.. pp. 90-4 who in the NT. to play down exorcism wises 21. R. H. Hiers "Satan, Demons, and the Kingdom of God" He specifies Schweitzer, SJT 27(1974) Bultmann, p. 35 and n. 2. "On a Cf. James S. Stewart Morton Enslin and Pannenburg, in New Testament Neglected Emphasis Theology" SJT 4(1941) The Significance of the Miracle pp. 292-301 and James Kallas (SPCK, London, 1961) p. l. Stories (Fortress, 22. RGGJ III ET, Jesus Philadelphia, cols. 619-53, 1973); Rediscovering the Teaching cf. N. Perrin of Jesus (SCM, London, 1967) pp. 42 and 250. 23. G. Bornkamm Jesus of Nazareth (1956, ET, SCM, London, 1960) chap. 8. 24. Cf. Hiers SJT 27(1974) p. 35 n. 2.

I 25.

364

(SCM, London, 1979) pp. 142-59. Cf. B. F. Meyer The Aims (SCM, London, 1979) pp. 154-8. of Jesus 26. This is evident in the search for criteria which historians for the historical-Jesus. use in the search Much work has been done on the, ipsissima vox/verba of Jesus (for "An exami-nation example see D. G. A. Calvert of the for Distinguishing the Authentic criteria Wordsof Jesus" NTS 18 (1971-2) "Authenticating pp. 209-19 and N. J. McEleney Criteria CBQ 34(1972) but and Mark 7: 1-23" pp. 431-60) little facta work has been done on the ipsissima of Jesus (though (Ecclesia see F. Mussner The Miracles of Jesus 1970) pp. 27-39 and "Ipsissima , facta Press, Shannon, Jesu? " Th. R 68(1972) cols. 177-85). 27. The Miracles (Brill, 1965) pp. 339-414. Leiden, of Jesus 28. For example Anton Fridrichsen The Problem of Miracle (1925, ET, Augsburg, Minneapolis, 1972) pp. 102ff.; Alan Richardson The Miracle Stories of the Gospels (SCM, London, 1941) parts Mussner Miracles of chap. III; R. H. Fuller Interpreting the Miracles pp. 41ff.; (SCM, London, 1963) pp. 29ff. 29. Significance 5 and 6. chaps. 30. The same is to be said of R. Leivestad Christ the (SPCK, London, 1954) J. M. Robinson Conqueror The ProRem in Mark (SCM, London, 1957); of History and G. Theissen (Gatersloh Urchristliche Wundergeschichten Verlagshaus 1974). Gerd Mohn, Gatersloh, 31. Jesus the Jew (Collins, 1973). London, Cf. P. Fiebig Adi: 3che Wundergeschichten des neutestamentlichen (Mohr, 7ftingen, Zeitalters 1911) pp. 71ff. who sets Jesus' Rabbipic. miracles against an exclusively milieu. 32. Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic (SCM, Tradition 1974). London, 33. R. Bultmann The History (1921, Tradition of the Synoptic 1963) p. 231, cf. ET, Blackwell, oxford, 38; cf. M. Dibelius (19332, to Gospel From Tradition ET, Clarke, 1971) London, V and VI. chaps. 34. (Gollancz, 1978). London, 35. To my knowledge Uteratareis: the most important. "The Demonology F. C. Conybeare JQR of the New Testament" 8(1896) pp. 576-608,9(1897) pp. 59-114,444-70,581-603; T. K. Oesterreich Possession Demoniacal (ET, Kegan and Other Paul, Trench, Trubner, London# 1930); B. Noack Satanas und (Gads Forlag,, Kbenhavn, Soteria 1948); E. Langton Essentials (Epworth, 1949); London, S. Eitrem Some Notes of Demonology (Brgger, Osloae, on the Demonology of the New Testament 1950); Otto Bo"cher Dmonenfurcht und DAmonenabwehr (Kohlhammer, 1970); StuttgarL, and see also Dunn and etc., Twelftree Churchman 94(1980) pp. 215ff.. 36. See ns. 4 and 5 above.

11

ii BACKGROUND AND SETTING (Notes) 1. As the Synoptic the whole of the NT and indeed stories do not touch ignore this on the exorcism of places we shall (see "An Incantation for S. Langdon of aspect exorcism Expelling Demons-from For a House" ZA 2(1925) pp. 209-14). -ee ; for example definitions Eitrem of exorcism other RGG3 II cols. 832ff.; Notes pp. 20 and 57; C. H. Ratschow IDB II p. 199; J. M. Hull IDB(SUpp. ) p. 312i I. Mendelsohn 2. Contrast Ibid. Mendelsohn 94(1980) 3. See Dunn and Twelftree Churchman pp. 215-9; also B8cher Christus IDB I pp. 822ff.; T. H. Gaster and D9monenfurcht. 'Hellenistic' 4. On the history and of the use of. the labels 'Jewish' in NT scholarship "The Study of see A. F. J. Klijn AlHengeL 419-31; ! ES 20(1973-4) Christianity" Jewish pp. (1973, ET, SCM, London, 1974) 1 Judaism and Hellenism pp. lff.. 5. See Hengel Ibid. 6. Victor Tcherikover Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews 1977) p. 90. (Atheneum, New York, 7. on the insular of Judaism nature and its reaction against impact and example M. Hengel Jews, Greeks see for outside 1980) pp. 123f.. (1976, ET, SCM, London, Barbarians Parties 8. See also Morton Smith Palestinian and Politics 1971) chap. III, (Columbia New York and London, University, (1967, in the Time of Jesus ET, SCM, Jerusalem J. Jeremias 1969) chap. III; London, Ibid. and Hengel chap. 12. 9. R. C. Thompson The Devils Spirits and Evil of Babylonia (Luzac, 2 Vols. 1903-4); London, C. W. King Babylonian Magic (Luzac, 1896). London, on dating and Sorcery see Thompson Ibid. Vol. I p. XI who says they were known to Asshurbanipal's in the seventh Jastrow them much century. places scribes (Ginn, (The Religion Boston, of Babylonia and Assyria earlier literature 1898) pp. 257f. ). For other secondary see H. W. F. (Sidgwick that Saggs The Greatness was Babylon and Jackson, Londcrk, 1962) chap. 10 (includes a discussion of ancient demonology). Babylonian ff. ). Religion 10. See aastrow p. 296(and 11. Thompson Devils I p. 13, cf. p. XXV. I pp. 103,119ff.. 12. For example Thompson Devils 13. Further Vol. II pp. XXVIIIff.. see Ibid. 14. Ibid. Vol. I p. 17. 15. Ibid. pp. 51(-61). f.. 16. Cf. King Magic pp. xxvii lines twenty 17. Most probably of about an incantation the exorcists words of command to the demon; containing I pp. 105ff.. see Thompson Devils 18. Ibid. Vol. II p. 71, cf. pp. 77ff.. 19. See also Langton Essentials pp. 30f.. 95ff., 20. Thompson Devils See also pp. 19ff., II p. 109. (and 151). and Vol. I pp. 103,119 21. For example Thompson Devils I p. 3.

ii

366

22. Ibid. p. 125. 23. ibid. Vol. II p. XLI. 24. As this has more to do with NT-demonology than parable Jesus as an exorcist it in this we will not be discussing study. 25. Ibid. (etc. ). pp. 85, cf. 8, Vol. 1 pp. 205,207 26. Ef. Saggs Babylon chap. 14 "Legacy and Survival". 27. Langton Essential pp. 2off.. 28. Note especially (pp. 10-34 and notes) Ibid. who has given taken up into the many examples of Babylonian notions*being literature. Rabbinic 29. See L. Herzfeld Handelsgeschichte der Juden des Altei: bms (Meyer, Braunschweig, 1894) pp. 22f, 129f., and "The Economy of Judea in the Period 141f. and J. Klausner in The World History of the Second Temple" of the Jewish (ed. ) M. Avi-Yonah People. The Herodian Period (Allen, 1975) pp. 179-205 London, and notes and bibliography. 30. Note J. Neusner A History of the Jews in BabyloniaI (BriLl, 1965) pp. 41ff. Leiden, Jerusalem 1 Jeremias pp. 66ff.. 31. Cf. Langton Essentials p. 10. 32. Literature: (Kegan Paul, E. W. Budge Egyptian Magic 1899) Trench, Trubner, London, Clark' R-. T-. Myth Symbol P. and (Thames and Hudson, 1959), London, F. Lexa La Magie dans 3 Vols (Geuthner, 1'Egypte Antique 1925), Paris, A. Erman (1904, Religion A Handbook of Egyptian ET, Constable, 1907). London, 33. For other Vol. -2 and P. Ghalioungui see Lexa Ibid. papyri in Anci; *nt Egypt Magic and Medical Science (Hodder and 1963) pp. 48ff.. Stoughton, London, jer 34. About 1500 BC but containing B. Ebbell ol. material. (Ejnar The Papyrus Ebers Munksgaard, Copenhagen and Oxford University, 1937), and C. P. Byran Ancient London, (Geoffrey Egyptian Medicine Bless, 1930). Londonj 35. Eb. P I, XXX, LVII, LX, LXIX(bis), XC, XCII, XCV, CVIII. XCVIII, 36. See also Lexa La Magie I chap. 5. 37. Cf. Ghalioungui Magic p. 35. 38. For text, introduction translation, and commentary see 2 Vols. J. H. Breasted, The Edwin Smith Papyrus (University 1930). Chicago, of Chicago, 39. On the men of healing Magic chap. VII; see Ghalioungui "Professional A. H. Gardiner Magicians in Ancient Egypt" PSBA 39(1917) pp. 31-44. 40. This is also found in incantations to not related 501: VI: 10ff. In P. Harris is to the speaker exorcism. assume the identity of the god Menu in working against a demon of the water. See Erman Handbook pp. 150ff.. 41. Breasted Smith Vol. 1 pp. 476, quotation from p. 477. See for example PGM V: 172,439,459. 42. See A. H. Gardiner in the British Hieratic Papyri Museum 3rd Series, Vof-. I (British Museum, London, 1935) dates 1250-1100 Gardiner this BC. pp. 50f.. around

11

367

(University in Magical 43. See C. Bonner Studies Amulets of 1950) pp. 8,22-261 Ann Arbor, W. M. F. Petrie Michigan, (Constable, 1914) pp. 1-7; London, F. Lexa La Magie Amulets. Also I. E. S. Edwards I chap. 41 Budge Magic chap. II. in the British Museum 4th Series, Vol. I Papyri Hieratic (British 1960) pp. xviii, Museum, London, xix. 44. Literature: Ancient Records of Egypt see J. H. Breastdd (University 1906) p. 18h. b; Chicago, Vol. III of Chicago, Romans et Contes Egyptiens Gustave Lefebvre (Adrien-Maisorreuvep 1949) pp. 224f.. Paris, in A. Erman Storici II pp. 48f. 45. Rosellini Monumenti Karnak temples ZAS 21(1883) p. 58 and n. 3. on the ancient Art and the Cults of Osiris and Amon see E. Otto Egyptian 1968) pp. 85-97. (1966, ET, Thames and Hudson, London, 46. On the god Khonsu see especially H. Bonnet Reallexikon (Gruyter, 1952) der Agyptischen Religionsgeschichte Berlin, Gods of Ancient W. A. Jayne The Healing pp. 140ff.; (Yale University, 1925) pp. 68ff.; New Haven, Civilization (Hutchinson's Religion University. Egyptian J. Cverny' Ancient 1952) pp. 18,73,120f. Library, London, and Otto Art, p. 96. Records 47. From Breasted pp. 193f.. him in IDB Supp. p. 313. 48. Hull Magic_p. 62, cf. Romans p. 221 n.. 2; cf. A. Erman 49. From Lefebvre ? 'Die Bentreschstele" ZAS 21(1883) pp. 54-60. 50. Breasted Records p. 189. human'forml 51. Khonsu was given see S. Morenz Egyptian (1960, ET, Methuen, 1973) p. 264, and London, Religion Bonnet Reallexikon pp. 140ff.. 52. Cf. Breasted Records p. 189; Otto Art p. 96. date of this 53. These points the idea of the late support in the time of may have its origin stele , though the story (ed) Amarna Letters 20, pp. 13-29; II; Ramses see Winkler 59f. 21(1883) 188f. Erman Records ZAS Breasted pp. and pp. cf. , 25ff.. 54. See Clark-athpp . 55. See also PGM Vol. I p. 67. 2. 56. The Goddess of Surrye by H. Chadwick 57. See the discussion of Celsus' of origin place 1953) (Cambridge University., Cambridge, Celsium Contra Origen: f.. pp. xxviii B8. See also Galen de composit. V: 2 and John medicament 8.4; b. Kidd. 49h. Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 59. Hengel Judaism I p. 158 and notes. 60. See Jewish V p. 60; S. W. Baron A Social Encyclopedia and University, Religious History of the Jews Vol. I (Columbia 1952) p. 213 and note 1; I New York and London, Hengel Judaism Jeremias Jerusalem pp. 69f. '. and 76 and notes7 pp. 68ff. 61. Jeremias Ibid. Ibid. and Hengel pp. 17 and 101. 62. Hengel I. See also chap 1: 3 and 4, p. 101 and notes. "A Study in the Commercial Between G. McLean Harper Relations in the Third AJP Egypt and Syria Century Christ" Before 49(1928) Smith Parties and and notes; pp. 1-35; chap. III Jeremias Ibid. 12: 186f.. 63. Josephus Ant.

ii

368

"Some Early 64. A. Montgomery Amulets. from Palestine" JAOS 31(1911) pp. 272-81. (Pantheon 65. E. R. Goodenough Jewish Symbols Books for Foundation, New York) Vol. 1 (1953) pp. 165f. the Bollingen (1953) Figs. 379-81. and Vol. III 66. If we are correct 'Das altjddische then L. Blau 1898', p. 84) is incorrect Triabner, Strasbourg, Zauberweseny incantations that to think charms and came from the than Palestinian Jews. Babylonian rather 67. Most of which has been published by Karl Preisendanz 3 vols. (Teubner, Graecae Magicae Leipzig Papyri and Vol. 3 is extremely Berlin). rare and not easily (see Hull Magic p. 8 and n. 15). For more recent accessible 11Zur OberVeferungsgeschichte discoveries see Preisendanz in Aus Der Welt Des Buches Georg Magie" der Spatantiken (Otto Harrassowitz, 1950) Leyh Festgabe Leipzig, Zauberpapyri" C WE griechische and "Ce pp. 223-40; 26(1951) On the history pp. 405-9. of the collection to PGM Vol. 1; see the introduction material of this GriechischeRgyptischen Offeribarungszauber I T. Hopfner (Hassel, 1921); in Buches and Preisendanz Leipzig, Magic pp. 5ff.. Hull (Bible 68. Around the turn Adolf Deissmann of the century (1895 and 1897, ET, T&T 1901); Clark, Edinburgh, Studies (1908, ET, Hodder and New Light on the New Testament 1927)) made the first London, Stoughton, major contribution (on for NT research of the magical papyri on the importance important Magic pp. 16f. ). Another work see Hull earlier Uller's Heit; Im Namen Jesustudy study was Wilhelm (Vandenhoeck 1903) which placed G8ttingen, & Ruprecht, the Christians' use of Jesus' milieu. name in a magical (History for example p. 232) made a few Bultmann has also to the magical papyri and Barrett references irit to them (eg. C. K. Barrett H1S made some references the Gospel Tradition (SPCK, London, 1947) and 69. Magic pp. 5ff.. 1952) 70. For !xample V. Taylor Mark (Macmillan, London, The Cross in the New Testament p. 355; Leon Morris (Paternoster, 1967) pp. 56f.. Exeter, 71. But see C. K. Barrett The New Testament Background (SPCK, London, 1957) pp. 29-36. in Scripture 72. Cf. A. Macpherson's review of Hull 5(1974) Bulletin p. 48. 73. Ibid. Full 74. Magic p. 26. 'forward' 75. Ibid. Another example of this pp. 20-7. by Thompson Devils ideas is given I of religious stab_il_ity A Selection H. Gollancz of Charms cf. pp. XLIV; ('Actes du onzi&e international des Orientalistes" Congre (London, 1898) p. X.

dated from the second to the fourth 76. Variously century, literature 180f. I Vol. PGM cited there pp. and see 77. The-writer of these incantations makes good use of On this papyrus Goodwin concludes - "the Egyptian gods.

11 fundamental

369

ideas from old Egyptian seem to be derived (C. W. Goodwin Fragment Work religion" of Graeco-Egyptian (Cambridge Antiquarian Society)(Deighton, Macmillan, 1852) p. 39). But this identification formula Cambridge, is by no means confined is to this Notable papyrus. (cf. XXXVI: 335-339). PGM XII: 228-239 See also ! Z4z'At "A Propos des in PGM Vol. III; A. J. Festugiere d'Isis" HTR 42(1949) Ar4tologies pp. 221f. where the himself identifies with a variety of gods speaker (see Eitrem, Notes p. 24 n. 2). 'Egyptian 78. indeed the early Book of of the part identification the Dead' also has this of a speaker with The Egyptian Book of the Dead the gods (see T. G. Allen (oriental Institute Publications, 1960)). And Chicago, later Iamblichus the union thenmuch mentions of god and (lamblichus 7: 6). healer and the power the healer gains 39. 79. Cf. Eitrem. Notes p. 24 and Goodwin Fragmentp. 80. Hull Magic p. 150 ns. 36 and 37. 81. Further in Hull Ibid. This that pp. 27ff.. stability for was aided by at least two things. we have been arguing it seems as if papyri Firstly were handed down from father IV: 2518 and A. S. Hunt "A Greek to son (PGM I: 192ff.; cf. PBA 15(1929) Cryptogram" pp. 131f. ). Secondly, as Hunt insisted are repeatedly and secrecy on caution noticed, (PGM 1: 130; IV: 1872) and magical books-were to be hidden (Ibid. See also E. W. Lane Manners p. 132). and Customs of the Vol. I (Knight, Modern Egyptians London, 1842) chanter XII; (Watts, 1909) Myth, Magic and Morals Lonaon, F. C. Conybeare Deissmann Studies p. 323. pp. 241f.; 82. See F. G. Kenyon Greek Payri in the British Museum I (British 1893) pp. 64f.. Museum, London, 83. Cf. PGM IV: 1230-40. (which 84. One incantation, is too long to PGM V: 99-171, is a particularly good example of an exorcistic quote here) (Preisendanz incantation. See Kenyon Papyri I pp. 64-81. for his text saw this papyrus never contains many clearly inaccuracies). Another text complete worth minor is a second to fifth from Hebrew amulet century consulting by Montgomery JAOS 31(1911) Palestine published pp. 272-281. in gaining 85. This diffivulty the attention and aid of the is illustrated by the often power-authority prospective found direction to repeat P. Warren 25ff. an incantation. includes the words "Come to me, god of god, this times many say ... ... 'Abra ao If it again delays, na ... speak thus aloud I beg you! ". the things give me an answer concerning 242ff.. 86. Cf. PGM XIII: "Unless his name, on his the demoniac speaks giving be brimstone they should and asphalt, nose shall immediately". speak and leave ("The Technique HTR 3 6(1943)* C. Bonner of Exorcism" p. 42 and this that calling n. 10) thinks on the demon to give uD his

ii

370

his nature but'simply to get the name is not to discover itself. demon to identify However the name of something was thought to be so bound up with its nature,, and Test. Sol. (passim) so associates a demon's name and nature that it that the exorcists in the PGM represented seems most likely and were seeking not simply a demon's name but his character nature. 87. See also PGM XXXVI: 42ff.. 88. See also Goodwin Fragment p. 39 and Montgomery JAOS 31(1911) p. 274 where the exorcist uses the name of Yahweh. 1227ff. 89. Cf. lines In PGM V: 161ff. the incantation directs the user to put the papyrus with the names (of the ) across his forehead and to turn to the power-authority? (cf. P. Warren 52ff. 1 north and repeat the incantation
H. I. Bell, A. D. Nock and Herbert Thompson PGM XXXVI: passim.; from a Bilingual "Magical in the British Texts Papyrus "Die Preisendanz Museum" PBA 17(1931) pp. 235-287; Zaubertafeln" AP 11(1935) und lateinischen griechischen ' pp. 161ff.. is considerable. 90. The literature The most on 'amulets' important are C. Bonner Amulets studies note his bibliography III and chapters and VII; and pp. xix ff. E. R. Goodenough Symbols Vol. II chap. 7-azid-footnotes. Studies 91. See Deissmann p. 352. , 92. Cf. PGM IV: 3014 and V: 125ff.. 93. Cf. Goodwin Fragment p. 41. On 'Abrasaxl see A. Dieterich des spa'te36 Abraxas. Studien zur Religionsgeschichte (Tembner, Leipzig, 1891) ; Bell (et alJ PBA Alterturns 17(1931) p. 271; Bonner Amulets, p. 192. 94. For example PGM IV: 3028ff. and V: 474. Also IV: 409ff.; Jff.; XIXA; XVIIa; Cf. Bonner Ibid. XLI. XXXIII: ppw332f.; I pp. 255 ff.. Kenyon Papyri (PGM V: 142f.; 95. For example to form strange sounds see also 1: 12). 96. For example PGM XLIV. I: 13ff.; See also PGM XLII; II: 165ff.. 97. B. Lindars and P. Borgen "The Place of the Old in the Formation Theology: Testament of New Testament NTS 23(1976-7) C. H. Dodd Prolegomena and Response" pp. 59-75; (Nisbet, 1952) esp. London, to the Scriptures According by J. D. G. Dunn Unity and cited and also the literature 1977) pp. 425f.. (SCM, London, Diversity in particular 98. on demonology Essentials see Langton On the wider use of the OT in first chap. 2 and see below. Palestine see R. T. France Jesus and the Old century 5. 1971)'chap. (Tyndale, London, Testament ("The Demonology 99. W. O. E. Oesterley of the Old (1907) by Psalm XCV Exp. 16-18 illustrated Testament, intention has argued that the original of pp. 132-51) form against in devotional Psalm was "a polemic, this demons" oneself against methods of securing current (p. 134).

11

371

(11 QPsApa),, de psaumes apocryphes 100. "Un petit rouleau. in Tradition Cf. D. C. Duling und Glaube pp. 128-40. "Solomon, Exorcism, HTR 68(1975) and the Son of David" p. 239. 101. Ploeg in Tradition und Glaube p. 128. 102. Cf. Duling HTR 68(1975) p. 239. in the Judeah Desert 103. J. A. Sanders Discoveries of 1965) p. 92, esp. line 10 Oxford, Jordan IV (Clarendon, und Glaube pp. 128f.; of col. 27. Ploeg in Tradition Ibid. Duling b. Ber. 6a, 55bl 104. See also b. Sot. 8bi b. Pes. lllb; 16a; Midrash b. Yoma 53b; b. San. 103a; b. Taan. lla, on Dt. 6: 6; Num. 11: 5; 12: 3. (1907) p. 151; I. H. Marshall Lwke 16-18 EM. 105. See Oesterley (Marshalle (Paternoster, 1978) p. 173. D. Hill Exeter, Matthew 1972) p. 101. Londonj Morgan and Scott, 106. Cf. Mk. 16: 17f.. 107. France Jesus p. 152. W. O. E. Oesterley 108. Uterature: An Introduction to the (SPCKi London, 1935) pp. 170f.; Apocrypha Bookh of-the (Harper Times History R. H. Pfeiffer and of New Testament 1949) pp. 258ff. New York, Brothers, and notesl (Blackwell, 1966) The Old Testament Oxford, 0. Eissfeldt gistory The II People of the Jewish p. 5831 E. Schiirer 1891) pp. 43f.; (T It T Clark, Edinburgh, A. Wikgren IDB IV p. 662. History 109. See Pfeiffer pp. 273ff., cf. Metzger (Oxford to the Apocrypha University,. An Introduction 1977) pp. 31f., New York, cf. n. 110 below. J. T. Milik See R. Meyer RGG3 VI col. 907; 110.4Q Fragment. 88; esp. p. 522 n. 3; "Cave4of Qumran (4Q)" BA 19(1956)p. Ibid. cf. Metzger (Williams Early Zoroastrianism 111. See J. H. Moulton and 1913) pp. 338f. his London, Norgate, and notes; cf. "The Iranian Exp. T 11(1899) Background of Tabit" p. 259. "The Main Source of Tobit" ZAW See also T. V. Glasson "The Iranian 30(1959) D. Winston Component in pp. 257-2771 11 HR 5(1965-6) 183-216; Pfeiffer the Bible pp. .... History pp. 264-I. The Pseudepigrapha J. H. Charlesworth 112. Literature: and (Scholars, 1976) Missoula, Modern Research Textual Studies and Historical pp. 143-7 and J. C. VanderKam (Scholars, 1977) Missoula, in the Book of Jubilees pp. 289ff.. 113.. VanderKam Ibid. chap. III. in the Judean Discoveries 114. D. Barthdlemy and J. T. Milik 1955) pp. 82-4; Oxford, R. de Vaux Desert I (Clarendon, (pl. XVIa)" des Jubiles du Livre "Un fragment en hebreu "Les 'Petites de Grottes' M. Baillet RB 56(1949) pp. 602-5; J. T. Milik Qumran (2Q, 3Q, 6Q, 5Q) RB 63(1956) pp. 54f.; 4 de Qumran (4Q)" RB 63(1956) "La Grotte p. 60; Man-ual (DSD) From "Light W. H. Brownlee of Discipline on the BASOR 125(1951) the Book of Jubilees" pp. 30-21

11

372

ET,, The Jewish Sect of Qumran_(1953, A. Dupont-Sommer 1954) p. 38; B. Noack "Qumran Mitchell, London, Valentine, SEA 22-3 (1957-8) p. 193. and the Book of Jubilees" 22: 16-20; 30: 7-17 and 1QS. 1: 1-241 115. Cf. Jub. 15: 31-2; 8: 4-10,16-9: 2. 5: 7-11; See 116. Cf. for example Jub. 5: 27; 6: 17-32 and IQS. 10: 1-8. "Le calendrier des Jubiles A. Jaubert et de la secte de bibliques" VT 3(1953) Qumran. 8es origines pp. 250-641

7aTe "The Calendar Book of Jubilees, J. Morgenstern of 34-761 5(1955) J. B. Seglxl VT Its Character" Its Origin pp. and Ealendar" "Intercalation VT-7(1957) and the Hebrew Intercalation MethoTof pp. 250-307; E. R. Leach "A Possible for the Calendar of the Book of Jubilees" VT 7(1957) notes. On pp. 197f. cTrTd pp. 392-7; Noack SEA 22-3(1957-8) see other points of contact between 5mran and Jubilees Old. Testament pp. 607f. and ns. 53 and 541 Eissfeldt (Magres, N. Avigad and Y. Yadin A Genesis Apocryphon 1956) pp. 16-39; and Noack Ibid. Jerusalem, pp. 197ff.. 117. Dupont-Sommer Sect p. 38 and n. 1; Eissf; -41dt
W. Noack "Lex insculpta. Old Testament pp. 607f.; )in der Sektenschrift" (111'17? PIY? ZNW 46(1955) p. 139. 118. Noack SEA 22-3(1957-8) pp. 200f. 1 VanderKam Jubilees pp. 280ff..

119. See R. H. Charles The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha oxford, of the Old Testament Vol. II (Clarendon, 1913), p. 10. 120. For example, demons are fallen angels (Jub. 4: 15, 22: 5: 1-9; cf. Jude 61 2Pt. 2: 4), disembodied spirits (Jub. 10: 1-14; cf. Mtt. 12: 43-45/Lk. 11: 24-26)1 ruled by Mastema cause or Satan (Jub. 10: 8; cf. Mk. 3: 22/Mtt. l2: 24/Lk. ll: l5), (Jub. 10: 2 cf. Mk. 9: 17; Mtt. 12: 22/Lk. 11: 14; 13: 11, illness 16 (2Cor. 12: 7)), rule men (Jub. 10: 3,6 cf. Jn. 12: 31; for final judgment 16: 11 (Eph. 2: 2, -6: 12)), and imprisoned (Jub. 10: 5 cf. Mtt. 8: 29: Jude 6). Major 121. Literature: J. A. Fitzmyer The Dead Sea Scrolls Missoula, Publications and Tools for Study (Scholars, 1977). (Collins, 121a G. Vermes The Dead Sea Scrolls London,. 1977) chap; 2, note bibliography. in English_(Penguin, 122. From G. Vermes The Dead Sea Scrolls 1975) p. 219. Harmondsworth, 123. Ibid. p. 220. B. "Healing Through the Laying-on 124. Flusser of Hands in 7(1957) pp. 107f.. a Dead Sea Scroll"'IEJ 125. H. C. Kee "The Terminology of Mark's Exorcism Stories" "A Consideration NTS 14(1967-8) p. 235. Cf. A. A. Macintosh of Hebrew-)Y.111VT 19(1969) pp. 471-9; A. Caquot TDOT III pp. 49-53. 126. As in-Kee Ibid. p. 234. 127. See n. 125 above. 128. Kee NTS 14(1967-8) p. 232 and n. 2; cf. J. A. Fitzmyer Institute, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I (Biblical Rome, 1971) p. 138.

11

373

129. Fitzmyer Ibid. 130. Ibid. 131. Cf. G. R. Driver "The Resurrection of Marine and Terrestrial Creatures" JSS 7(1962) p. 15 and Caquot TDOT III pp. 50f.. 132. Macintosh VT 19(1969) pp. 475ff.. (et al Aramaic 133. B. Jongeli7n-g from Nmran Texts Vol. 1 (Brill, 1976) pp. 124ff.. Leiden, . 134. From Vermes English Ibid. to p. 229. Jongeling adds aFrolmeif its be that this text b0 lVis to mutilated contents cannot .reconstructed or interpreted and so do... not affect our (cf. discussion ). Milik RB 63(1956) pp. 409ff. 135. S. Smith Babyloni"i (Methuen, Historical Texts London, 1924) pp. 36,46,50,781 "The Prayer D. N. Freedman of Nabonidus" BASOR 145(1957) p. 31(f. ); A. Dupont-Sommer The Essene WrTEIngs from Qumran (1959, ET, Blackwell, 1961) p. 323. oxford, 136. Cf. Dupont-Sommer Ibid. and Dn. 5: 13. 137. See also Ibid. A. Dupont-Sommer p. 322 n. 3 177ff. "Exorcismes dans les recits de 0:: umr8n" e gudrisons 7(1959) VT Supp. pp. 246-61. (et al. ) 138. See Milik RB'63(1956) esp. p. 409; Jongeling Aramaic I p. 1267. 139. See n. 137 above. (et al. ) Aramaic 140. iongeling The Book of I p. 128; ALacocque (1976, ET, SPCK, London, Daniel 1979) p. 421 see also J. A. Montgomery The Book of Daniel (T &T Clark, Edinburgh, 1950) p. 163. 141. On forgiveness and healing see for example Loos Miracles Writings pp. 260ff.; cf. Dupont-Sommer p. 325. 142. Literature: Charlesworth Pseudepigrapha pp. 171ff.. 143. Lb-14. p. 170. 144. From M. R. James The Biblical Antiquities of Philo (SPCK, London, 1971) pp. 232f.. 145. See Ibid. p. 233 n.. 146. Mcle_r__DcmonenfqGht pp. 73ff. und die 1 Das Neue Testament Ra"chte d4monischen (katholische 1972) Bibelwerk, Stuttgart, See also b. Pes. 112b. pp. 25f.. 147. See Duling HTR 68(1975) p. 240 and notes. 148. We must exclude because Acts 16: 16-18 from consideration from within it originates the Christian tradition. entirely 149. See J. Jeremias New Testament Theology 1 (1971, ET, SCM, 1971) pp. 5 and 15. Cf. p. X45 amn. SiSbefowLondon, (Tyrolia, 150. Paul Gaechter Das Matthaus Evangelium Innsbruck. 1963) p. 401; Erich Wien, MlInchen, Klostermann (Mohr-, Tdbingen, 1971) p. 109; Matth9usevangelium A. H. McNeile (Macmillan, 1915) p. 127. London, Matthew (Black, 151. F. V. Filson 1971) pp. 149f.; Matthew London, A. R. C. Leaney Luke (Black, 1971) p. 189; P. Bonnard London, (Delachaux Ll Evangile Selon Matthiexj 1970) Paris, et Niestle, TDNT VIII p. 181; E. Schweizer p. 365 n. 215. 152. Literature: (Herder, R. Pesch Das Markusevangelium II 1977) p. 112. Freiburg, 153. For example Bultmann History p. 25 and E. Haenchen Der Weg

11

374

1966) p. 327. Berlin, Jesu (To'pelmann, 154. H. C. Kee Community of the New Age (SCM, London, 1977) Ibid. 1960) Mark (Black, London, p. 43; Bultmann 1 S. E. Johnson Mark p. 407. p. 165; Taylor 155. W. Grundmann Das Evangelium (Evangelische nach Markus 1965) p. 194. Verlagsanstalt, Berlin, 156. For its use in the NT see Bauer. 157. Cremer p. 457. 158. Bauer and Moulton and Milligan. 159. studies See other pp. 197f.. possible similar uses of the dati in Moulton and Milligan. 160. Deissmann Ibid. Cremer. p. 198 quoting 161. History p. 25. 162.9-ee-also Taylor Mark p. 407. (TDNT 1) later 163. G. Kittel on the same page (214) notes (Jn. 11: 31) is the only Rev. 14: 4 as an exception to this. in the Gospels instance Jesus as of4itAtt-BiNbeing used without ) its object. 164. Ibid. 165. Quoted by Bultmann, History, p. 25. 166. Ibid. Rote 167. M. Black An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Clarendon, 1967)-pp. 71,169ff. oxford, for an who argues this Aramaic source behind small perico-De. E. Haenchen Die Apostelgeschichte (Vandenhoeck 168. Literature: 1961) p. 665 and R. E. Oster, Go'ttingen, Jr.. A & Ruprecht, Commentary Historical in Success Stories on the Missionary (Ph. D Thesis, Acts 19: 11-40 Princeton Theological Seminary, bibliography. 1974) 169. Ephesus was reCnown fdr: -its 'magical' tradition. Note the 'Ephesia Grammatal; particularly see C. C. McCown "The Ephesia Grammata in Popular Belief" TPAPA 54(1923) pp. 128-40. (On the traffic between Asia and Jerusalem, see Jeremias Jerusalem p. 65). "Acts 170. Beginnings IV p. 2411 B. E. Taylor 19: 14"-Exp. T 57(1945-6) (Clarendon, Oxford, p. 222; R. P. C. Hanson Acts 1967) p. 192; Jeremiaslbo4. I'Sceva B. A. Mastin pp. 175ff.; On the identity Priest" JTS 27(1976) the Chief of pp. 405-12. the exorcists and Luke's purpose see E. Haenchen Acts (Blackwell, 1971) p. 565. See also G. Klein "Der oxford, lstheologische Synkretism Problem: Apg 19: 11-20" ZTK 64(196) pp. 50-60. (T &T 171. J. H. Moulton A Grammar of New Testament Greek 1908). 1 pp. 80f.; Clark, Edinburgh, A. C. Clarke Acts (Clarendon, 1933) pp. 370ff.; Oxford, Moulton and (Tyndale, 1952) p. 359; F. F. Bruce Acts London, Milligan p. 28; B. M. Metzger Commentary A Textual on the Greek New (United Testament Bible Societies, London and New York, 1971J) pp. 470-2; G. M. Lee "New Testament Gleanings" Bibli6a 51 (1970) p. 237. 172. See D. G. Hogarth (British Excavations at Ephesus 1908); Museum, London, W. J. Woodhouse ERE X pp. 302ff.; (Macmillan, C. T. Newton Essays on Art and Archeology London,

11

375

1880) pp. 136-209 esp. 151 and 163; Homer Il^, iad 5: 771 16: 234,6051 Pausanias ii. xii. 2; Origen mentions exorcists at 50. work in the market place CC 1: 68; 111: 173. Hogarth Ibid. pp. 232,238. 174. Only here and in Mk. 5: 7 in the NT. 16, a story which also has no command 175. Cf. Lucian Philops. (see P. 15 below) (et al'. ) PBA 17(1931) p. 251F line 19, 176. See also Beil cf. p. 266. S (Hodder 177. A. T. Robertn Grammar of the Greek New Testament New York, 1919) p. 484; cf. Joshua 6: 26. and Stoughton, 178. Thompson Devils, II p. XLI - quoted more fully p. 15 above. (et al. ) PBA 17(1931) pp. 254f. and 179. See for example Bell 266. 180. As for example D. E. Nineham. Mark (Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1969) P. 153; E. Schweizer Mark (1967, ET, SPCK, London, 1971) p. 386. p. 114; -Loos Miracles HTR 31(1938) 181. W.L. Knox "Jewish Liturgical Exorcisms" p. 195; Oster Acts pp. 54ff.. -24; 1V:34. We have already quoted PGM 182. See alsc7-CC111-: Zj(p. 3034f f. IV: above) and LAB 60 (p. So above) . "The Meaning of &rcK*2a-#5 183. Cf. R. H. Connolly :A Reply" JTS 25(1924) esp. pp. 346-51. 30: 3; 85: 2; Apology 11: 61 Irenaeus 184. See also Dial. Preaching 97. Adv. Haer. 2: 32: 4; Apostolic in Hennecke I pp. 444f.. See also 185. Cf. F. Scheidweiler Apology 1: 35; cf. 1: 48; Eusebius HE 1: 9: 31 Justin Annals 15: 44. See also Acts 4: 16-which seems to Tacitus and contain both,, elements of 'identification' 'glorification'. if Luke 186. our case is not, I think, altered substantially dealing for Jfvn-4; be is responsible we would still -%*5x-y; rrjtas On demons century. about exorcism in the first with notions holy men see Peter Brown "The Rise and Function attacking JRS (61(1971) p. 88. of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity" E. Scharer History 187. Literature: I pp. 61ff.. 188. Ibid. -pp. 43f.. 189. U. St. J. Thackerary Josephus, The Man and the Historian (Ktav, -New York, 1967) p. 98.
190. G. Delling pp. 291-309. "Josephus und das Wunderbare" Nov. T 2(1957)

in 'The Antiquities' 191. G. MacRae "Miracles of Josephus" in Miracles pp. 142ff.. 192. Cf. Ibid. p. 138. 193. History p. 231. to 194. Bultmann History From Tradition p. 222; M. -Dibelius London, 1971) p. 84. Gospel (1933, ET, James Clarke, 195. Miracles p. 33. Tradition 196. For example by Dibelius Barrett pp. 87ff.;
Spirit pp. 56f. (Ant. 8: 46) is Josephus' 197. 'AnoWo it is not used in the NT in relation but term for an exorcism, to exorcism, and only

ii

76

Die Religion in den griechischen M. P. Nilsson Zauberpapyri (Gleerup, Lund, 1948) pp. 63-67. (Cf. 'Ant. 8: 44) P. C. Conybeare 200. ("The Testament of Solomon" JQR 11(1898) that the Testament p-12) asks "Is it possible... (of Solomon] in its form was the very original collection of incantations to Josephus, which, according was composed and by Solomon? " Conybeare bequeathed seems to prefer a positive because to his question the Test. Sol. tallies reply so well However as Charlesworth with what is said in Ant. 8: 45ff.. (Pseudepigrapha does not appear p. 198) points out "Josephus to a particular but to the numerous to be referring text liquid traditions about Solomon's control over demons". 201. See Polybius 31: 12: 1 and Plutarch Histories Moralia 161. C. 202. Cf. for example Ant. 7: 109; Homer Iliad 11: 551 cf. TDNT III H. Schlier p. 674. 203. Schlier Ibid. pp. 673-82, esp. pp. 674f.. 204. Luke (T & ;F-Clark, Edinburgh, 1922) p. 374. 205. As for example Epictetus 3: 1: 15_and probably Discourses Lk. 15: 17. 206. Literature: Schlarer. History I pp. 68ff.. See also Fiebig iladische Wundergeschichten Wundergeschichten and Rabbinische des neutestamentlichen Zeitalters (Marcus und Weber, Bonn, 1911). "New Problems, 207. See J. Neusner New Solutions: Current in Rabbinic Events Studies" SR 8(1979) pp. 408 and 411 and (Prentice Piety Hall, notes; also his From PoliticTto 1972) pp. 7 and 92ff.. Cliffs, (Here I follow Englewood his method "If to the substance refers a later master and language of itself, but evidently the pericope stands outside of both, the pericope we may suppose that was known to him, and therefore comes before or in his time in pretty much its (p. 93). form and wording" present tried Because later to assign to the man who masters sayings than some earlier, said them rather more prestigious "very individual Neusner takes seriously attribution of a to a named authority in a particular saying school and time" (p. 94)). See also Neusner Rabbinic Traditions about the (Brill 3 Phcrisees III 1971) Leiden, C. G. Montefiore p. and , (Macmillan, Anthology 1938) London, and H. Loewe A Rabbinic p. 711.

to healing once (Lk. 13: 12) is it used in relation of any kind. @, 1TLd4j is used by the Evangelists in relation to exorcisms rp-, (Mtt. 4: 24; 12: 22; 17: 16,18: Lk. '6: 18; 7: 21; 8: 2) but it is not: at all distinctive Josephus' of their storieslvSopm*Sis word for those possessed by demons; it is used in this sense only here in Josephus and not at all in the NT. 198. History pp. 238f.. 199. '!:. Blau Daskltju"dische Zauberwesen (TAbner, Strasbourg#, 1898); W.L. Kndx St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (Cambridge University, Cambridge, 1939) pp. 208-11;

11 208.

377

SB IV pp. 501-35; Blau Zauberwesen; Langton Essentials esp. chap. Two. 209. See SB Ibid.. (To my knowledge this no one has explained in the Talmud. to healing But if, attitude ambivalent methods dates to these the one assigns where possible, attitudes, debates later over healing methods and magic are generally healing than the material through condoning or encouraging incantations and amulets etc. ). 210. See J. Neusner A Life (Brill, of Yohanan ben Zakkai 1970) Leiden, . Adische (cf. 211. Cf. Vexmes Jesus pp. 64f.; Fielig also 19ff. Wundergeschichten-pp. and Loos Miracles pp. 328-33 212. See G. Vermes "Hanina ben Dosa" JJS 23(1972) pp. 2; -50 Jesus pp. 72-8. pp. 51-64; and 24(1973) 213. See Vermes JJS 23(1972) pp. 30ff.. 214. Literature: H. D. Betz Lukian von Samosata und das Neue (Mademie, Berlin, 1961) bibliography. Testament 215. Cf. R. M. Grant Miracle Law (North-Holland and Natural Company, Amsterdam, 1952) pp. 41f.. Publishing Pliny is another (NH XXVII: iii) who is credulous of the power of tR-e magician and the spoken word. 216. See D. L. Tiede The Charismatic Figure Worker as Miracle 1972) p. 63. (Scholars, Missoula, (see for a reference 217. This has been mistaken to Christ (Loeb) III though Lucian Lucian p. 341 n. l. ). in fact, them, the Christians, as such, were of no noticed elsewhere (Stevens, interest to him, B. Baldwin Studies in Lucian 1973) pp. 101f.. Sarasota, 218. Cf. PQ : 26 "pronounceo'shortly for spiritual threatening". 219. See Dunn and Twelftree Churchman 94(1980) and pp. 216f. n. 23. 220. Literature: G. Petzke Die Traditionen inher Apdlonius (Brill, 1970) Leiden, von Tyana und das Neue Testament pp. 239ff.. 221. F. C. Conybeare Philostratus: Loeb The Life of Apollonius Library I (Heineman, 1948) p. vi. Classical London, 222. Ibid. and xii. pp. viif. 223. Grant Miracle p. 74. , 224. Literature: Charlesworth Pseudipigrapha p. 197. The below are to the English by Conybeare translation references JQR 11(1898) pp. 1-45. 67FF.. 225. Recently Hull Magic especially pp. 226. JQR 11(1898) The Legends of the pp. llf.; cf. L., Ginzberg Publication Society Jews 6 (Jewish of America, 1909-38) BEH 3 col. 1653. Philadelphia, p. 292; B. M. Metzger (Hinrichs, 227. The Testament 1922) Leipzig, of Solomon pp. 108f.. 228. JQR 11(1898) pp. 5f.. 229. Ibid. p. 6. 230. Ibid. p. 20 n. 2. for in 231. The writer's than Scripture range wider sources his familiarity that traditions showt with para. 103 he

11

378

103b has are now found in the magical papyri. . - "And if anyone write on fig leaves 'Lycurgos', taking away one letter it, at a time, and write reversing the letters, I retire at once. 'Lycurgos, ycurgos, kurgos, yrgos, gos, os".
Cf. PGM XlXa: 16ff. 1 XXVI: 115ff.; XLIII, See also Dieterich Abraxas. p. 185. 3:TR 11(1898) 232. Cf. Conybear6 p. 7. 233. Testament Introduction pp. 105-8; cf. A. -M Denis Aux Pseuddpigraphes Grecs D'Ancien Testament (Brill, Leiden, 1970) p. 67; and Charlesworth Pseudepigrapha p. 198. 234. Literature: Hennecke II, pp. 167f. and 259 (Acts of Peter), 390 (Acts of Andrew), 425f. (Acts of Thomas). 235. For example Bultmann History Dibelius pp. 221ff.; Tradition pp. 89,106. 236. See W. Schneemelcher in Hennecke II pp. 259-68. 237. See Ibid. pp. 272f.. 238. See chap. III Note avoidance nA5 below. of confrontation in Mk. 7: 25ff. and Acts of Thomas 62ff.. "An Unknown. Fragment 239. G. Quispel of the Acts of Andrew (Pap, N. 1)" VC 10(1956) Copt. Utrecht See also pp. 129-48. in Henneck-e II pp. 390-408, M. Hornschuh esp. 403ff.. 240. See Quispel in Ibid. pp. 145ff.. 241. Hornschuh in Ibid pp. 396f.. 242. In the Gregory is even the story of Tours version longer. See Quispel VC 10(1956) p. 138. 243. Ibid. p. 140. 244. Contrast 242ff. (see pp. 5oEand n. 86 above) wh ere PGM XIII: is considerable , difficulty there in getting the demon to speak. 245. See n. 24-Z above. Cf. Gregory 18 in text of Tours pari M. R. James The Apocryphal New Testament (Clarendon, oxford, 1924) p. 342. 246. See C. Bonner "The Violence Demons" HTR of Departing 37 (1944) pp. 334f f See below. also pA73 .. 247. Cf. Gregory 18 (James Apocryphal text of Tours par. drops dead. p. 342) where the soldier 248. Cf. Ibid.. 249. See A. F. J. Klijn Acts of Thomas (Brill, 1962) Leiden, p. 26; cf. G. Bornkamm in Hennecke II p. 440. 250. See p. 143 below. in Hennecke 251. See the footnotes II pp. 69ff.. 252. See Klijn Thomas pp. 267f.. 253. We have not dealt in the Acts of with one exorcism story it is an exorcism John (see Hennecke II pp. 235ff. ) for of a building. 254. Thus Bultmann to show that the cannot use these stbries Christain tradition oral early was dependent on Jewish and folk Hellenistic traditions for its stories and miracle (History We have shown that in relation to the motifs p. 240). Sol. and the NT Apocrypha Test. is the case. the opposite 255. Tiede Charismatic .

ii

379

256. Moses, Daniel, Jonah, Abraham and Jacob were all names incantations. See J. Gager Moses in Grecotaken up into (Abingdon, 1972); Nashville, Bonner Amulets' Roman Paganism 223f., 226: C. Bonner Goodenough Symbols II 171,272f.; pp. pp. "The Story Amulet" HTR 41(1948) of Jonah on a Magical pp. 31-7. 257. See Duling HTR (68(1979) p. 239. 258. Peter Brown JRS 61(1971) p. 1001 and The World of Late (Thames and Hudson, 1971) pp. 102ff.. London, Antiquity . Man' as late Brown puts the rise as the sixth of the 'Holy ("The Z. Jonathan Smith However agree we with century. in God's Christ Temple and the Magician" and His People ? for7-laget, (eds. ) J. Jervell Universitets: and W. A. Meeks be around the 1977) pp. 237f. ) that the date Oslo, should BC. second centurv

III I JESUS-THE-EXORCIST (the data) (Notes) for is in preparation This the latter part of chap. V where * be examining how the early Church to and we will responded interpreted Jesus as an exorcist. is well 2. The problem by the set out and discussed (examples), following B. H. 'Streeter The Four Gospels (Macmillan, 1924) pp. 150-360; London, W. G. Mmel (1973, ET, to the New Testament Revised Introduction edition 1975) pp. 38-80. On the history SCM, London, of the study of Problem the Synoptic Kdmmel Introduction see, for example, W. R. Farmer The Synoptic A Critical Problem: cf. pp. 45-52; (Macmillan, London and New York, 1964) chaps. I-III. Analysis 3. On which see (eg. ) H. G. Wood "The Priority of Mark" "The Priority G. M. Styler Exp. T 65(1953-4) pp. 17-19; of in The Birth C. F. D. Moule (Black, Mark" of the New Testament 1966) pp. 223-32. The 'Urmarkus' hypothesis London, "New Hypothesis (G. E. Lessing Concerning the Evangelists in Lessing's Human Historians" Theological Regarded as Merely by H. Chadwich (Stanford Writings and translated selected 1957) pp. 65-81 Stanford, University, proponents - recent Ommel by Introduction is now listed p. 61 n. 40)are discredited, see K6mmel Ibid. p. 62 and notes. generally The the priority Against of Mark see (eg. ) B. C. Butler (Cambridge originality University,. of St. Matthew 1951); by Problem, Cambridge, esp.. Farmer see the review F. W. Beare in JBL 64(1965) pp. 292-I.:. f Evidence 4. See K8mmel Ibid. p. 70; also R. W. Longstaf of (Scholars, in Mark? 1978); Missoula, Conflation "On Putting Q to the Test" M. D. Goulder and "Mark 16: 1-8 NTS 24(1977-8) J. M. Rist On the and Parallels" pp. 235-40; University, independence of Matthew and Mark (Cambridge 1978). Cambridge, 5. For literature-on 9 see F. Neirynck IDB Supp. p. 716; 'IQ in G. Bornkamm RGG3 II col. 766; also N. Turner Exp. T 80(1968-9) Neirynck Recent Thought" pp. 324-28; "The Symbol Q (=Quelle)" ETL 54(1978) pp. 119-25; "On Putting Q to the Test" NTS 24(1977-8) M. D. Goulder Introduction K&nel p. 63 n. 47; W. F. Howard "The pp. 218-34; IQ"' Exp. T 50(1938-9) origin pp. 379-80. of the Symbol 'IQ: A Re-examination" 6. See C. K. Barrett Exp. T 54(1942-3) "The Nature P. Vassiliadis of and Extent p. 320 and notes; Nov. T 20(1978) the Q Document" pp. 50-60 and notes and YAmmel Ibid. p. 67 and notes. 7. Barrett Ibid. Ibid. and Vassiliadis pp. 57ff.. Also 8. For the statistics Gospels see Streeter pp. 195f.. Extent the opening of "The Original of Q" in paragraph (ed. ) W. Sanday in the Synoptic Problem Studies oxford 1911) p. 185; cf. (oxford University, Oxford, F. C. Burkitt (Constable, for Sources the Life The Earliest of Jesus 1910) pp. 40ff.. London, 9. Streeter Gospels pp. 289f., and in Oxford pp. 186ff.; 1.

111

381

Study of the Synoptic A. M. Honore "A Statistical Problem" Nov. T 10(1968) pp. 134f.. 10. This means of course that any discussion of IQ's notion of'any particular point can only be of the most kind tentative and any reconstruction of a 'theology' of Q Nevertheless or the Q communityrests on poor foundations. kind See for S. Schulz of this abound. studies example (Theologischer Der Evangelisten Q: Die Spruchq! elle Verlage 1972); Zurich, D. Liahrmann Die Redaktion der Logienquelle (Neukirchener Verlag, Neukirchen 1969); - Vluyn, 1976), R. A. Edwards A Theology Philadelphia, of Q (Fortress, to a Theology of Q" JR 51(1971) and "An Approach pp. 247-69; &aittung "LOGOI J. M. Robinson SOPEON: On the of Q" in Leds. ) J. M. Robinson Through Early Christianity Trajectories (Fortress, 1971) pp. 71-113; Philadelphia, and H. Koester Criticism A Survey" and see R. D. Worden "Redaction of Q: JBL 94(1975) and notes. pp. 532-46 between 11. On the relationshiD Mark and Q see Xdmmel Introduction p. 70 and notes. is no literary dependence 12. That there see (eg. ) Kdmmel "St. Mark's Knowledge Ibid. B. H. Streeter p. 64; and use That*Luke of Q" Oxford pp. 165-83. used Matthew see the (on the by K&=el literature Ibid. cited D. 64 and n. 48; 'Griesbach Hypothesis' and E. V. McKnight see eg. C. H. Talbert "Can the Griesbach be Falsified" Hypothesis JRL 91(1972) "Has the Conflation?; Longstaff G. W. Buchanan pp. 338-68; Been Falsified? " JBL 93(1974) Hypothesis Griesbach (eds. ) B. Orchard and T. R. W. Longstaff pp. 550-72; (Cambridge University, J. J. Griesbach London and New York, 1978); H. P. West "A Primitive Version of Luke in the NTS (1967-8) Composition of Matthew" a' pp. 75-95 suggests for Luke and Matthew version of Luke as a source primitive (p. 75). (SP. CK, Lonaon, Criticism? What is Redaction 13. See N. Perrin "The 'Redaktionsgeschichtlich' R. H. Stein 1970); Seam (M4: 2lf*. )" ZNW 61(1970) investigation of a Markan for "The Ascertaining Methodology 70-94; Proper a and pp. Nov. T 13(1971) History" Markan Redaction pp. 181-98. (Oxford University', Horae Synopticae 14. Sir John Hawkins 1909). Oxford, Notes, Critical Usage. an the 15. "Markan and Exegetical, 26(1925) JTS 25(1924) pp-12-201 Second Gospel" pp. 377-85; 225-40,337-46. 145-56i by some scholars broken is being New ground 16.. HSE pp. 12f.. for "A Identifying Method O. W. Walker see particularly " 76-93. CBQ 39(1977) Passages pp. Redactional ... I (Herder, 17. Literature: R. Pesch Das Markusevangelium 1976) pp. 247ff.; H. ScWdrmann Das Lukas Freiburg, cf. 1969) p. 245. In the Freiburg, I (Herder, Evangelium. that have those I are texts points underlined parallel in the ensuing*discussion. important (See also p. 333 below where I Magic pp. 137f. 18. Hull is wrong). Hull that demonstrate

111

382

Stories" 19. H. J. Held "Matthew as Interpreter of the Miracle (eds. ) G. Bornkamm (et al. ) in Tradition and Interpretation (19 1963) pp. 166ff.. ET, SCM, London, , 20. J. H. Moulton and W. F. Howard A Grammar of New Testament (T &T Clark, Edinburgh, 1970) p. 464; see n. 173 Greek II below. 21. See p. 310 below. 22. H. Hanse TDNT II p. 819. 23. Ibid. 10: 20,21. 1 Cor. 8: 4-7; See also J. D. G. Dunn Jesus 24. Zf. (SCM, London, 1975) pp. 260f.. and the Spirit "The Holy Spirit 25. See also, G. W. H. Lampe IDB Il pp. 632ff.; ) (act. in in St. Luke" Studies the Gospel in the Writings of (Blackwell, D. E. Nineham Oxford, 1967) pp. 159-200; J. D, G', Dunn DNTT III pp. 698ff.. 26. On 4EXttv i-Paul to Christ and in relation see H. Hanse TDNT II pp. 819f.. 27. Mk. 1: 23/Lk. 4: 33; Mk. 1: 26/Lk. 4: 35; Mk. 5: 7/Lk. 8: 27; 9: 1 (cf. Style H. J. Cadbury Mk. 5: 13/Lk. 8: 33; Mk. 6i7/Lk. and (1920, 1969) p. 190. Kraus Reprint, New York, method Literary is described 36; cf. v. 35; in 6: 18 the 'unclean 28.4: spirit' 8: 29; cf. just described people; as a demon; as troubling 11: 24; cf. V. 26. 36; 8: 29; 9: 42. 29.6: 30. Schrmann Lukas I p. 247. (Vandenhoeck des Markus 31. E. Lohmeyer Das Evangelium und 1967) p. 36. that Go"ttingen, It is also noticeable Ruprecht, Ouv itself by least Luke - Acts. occurs oftenin at (The Johannine Mk. =7 times, Lk. -Acts=41 times. Mtt. =7 times, has it even more frequently; Jn. =15 times and material Rv. =53 times). (1979) p. 211. This view is taken 33. SB 11 p. 157; Bauer London,. by Plummer Luke p. 133; J. M. Creed Luke (Macmillan, kanson 70; London, 1930) p. Luke (Hodder and Stoughton, W. 1930) p. 45. (1979) p. 212; see also Lidden 34. Bauer and Scott p. 466. (1979) p. 211. 35. Liddell and Scott p. 465; Bauer (1979) p. 212. 36. Liddell and Scott p. 466; *Bauer 37. See p. la i below. 38. N. Turner Greek III A Grammar of New Testament'. 1963) p. 259; M. J. Harris (T &T Clark, DNTT III Edinburgh, P. 1180. (Mtt. =113 times, times, 39.127 Acts=114 Mk. =47 times, times times). Paul=95 40. Light p. 256 n. l. , 41. Cadbury Style p. 183. in Bauer. 42. See articles here language On the 'medical' 43. Cadbury Style pp. 183f.. Recent and hisLexical notes on Luke - Acts: II. pAl see Ibid. 46(1926) for Language" JBL medical pp. 190-209. arguments (Mohr, Tabingen, Das Lukasevangelium 44. E. Klostermann 1929) p. 67.

111

383

(passim); 105bi 45. Cf. Test. Sol. b. Hull b. Kid 29b. 46. Cadbury Style D. 93. 47. See p. jubelow. 48. Turner Grammar III Luke p. 193. p. 52; Marshall 12: 83; 49. Eg. P. Oxy. 532: , 17; 1673: 20; Mk. 8: 11; 9:, 14,16; 24: 15); Acts 6: 9; 9: 29; see further Liddell Lk. 22: 23 (perhaps and Bauer. and Scott 50. Liddell and Bauer. and Scott 51. Cf. Marshall Luke p. 193. 52. Ibid. p. 194. 53. DNTT III pp. 112f.,. ee Bauer Harris (in Luke only at 7: 1) is not used by Luke as a 54. 'Axo 'report'. Creed Luke p. 71. in Pesch Markus. I p. 128. 55. See literature cited (Hodder and Locality 56. R. H. Lightfoot and Doctrine 1938) p. 112; G. H. Boobyer "Galilee London, Stoughton, and in St. Mark's Gospel" BJRL 35(1952-3) Galileans ppi. 334-48; Before You Into Galilee" JTS 5(1954) C. F. Evans "I Will'Go The New Testament: N. Perrin An Introduction pp. 3-18; (Harcourt 1974) pp. 150f.; Brace Jovanovich, New York, (1959, ET, Abingdon, W. Marxsen Mark the Evangelist dans 1969) pp. 54ff.; J. -M. van Cangh I'La Galilee Nashville, de Marc un lieu theologiquell RB 79(1972) 114vangile (Vandenhoeck Galila'a & 59-72; Jerusal-em Lohmeyer E. und pp. 1936) p. 26. Gottingen, Ruprecht,

Mark (Cambridge University, Cambridge, 57. C. E. B. Cranfield 1966) p. 72; R. P. Martin Mark: Evangelist and Theologian Exeter, *1972) pp. 112 ff. '(Paternoster, and notes; C. F. Evans The Beginning of the Gospel (SPCK, London, 1968) pp. 46ff. On the number of people leav ing 58. Martin Mark pp. lllff.. the synagogue see Metzger Commentary p. 75. Cf. T. A. Burkill (Cornell New York, 1963) Revelation University, Mysterious p. 34. 59. Robinson Problem chap. 3. 60. R. H. Lightfoot The Gospel Message of Mark (oxford 1950) p. 21. Oxford, University, 61. Cranfield Mark p-384: 39; Dunn Jesus pp. 76ff.. 62. Cf. 2: llf.; 63. Dunn Jesus p. 79; Pesch Markus. I pp. 117f.. 64. A. M. Ambrozic "New Teaching with Power, (Mk. 1: 27)" in Word ) (Regis (ed. College Press, Willowdale, J. Plevnik SDirit and 1975)*p. 114. Ontario, 65. Cf. Eitrem Notes p. 8. Also Ambrozic Ibid., though I am not in in is that the he that aroused saying amazement right sure the witnesses and mightly of Jesus' teaching works is a theme "dear to Mark's heart". K. Kertelge Die Wunder Jesu im 66. Pesch Markus. I p. 120f.; Rsel, Manchen, 1970) p. 50. Markusevangelium'(Y,
67. K. L. Schmidt Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu , 1964) p. 50; Darmstadt, (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, is confident that Mark D. 175 (though Taylor on p. 171 Taylor in tradition). Mark's Cf. Kertelge this was pericope of all *Wunder pp. 150f. and n. 58.

111

384

68. See Schweizer Mark p. 50. 69. That they are from Mark's hand see, for example, Kertelge Wunder p. 50. 70. Taylor "Towards Mark p. 91; P. J. Achtemeier the Isolation Miracle JBL 89(1970) Catenae" of Pre-Markan ZNW 61(1970) Stein pp. 265-91; p. 81 n. 38. 71. Of the considerable is literature the following on this in Word pp. 115ff. Ambrozic some of the more important. 1 'Authority"' D. Daube "A New Teaching in The New with (Athlone, Judaism 1956) Testament London, and Rabbinic lfoav-c'o 205-16; "The in A. Meaning W. Argyle of pp. (See also Pesch Markus-I Exp. T 80(1968-9) Mk. 1: 22,27" p. 343. p. 128). 6: 6; 13: 10; Jn. 6: 591 18: 20. 72. Mtt. 4: 23; Mk. 6: 2; Lk. 4: 15,31; Life J. -B. Frey Corpus Philo of Moses 11: 39(216); Iudiacarum II, Schdrer Inscriptionum no. 1404 pp. 332-5; I Hengel Judaism II pp. 424,448(a-nd History n. 164,453; pp. 82f.. 445. 73. Schrer II pp. 424f., History 74. Jeremias Jerusalem chap. 10. 75. Ilk goo-req in Mark 1: 22,2711 JTS 39(1938) pp. 45-59. 76. Exp. T 80 (1968-9) p. 343. in Word pp. 115f.. 77. Ambrozic 78. Ibid. pp. 116ff.. Fe-eK. "Idiosyncracie's'of in their 79. Grobel the Syn6ptists E. Best JBL 59(1940) Pericope-Introductions" pp. 405-10; (Cambridge 1963) Cambridge, Temptation University, and Passion 7NW 61(1970) pp. 70f. p. 63; Stein and notes. So. on 10: 24 see Pesch Markus. I p. 143 (esp. pp. 150ff. );. on below. 10: 32 see p-197 81. Mk. 1: 22/Lk. 4: 32; Mk. 6: 2/Mtt. 13: 54/Lk. 4: 22; Mk. 10: 26/ 22: 33; (Mk. 12: 34/ mtt. 19: 25; Mk. 11: 18/Lk. 19: 48; Mtt. 7: 28f.; Mtt. '22: 46/Lk. 20: 40). Cf. Bornkamm Jesus p. 144; Loos Miracles p. 129; Dunn Jesus p. 381 n. 42. Dunn Jesus pp. 76f.. 82. Mk. 10: 52, cf. 5: 26; 7: 16; 2: 12Mtt. 9.8/Lk. 83. Mk. 1: 27/Lk. 4: 36; 8: 34, 8: 27/Lk. 8: 25 (Mk. *5: 14,17/Mtt. 8: 33,34)/Lk. Mk. 4: 41/Mtt. 9: 26/Lk. 8: 56; Mk. 6: 51; 35,37; Mtt. 9: 8; Mk. 5: 20,42/Mtt. 33; 12: 23/Lk. 11: 141 Lk. 5: 9; 7: 16. 15: 31,9: 7: 37/Mtt. 84. E. Peterson G8ttingen, Eis Theos (Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1926) pp. 183-222i Pesch Markus. 1 p. 124. 3: 7-12; 6: 513--56. on-the'sammelberichte 32-34; 85.1: see SJT-14(1961) H. Sawyer "The Markan Framework" pp. 279-94. 86. Contrast Stein Nov. T 13('1971) a p. 197 who'considersit See also Taylor Mark p. 175. Markan term. Jesu in W*ens 87. See R. Pesch "Ein vollmachtigen (Mk. 1: 21-34,35-39)" Kapharnahum. BL 9(1968) p. 118; also Kertelge Wunder pp. 51 and 56. 88. Hawkins Horae Synopticae p. 13; HSE p. 21. 89. Hawkins, Ibid. "Arnerkungen. zur p. 12; E. Schweizer des Markus" Best Nov. T. Supp. -611962) Theblogie pp. 37f.; Stein ZNW` 61(1970)p. 73; Nov. T 13(1971) Temptation pp. 71f.;

111

385

in the Maikan Style p. 197; ESE p. 18; E. J. Pryke Redactional (Cambridge Gospel University# 1978) p. 136. Cambridge, 90. Lohmeyer Galilga Locality p. 26; Lightfoot p. 112; Marxsen Mark pp. 4f.; see also n. 56 above. 91. Pryke Style pp. 115ff.. 92. See n. 87 above. 93. Also Kertelge Wunder p. 56; and Schweizer Nov. T Supp. 6(1962) 22. p. 38. See also above onl: 94. Die des Cf. J. Weiss Schriften Neuen Testaments I . (Vandenhoeck G8ttingen, 1917) p. 85. and Ruprecht, "Some Cases of Possession"/? 95. See G. A. Chadwick 1892) p. 275. 96. Eg. 1 Sam. 16: 16,23; 18: 101 Philostratus Life IV: 201 Mk. 9: 22. 97. See p. 110 above. 98. See Bauer, Liddell Moulton and Scott, and Milligan and W. Grundmann TDNT III p. 898. 99. Grundmann TDNT III p. 898. 100. Ibid. p. 899. 101. Ibid. 102. Lucian 16, cf. 31; Disowned 7; Philostratus Philops Life 111: 38; b. Pes 112b-113a. IV: 20; cf. 103. Hull Matthew Magic pp. 128ff.; Held in Tradition pp. 172ff.. is not simply because they reticent about the exorcism stories to... (as but I Hull thinks) try as are exorcism stories show in is so dominated by his Christological chap. V Matthew he alters that Mark to enhance the reputation of objectives Jesus. 104, See Grundmann TDNT III-p. 401. 898f.; SIp. 105. Cf. Josh. 22: 24; Jud. 11: 12; IK. 17t; Taylor Mark p. 174; John (SPCK, London, C. K. Barrett 1978) p. 191; BaueP7-a4". in the way of Ebstein's that While nothing stands suggestion the plural to those used by the demon refers around Jesus at (W. Ebstein Die Medizin im Neuen Testament the time und im (Enke, Stuttgart, Talmud 1903) p. 60) neither is there anything his notion. in view of the context to support In fact Jesus confronting the demoniac is no need to see the - there demon's words referring to anything than this other confrontation.

106. W. Wrede The Messianic (1901, ET, Clarke, Secret Cambridge, 1971) p. 33 (f) . 107. A. Fridrichsen "The Conflict of Jesus with the Unclean Theology, 22(1931) p. 125 my emphasis. Spirits" 108. Miracle p. 112.
109. See also 0. Bauernfeind Die Worte (Kohlhammer, 1927) pp. 13ff.; Stuttgart, Magic; p. 78; Hull see also below. 110. Fridrichsen Miracle pp. 12f.. 111. Burkill Revelation p. 76 112. Cf. Ibid. pz75. 113. In Worte. der Da"monen Burkill cf. Revelaticn

114. Cf. Taylor Mark p. 174. 115. Further SB II p. 401; cf. F. Blass (et al. ) referencesin (University A Greek Grammar of the New Testament of Chicago,

111

386
(Marshall
1970)

Chicago, 1961) 299: 31 W. Lane Mark Scott, London# 1974) p. 73 n. 114.

116. 117. (SCM, London, See J. Gray Kings Cf. Bauernfeind Worte p. 6.

Morgan and
p. 382.

118.. Ibid. followed by Pesch Markus I p. 122 n. 19. pp. 6ff., 119. Reveiation p. 77 and n. 14. 120. Cf. Immut. 133-9. 121. H. H. Schaeder TDNT--IV-pA74-. .... .... .... .. [SCM, London, 122. ' See B. Lindars-ITFW, Testament Apol6gi--tic 19611 pp. 194ff. 1 and. SB. Z p. 92.. 123. 'K. H. Ren4storf DNTT Ir p. 333'. ' 124.. Schaeder TDNT IV p. 8741. cf. Acts-2. -22'1'3. - .6 *etc.. 125. For the Semitic background of'*from'Nazaket10 see Edinbu. rgho 19121 pp. 16f.. W.C. Allen Matthew (T &T Clarkf 126. OnkrrAiArat see B. C. Rahn in DNTT I pp. 462'ff, j A. Oepke' in TDNT Z pp. 394ff.. SB IV p. 527 and IZ p. 2. 127. Cf. PGM IV: 3033ff..
128. See also. PGM IV: 1500,2984ff.; V: 103ff. j--V1II. -13j'Hellenistische Bauernfeind Worte p. llf. j R. Reitzenstein -(Teubner, 1963). p. 124..,. Leipzigp Wandererz'hl-ungen

129. From N. Turner A Grammar of New Testament Greek jv("r LT 19761 Clark, Edinburgh, p. 16. 130. Bultmann John p. 449 n. 4. 131. See'-O. Procksch TDNT I pp. 88f.; R. Bultmann John (1941, 1971) p. 448 n. 5; H. Seebass DNTT II Oxford, ET, Blackwell, p. 224.

des JudentLns 132. Cf. W. Bousset and H. Gressmann Die Religion (Mohr, Tdbingen, im St)a'thellenistischen 1966) p. 321 Zeitalter and n. 2; Seebas DNTT pp. 225f.; also Bultmann'John p. 449 cf. n. 5. 133. See Bultmann Ibid. 134. Cf. Judges 16: 17 (B) See F. Hahn The Titles of Jesus in (1963, ET, Lutterworth, Christology. London 1969) p. 233. 135. History p. 209 n. l. by Fitzmyer "Some Observations 136. Notably on the 'Genesis 6BQ 22(1960) The Apocryphon" p. 284 and W. H. Brownlee (Oxford University, Meaning of the Qamran Scro3ls for the Bible 1964) p. 210 n. 41. New York and Oxford, 137.1QM. 14: 10; 1QH. 9: 11; 1QHf. 4: 6; lQapGen. 20: 28-9. 138. Kee "The Terminology NTS Exorcism Stories" of Mark's 14(1967-8) pp. 232-46. 139. So Kee Ibid. pp. 242ff.. 140. Mtt. =7, Mk. =9, Lk. =12. 25; 3: 12; 4: 39; 8: 30,32,33; 9: 25; 10: 13,48. 141.1: 12; 8: 30,32,33; 142.3: 9: 25; 10: 13,48. 143. See Pryke Style pp. 10-23. 144. Wrede Secret Schweizer cf. pp. 34 (and n. 17) and 145ff.; Mark P. 55. 145. Schweizer Mark p. 52 and RSV. 146. See Bauer and Liddell and Scott. 15. 147. Cf. Mtt. 22: 34; Lucian Death of Peregrinus 148. Wrede Secret pp. 34ff.. 149. Cf. RSV.

111

387

150. Cf. Burkill Revelation p. 89 (and n. 6). 151. Ibid. p. 74. 152. Further examples in S. Eitrem Papyri Osloenses I (Norske Videnskops - Akademi, Oslo, 1925) pp. 76f. 1 cf. E. Rohde Psyche (1921, ET, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1925) p. 604; Eitrem Notespp. 30f.. 153. Cited by, Rohde Psyche pp. 603f.; see also A. Audollent (Luteciae 1904) 20: 51 Tabellae Parisiorum, Paris, Defixionum 25: 13; 32: 131 cf. Fridrichsen Miracles p. 112. 154. See Bauer; Blass Grammar par. 346; Kertelge Wander p. 54 and n. 87. (Cf. Rohde Ibid. p. 327 n. 107 - this word is"the 'binding' magically compels the whereby the spirit-raiser unseen to do his willll f. in Defixionum. 15: 24; cf. Wdnf cited 155. See esp. Audollent Rohde Psych p. 327 n. 107. 156. See p. 8o above. 157. See p-76 above. 158. SB 11 p. 2. 159. See further Bonner HTR 36(1943) pp. 47ff..
160. See p. 273 below (and Bonner HTR 37(1944) pp. 334-6 Der Besessene Pesch Markus I p. 29f.; 161. Literature: Von (Katholische 1972)1 Bibelwerk, Stuttgart, Gerasa "Observations Chapters' J. D. Kingsbury of on the 'Miracle Schdrmann 8-9" CB2 40(1978) Matthew pp. 559-73 and notes; Lukas I pp. 479f. Taylor Mark 162. For example, Lohmeyer Markus pp. 95-9; 1953) (Furche, Hamburg, G. Dehn Der Gottessohn pp. 277-85; Cranfield Mark pp. 177-80. pp. 110-114; I (Macmillan,. 163. C. G. Montefiore The_Synoptic 'Gospels 85ff.; 1909) p. 11; Dibelius F. C. Grant Traditionpp. London, Three Gospels IB 7, p. 712; W. Bundy Jesus and the First 1955) p. 243. Cambridge, (Mzvard University, Exp. T "The Gadarene Demoniac" 164. For example, M. M. Baird 31(1919-20) Religion Psychology, and p. 189; L. Weatherhead (Hodder and Stoughton, 1951) pp. 62ff. 1 London, Healing "The Gerasene A Diagnosis Demoniac: T. Hawthorn Exp. T 66(1954-5) pp. 79f. Revelation Worte pp. 34f.; 165. Bauernfeind Burkill p. 87; (1956, ET, SCM, Jesus'Promise to the Nations Jo Jeremias 1957) P. 30 n. 5; S. Cave "The obedience London, of Unclean NTS 11(1964-5) SDiritA' pp. 96fo. "Die Perikope Besessenern 16. H. Sahlin von geraser%ischen St. Th 18(1964) und der Plan des Markusevangeliuml pp. 159-72.

167. On our armroach to each story see Pjo7 above. Gospel is at 168. The problem of the structure of the first but see in NT scholarship, present being re-examined "The Structure Gospel J. D. Kingsbury of Matthew's especially CBQ 35(1973) pp. 451-74; and his concept of Salvation-History" (SPCK, his Matthew London, 1976). one of chapter cf. 169. Contrast thematic-structural Mark's deliberate use of 1: 21-28, see p. fit above. Introduction 170. See Perrin pp. 180f..

111

388

171. See Mtt. 9: 18/Mk. 1: 161 Mtt. 4: 21/Mk. 1: 191 Mtt. 20: 21/ Mk. 10: 37; Mtt. 26: 37/Mk. 14: 33; Mtt. 27: 21/Mk. 15: 11/Lk. 23: 18. 172. For example 'one' occurs 66 times in Mtt., 37 in Mk., 44 in Luke., 'two' occurs 40 times in Mtt., 19 in Mk., 28 'three' in Lk., occurs 12 times in Mtt. j 7 in Mk. j 10 in Lk.. 173. SB. I p. 530; F. Hauck TDNT III pp. 427f.; see
n. 20 above.

174. 175.,
176. 177. Loos 178. 179. 180. 181.

See H. Greeven TDNT VI pp. 763ff.. See 0. Betz TDNT IX pp. 292ff..
DNTT, III See M. J. Harris pp. 113ff.. Nineham Mark p. 1531 Schweizer As for Mark p. 1141 example Miracles p. 386. Mark pp. 280f. Mark p. 177. So Taylor and Cranfield in Tradition Held pp. 173f.. 322f.. 668ff. I TDNT , II W. Mundd. DNTT J. Schneider pp. pp. 1 "Ich bin ZTK 22(1912) A. Harnack gekommen" pp. 1-30;

H. Windisch p. 156.

Paulus

und

Christus

(Hinrichs,

Leipzig,

1934)

durch Taten des Christus 187. Cf. K. Bornh! luser Das Wirken (Bertelsmann, 1924) p. 81; X. G6tersloh, und Worte 1965) (Editions du Seuil, Etudes d'Evangile Paris, Le6n-Defour p. 165.

182. Hill Matthew p. 168. 183. See chap. V below. Cf. 1QS 4: 20f.. (Tyrolia, 184. Cf P. Gaechter Matthaus:: evangelium Innsbruckr 1963) P. 281. 185. "In one case the narrative the that follows provides answer, in the other it serves as a affirmative Held in Tradition, p. 174 confirmation"( 186.. Cf. Hull Magic p. 130.

p. 83. 191. There is evidence that was used in exorcism water (I. Goldziher "Wasser als Da'monen abwehrendes ARW Mittel" 13(1910) Bo"cher DAmonenfurcht pp. 20-2; pp. 195ff.; also see is mostly On the other hand, however, p. )Sabove). water habitatj a demon's with see I. E. S. Edwards Papyri connected b. HuL 105b.. B8cher Ibid. and notes; cf. p. xxii pp. 50ff.; 192. See p. t4- above; History Bultmann p. 224 and Dunn and Churchman 94(1980) Twelftree p. 212 and n. 10.

188. See p.; us below. 189. Held in Tradition of 190. Bornhauser Wirken

p. 174 n. 2.

193. See below on 6pKtjw194. For example Tobit 8: 3; Josephus Ant. 8: 46ff. 1 Life IV: 20; b. Meil. 17b. Philostratus 195. The addition Matthean of the characteristically ZrnPYq, (cf. literary 27) is HSE or merely grammatical p. a A4cej improvement. 196. See J. Schniewind TDNT I pp. 67f.; U. Becker and D. Mdller DNTT III pp. 46ff.. 197. See also Held in Tradition pp. 173f.. 198. Marshall Luke p. 335. 199. Pesch Besessene pp. 57-64. 200. See Bauer p. 613; cf. Marshall Luke, p. 338. 201. Cf. B8cher Christus p. 29.

111 202. J. Jeremias TDNT j-. 823. 203. Cf. SB III 204. See Marshall Luke 205. W. Foerster TDNT 206. That "the people (Marshall Luke p. 341)

389

I pp. 9f.; DNTT II p. 205. H. Bietenhard See also p. 35zbelow. p. 340. VII p. 990. give a peremptory command to depart" : EjPwr,4w (Lk. 8: 37) is is doubtful than Trwpoix0etv (Mk. 5: 17). See the certainly no stronger Bauer; H. Scho"nweiss DNTT 11 pp. 879f. 1 relevant articlesin (nerdmannss synonyms of the New Testament cf. R. C. Trench 1953) pp. 144f.. Grand Rapids, 207. See Liddell and Scott. 208. Taylor P. J. Achtemeier JBL 89(1970) Mark pp. 94f.. ZNW 61(1970) R. H. Stein p. 81 n. 36; Kertelge pp. 275f.; Wunder pp. 112f.. Taylor Mark p. 299; Pesch 209. Bultmann History pp. 56,60; Ibid. Mark p. 123; Kertelge Markus. I p. S; Schweizer pp. 122 n. 488, p. 130. 210. Cf. Best Temptation p. 75. 211. Taylor Mark p. 299. in 212. So also R. H. Lightfoot History and Interpretation (Hodder and Stoughton,, 1935) p. 186. the Gospels London, 213. Cf. Perrin Introduction pp. 152f.. 214. For examole Montefiore I p. 11; Dibelius Gospels Exorcism Tradition p. 88; Bundy Jesus p. 243; D. L. Bartlett 1972) Yale, in the Gospel of Mark (Ph. D Thesis, Stories pp. 136ff.. 215. Ibid. 216. ee Kertelge Wunder p. 52. 217. See for example Dibelius Tradition p. 89. (Olms, 218. R. A. Lipsius Acta Apostolorum. Apocypha_I 1959) p. 59 line 6.1 Hildersheim, 219. b. Pes. 112b (see p. 73 above); Bultmann Jub. 10: 7ff.; History p. 224 and 422. 69a; cf. T. W. Davies Divination 220. See also b. Gitt. Magic, Among the Hebrews and Their Neighbours and Demonology (Clark, 1897) p. 104. London, Leipzic, and Spirgatis, 221. Devils II p. xxxv. 222. Lectures of on the Origin and Growth of the Conception (ET, Williams 1892) London, God. and Norgate, 1q2- above. Bultmann History p. 225; cf. note pp. 88f.; 223. Tradition p. 87. ee 224. also Moulton and Milligan p. 371; Bauer pp. 467f.. 226. J. D. M. Derrett's that there suggestion are a number of ("Legend Demoniac: terms here The Gerasene and Event: military into Studia History Projection" An Inquest and Liturgical for 1978: Il p. 63 and nA is of little Biblica consequence ILA-q have wide and do not of themselves that a suggest varieties of meanings motif. military 227. Bartlett Exorcism p. 139. 75 228. M. D. Hooker "On Using the Wrong Tool" Theology in (1972) pp. 570-581; "Form Criticism Revisited" cEG. Stanton WANT pp. 13-27. 229. See Hooker Ibid.

III

390

230. Cf. J. F. Cragan "The Gerasene Demoniac" CBQ 30(1968) p. 527. 231. Lightfoot History p. 881 see also Cragan Ibid. 232. Burkill Revelation p. 92. 233. The following relies on Ibid. pp. 91f.. 234. Cf. Taylor Mark p. 258. 235. implied by Wrede Secret p. 141. 236. Revelation p. 92. 237. Echweizer Mark pp. 112f.. 238. Taylor Mark p. 84; Burkill has not properly Revelation and its repercussions. explored this possibility 239. Taylor Mark p. 2841 Lane Mark D. 186 n. 24. 240. See Bauer. 241. HSE P. 69. 242. ;ih-is word has been the centre of some debate, see Taylor It cannot be used as evidence for the Mark pp. 63f.. is good Palestinian origin of this verse for the construction 'Aramaism' Greek (H. St. J. Thackeray "An Unrecorded colloquial in Josephus" JTS 30(1929) pp. 361-70, esp. p. 370; cf. Black is characteristic Aramaia pp. 125f. ). In any ca se the locution , (See 79f. ). Pryke pylop. Mark. of 243. Lightfoot History, Schweizer extended note pp. 106f.; Nov. T Supp. 6(1962) pp. 35f.. 244. Schweizer Mark p. 112; cf. Taylor Mark p. 280. , , 245. Mk. =4; Lk. =2; Rev. =l. 246. See O. Michel TDNT IV p. 679; (C. J. Hemer DNTT I p. 264. ) 247. See above on 1: 21-28. 248. Ibid. 249. For example Philostratus Life IV: 20. 250. Bauernfeind Worte p. 24; Cf. Burkill Revelation p. 88. 251. See last note. 252. Imut. 138; cf. Bauernfeind. Worte p. 6. 253. See on Mk. 1: 24 above.
254. G. Dehn Gottessohn; E. Schweizer TDNT VIII pp. 377f.; Kee Communit pp. 121ff.. 255. See also PGM XII: 63f, 72; (cf. Test. Sol where the title is used. However see pp. 85 above). Moulton and Milligan. 256. G. Bertram TDNT VIII p. 620; see also Hahn Titles pp. 291f.. 257. See pp. =Wabove. 258. Cf. the use of Solomon's name in Ant. 8: 45ff.. 259. Revelation pp. 89f.. 260. ,Ibid. p. 90. 261. 'Zoos Miracles pp. 419ff.. 262. Revelation p. 90. Psychology 263. Langton 157; Weatherhead Essentials pp. 28f., p. 65.0 264. See- p3lanims6eboye. See also PGM 1: 162; IV: 3037; Deissmann Light p. 257 and n. 8; LKlostemann cf.
(Mohr, Das Markusevangelium HTR (36(1943) pp. 44f.. 265. See p. jo above. 266., On the Trial of Jesus Tdbingen, 1950) p. 491 Bonner

(Gruyter,

Berlin,

1961)

p. 129.

111

391

267. Ibid. He cites Josephui BJ III: 233t 289 and 458,485. 268. Promise p. 31 n. 5. H. Prei'Ek-oerTDNT IV P. 68 - "In the imperial period a Roman legion of about 6,000 men consisted " on foot.... 269. A. R. Johnson The One and the Many (University of Wales 1942) pp. 29f. and notesl Press Board, Cardiff, cf. Klostermann Mattha"us, pJ13; Hull Magic p. 103.
270. See n. 220 above, Markus,. p. 49. and also Klostermann 271. Taylor Mark p. 282; W. Foerster TDNT II pp. 6f. 1 B6cher , 20ff.. Christus pp.

interpretations 272. On various of the stampede of the pigs pp. 39off.. see Loos Miracles 273. H. Anderson Mark (Oliphants, London, 1976) p. 146. 274. Schweizer Mark p. 112. 275. Taylor Mark p. 283. 276. Pesdh Markus I P. 292. 277. History p. 210. 278. Mark p. 112, though Schweizer does not think that there here. are two stories 279. Literature: Pesch Markus I p. 391. 280. on our approach to each story see poolabove. 281. Hill Matthew p. 253; cf. Acta. 10. by T. W. Manson The Sayings of 282. Gospels p. 29*0, followed , Jesus (SCM, London, 1949) p. 200. Some take it that Matthew here uses Q (see McNeile Matthew p. 229). 283. Tradition p. 261 n. l. 284. Ueld in Tradition p. 198 noting Taylor Mark p. 347 with to Mtt. 9: 13; 12: 5-7,11-12 p. 61. and Bultmann History reference 285. HSE p. 61. 286. Ea-wkinls Horae Synopticae p. 7; Allen Matthew p. lxxxvi; , 61; Turner Grammar IV p. 43. HSE p. 287. HSE p. 61. 288. Ibid. p. 62. 289. Mtt. =11, Mk. =2, Lk. =2, but Jn. =17. f.. According 290. Allen Matthew pp. lxxxvi to a Matthean d'1-qro0-s is added (HSE p. 61. ). characteristic 291. Metzger Commentary p. 95. 292. Bauer p. 757. 293. The Origins to St. Matthew of the Gospel According (Clarendon, 1946) p. 132. oxford, 294. Cf. Argyle Matthew p. 119. 295. Kilpatrick Matthew p. 133. 296. Cf. Ommel Introduction p. 119. III 297. See Smith arties also Schdrer History pp. 79f.; p. 545ff.. 298. H. B. Green The Gospel According to Matthew (Oxford 1975) p. 146. oxford, University, 299. Hawkins Horae Synopticae p. 5; HSE p. 61; Turner GrammarIV p. 43. 300. HSE p. 62. 301. Mtt. =54, Mk. =23, Lk. =33, Jn. =70. 302. HSE p. 62. in Matthew's Use of 303. , See J. M. Gibbs "Purpose and Pattern 'Son of David"' NTS 10(1963-4) the Title pp. 446-64; Kingsbury

111

392
pp. 99f. and notes. . p. 198, following

Structure

304. Held in Tradition Bultmann History . 38. (W. (Buchhandlung Bussmann, Sm_optische Studien des p. Waisenhauses, Hal3e, 1925) I pp. 49-52, thinks the whole that in Ur-Markus ) pericope was lacking and was added later. 305. See also Klostermann Matthcqus. p. 133. 306. HSE P. 62. 307. Yb-icf. p. 61. 308. See n. 290 above. 309. Held in Tradition p. 200. 310. Turner "'Ev )czivo Grammar IV p. 32. See also J. Jeremias ZNW 42(1949) pp. 214-17 311. So also Argyle "The Matthew p. 119; T. A. Burkill Development Historical of the Story of the Syrophoenician Nov. T 9(1967) Woman (Mark 7: 24-31)" p. 177. (1973, ET, SECK# London, 312. Matthew 1976) p. 330; cf. Filson Matthew p. 179; Green Matthew pp. 146f.. (See also (Ka"sel, Miffichen, 1964) pp. 21-51. 313. "The Title lKyrios' in Matthewli Gospel" J. D. Kingsbury JBL 94(1975) pp. 246-55). 314. Kingsburylbid. p. 248. 315. on the text-critical questions see, Ibid pp. 252f. ' n. 31. 316. Ibid. pp. 252f. * 317. Mtt. =11, Mk. =4, Lk. =4, in. =O. 318. G. H. Box "The Gospel Narratives of the Nativity... McNeile Matthew Matthew ZNW 6(1905) pp. 6f.; p. 85; cf. Allen New Testament I (Paternoster, Foundations p. 5; R. P. Martin 1975) p. 226. Exeter, "The Therapeutic 319. See D. C. Duling Son of David: An Element Christological Apologetic" in Matthew's NTS 24(1977-8) (cf. 5.3.3. Gibbs NTS 10(1963-4) cf. pp. 446-64 pp. 392-410; (d) below). 320. H. Greeven TDNT VI p. 763. 321. See p-170 above. 322. Schweizer Matthew p. 330. 323. Creed Luke p. lxi. in Beginnings 324. F. C. Burkitt II p. 117; J. Jeremias "Peribopen-Umstellungen bei Lukas? " NTS 4(1957-8) pp. 115-9; (Paternoster, Exeter, Marshall Luke: Historian. and Theologian 1970) p. 65; Creed Luke pp. lx f.; J. Drury Tradition and (DLT, London, 1976) pp. 96f.. in Luke's Gospel Design 325. Nineham Mark p. 197. 326. Drury Design p. 98. 327. Ibid. 328. Cf. Jeremias Promise pp. 28f. and notes. 329. on the historicity of such a mission see Taylor'Mark 33. 197f.; Promise 633-36; Mark 7eremias Nineham p. pp. pp. "A Textual 330. C. H. Turner Commentary on Mark I" JTS , 29(1926-7) Mark p. 348. p. 152; Nineham Mark p. 197; Taylor 331. Anderson Schweizer Mark pp. 189f.; Mark p. 151; Burkill Woman: The Nov. T 9(1967) p. 173; and "The Syrophoenician ZNW 57(1966) Congruence of Mark 7: 24-31" p. 35.

111

393

332. See Bultmann History Best Temptation pp. 38,641 p. 791 Pesch Markus. *I p. 61; Kertelge Wunder p. 154. 333. See Marxsen Mark p. 69 and n-55. The point is not altered (ZNW 57(1966) pp. 35ff. ) however, even if Burkill's criticism is correct view that Mark takes up geographical of Marxsen's from supplementing data and refrains ite for it is the internal that is impor-. evidence of this particular pericope tant here. 334. See Stein ZNW 61(1970) p. 78 and n. 29 Cf. Wrede Secret p. 36. 335. ESE p. 18. BiFei'r6t; 336. Wunder p. 51 n. 581 cf. s see Kertelge ESE p. 68. 337. Cf. Turner Grammar IV p. 28. 338. Blass Grammar par. 111: 3. 339. Back Aramaic Turner Grammar IV p. l; cf. pp. 100f.; Taylor Mark p. 60. 340. See pJ11above. , 341. Turner JTS 26(1925) pp. 145 and 150; Turner Grammar IV into the New Testament Insights p. 26 and hi7-`Grammatical 1965) pp. 64-6. (T &T Clark, Edinburgh, 342. Jeremias Promise p. 33; Taylor Mark (see index); , Nineham Mark pp. 197f. 343. Nineham Ibid. 344. Pryke cites wpa-rav as a Markan redactional word (Style p. 137) but-ESE does not cite the word as significant of Mark's hand. 345. Jeremias Promise p. 29. 346. Cf. Taylor Mark p. 347. , 347. See n. 334 above. 348. Fiebig iddische Wundergeschicten p. 22.
Schiirmann Lukas I p. 568; Kertelge Wunder Literature: Pesch Markus II p p. 97f. ; J. Gnilka Das Evangelium pp. 174-9; (BeZ=inger, 1979) p. 45. II Zurich, Markus nach 350. On our approach to each pericope see p- 107 above. 351. Hawkins Horae Synopticae ESE p. 64 p. 149 n.; cf. for civovindicating Luke's preference 352. HSE p. 61. for these words in Mark is only 353. Support found in p 45, (W) 354. Rm. 10: 19, cf. Dt. 32: 31; Rm. 12: 19 and Heb. 10: 30, Dt. 32: 43; cf. Dt. 32; 35; Rm. 15: 10 and Heb. 1: 6, cf. Dt. 32: 5. Phil. 2: 15, cf. 355. Cf. 1QS. 10: 19-20 and Dt. 32: 35. See Lindars Apologetic p. 245 and n. 2; A. R. C. Leaney The Rule of Qumran and its (SCM, London, 1966) pp. 121,233 Meaning and 249. 8: 33; Eph. 3: 5; 356. For example Mtt. 16: 4/Mk. 8: 12; Acts like Phil. 2: 15; Heb. 3: 10. And although Mtt. 12: 42, a verse images is not an OT quotation, the Queen of the South, about used. of the OT are being 357. While it is possible that Luke used Matthew "The Argument (E. P. Sanders from Order and the Relationship it is Between Matthew and Luke" NTS 15 (1968-9) pp. 249-61) 349.

III they are independent generally agreed that Nov. T 10(1968). p. 1351 Kilimmel Introduction
358. For 28: 9-20; 17: 24-27; 27: 3-10,24-26,62-661 example Structure see Kingsbury pp. 21f..

394
(eg. see Honor6 p. 64).

359.

Cf.

Kingsbury

Ibid.

360. B. W. Bacon in Matthew Studies (Constable# Nineham Mark pp. 37 and 242. p. 238; 361. in Tradition See also Held p. 188

p. 22.

London,

1930)

362. Matthew also omits Mk. 5: 31; 8: 17f. '; 9: 38; see also J. D. Kingsbury The Parab les of Jesus in Matthew 13 (SPCK, , 1969) London, pAl and n. 68. 363. For example J. Schneider TDNT II p. 683, Mtt. -52, Mk. -5, Lk. =10; Jn. =l. 364. Held in Tradition pp. 226-8. 365. Ibid. 29 366. H. Schlier TDNT I p. 738; cf. H. Sch6nweiss DNTT II p. 859. 367. J. C. Fenton Matthew (Penguin, Earmondsworth, -.1963) p. 128. 368. See J. M. Ross "Epilectic or Moonstruck" BT 29(1978) pp. 126-8. 369. B. Citron "The Multitude in the Synoptic Gospels" SJT 7(1954) P. 410. 370. S. V. McCasland By the Finger of God '(Macmillan, New York, 1951) P. 114. 371. Hull Magic pp. 167f. n. 24. 372. Cf. Held in Tradition p. 230. 373. Ibid. 374. Ibid. p. 228. 375. on v. 21 in the texts see Metzger Commentary p. 43. 376. Cf. G. B. Caird Luke (Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1963) p. 134. having a symbolic on the 'mountain' significance as a place in the gospels - particularly of revelation Luke - see H. Conzelmann The Theology of Saint Luke (1957, ET, Faber, London, 1969) pp. 44f. and 57. 377. Grundmann in Marshall Luke pp. 390f.. 378. on vv. 40f. see above. on Luke's minor grammatical alterations see Cadbury Style p. B. 379. on-the Lukan improvements on grammar see Marshall Luke p. 392. 380. A Lukan word; Mtt. =4, Mk. =l, Lk. =12, Jn. =3; see also HSE iD.64. _81._See Luke p. 392. also Marshall 382. Bultmann, History p. 211; see also Schweizer Mark D. 187; Held in Tradition p. 187; Anderson Mark p. 229; Nineham Mark p. 242; Taylor Mark p. 396. To the contrary Loos Miracles p. 401. 383. Bultmann History p. 211. 384. Kertelge Wunder p. 52. 385. History p. 211. 386. Cf. Taylor Mark p. 400. 387. Ibid.

111

395

388. Black Approach (1946) p. 85 n. 3. 389. See also Lagrange Marc p. 2411 Plilmmer Luke p. 220; Swete Mark p. 200. 390. T. J. Weeden Mark-Traditons (Fortress, in Conflict 1971); Philadelphia, that see also his "The Heresy Necessitated Mark's Gospel" ZNW 59(1968) pp. 145-58. 391. Weeden Mark pp. 50f.. 392. C. J. A. Hickling "A Problem of Method in Gospel Research" RS 10(1974) p. 341. 59-3. See also Q. Quesnell's of Weeden in CBQ 35 review (1973) p. 125. 394. See Ibid. For a more thorough treatment of Weeden's Mark pp. 150ff., whole thesis see Martin 395. "The Blindness in Mark" JBL 80(1961) of the Disciples pp. 261-68. 396. "Die Christologie des Markusevangeliums" ZTK 58 (1961) pp. 154-83. 39 7. The Kingdom in Mark (Fortress, 1974). Philadelphia, , 398. E. Best "The Role of the Disciples in Mark" NTS 23 (1976-7) pp. 400f.. 399. Ibid. pp. 390 and 396, cf. p. 399. 400. See the table in Ibid. p. 386. 401. Ibid. p. 385. 402. Ibid. p. 387. 403. Ibid. p. 388. 404. See ESE pp. 18 and 58f.. 405. Some texts to 'fasting', Mark make reference see Taylor C p. 401 and Metzger entary p. 101. (IMark, p. 242) is inqorrect 406. Nineham in saying that the disciples "to cast out an evil in his name were unable spirit (my emphasis). (v. 18)" is not in view This form of exorcism (v. 29). here 407. On exorcism in the post-Apostolic Church see "Jesus Wm.W. Everts No Exorcist" Christ, BS 81(1924) pp. 355-62. 408. On 'inconsistency' as an indication of redaction see Stein ZNW 61(1970) pp. 78f.. 409. See HSE pp. 18 and 58f.. 410. On the scribes in Mark see M. J. Cook Mark's Treatment of Leaders Nov. T Supp. 51 (Brill, 1978) the Jewish Leiden, 1 pp. 83ff. 411. C. H. Turner Mark (SPCK, London, n. d. ) p. 43. 412. Swete Mark p. 195. 413. Nineham Mark p. 245. 414. Mark p. 396 and also Swete Mark p. 195. 415. Robinson, Problem, pp. 68-73. 416. Ibid. p. 69. 417. Robinson (Ibid. ) also draws attention to the association in 4: 40 of fear and numinous awe on the'part of the disciples being to lack of and 6: 49-52 - both attitudes attributed about Jesus. clarity 418. Jesus p. 76. 419. See p. 1q4 above.

111

396

420. See H. E. To"dt The Son of Man in the Svnontic Tradition (1963, -ET, SCM, London, 1965) p. 224 and E. K8semann ENTT P. 4o. 421.1 H. E. W. Turner's accept criterion of authenticity (Historicity (Mowbray, 1963) pp. 73ff. ) London, and the Gosoels that "where there is an overlap between the of interest Gospels but a marked difference Church, and early in the scale of treatment, we, can be reasonably sure historical (p. 74). that we are on firm ground" 422. In ancient Sabylon; an exorcisms p. 13 - see above 16; Philostratus Philops Lucian Life III: 38; IV: 20; (cf. Acts of Thomas Act 3: 31-33). 423. - See Eitrem Notes p. 27. 424. See also Ibid. 24-26; Deissmann Light p. 26; Lk. 11-. II pp. 59 and 85. p. 252 n. 2; Thompson Devils 425. Anderson Mark p. 231. 426. on the use of hands see D. Daube Rabbinic Judaism in DNTT 11 pp. 152f. '. pp. 224-46 and the bibliography , 427. Literature: Pesch Markus I pp. 220f.. ,. 428. on the overlap between Mark and Q here see Streeter Gospels pp. 187 and 211; L4hrmann Logienquelle p. 32; "The Overlaps E. P. Sanders of Mark and 9 and the Synoptic Problem" NTS 19(1972-3) Butler Matthew esp. p. 460; contrast the and Farmer Problem p. 252. on the extent*of pp. 8ff.; (Faber, 1957) London, overlap see F. C. Grant The Gospels Ibid.. and Sanders pp. 108f.; 429. -Hawkins Horae Synopticae Grammar IV p. 43. p. 8; Turner 430. Hawkins Ibid. Ibid. p. 7; Turner 431. occurs Jn. 10: 21; Lk. 8: 361 Mk. 1: 32; 5: 15, as follows: 16,18; 9: 32; 12: 22; 15: 22. Mtt. 4: 24; 8: 16,28,33; (Delachaux Saint Cf. P* Bonnard Matthieu & Niestl6, 1963) p. 179. NeuchAtel, 432. LXX has "recovery to the blind", RSV note. of sight cf. 433. See also S. McConnell in Matthew's Law and Proohecy (Th. D Thesis, 1969) pp. 154f.; Gospel Basel, R. H. Gundry (Brill, in Matthew's The Use of the Old Testament Gospel 1967) p.p. 208ff.. Leiden, 434. Mtt. =17, Mk. =5, and Lk. =B. 435. See n. 303 above. 436. See chaD. V below. 437.. Fuller Miracles the same about p. 25 n. l. He feels 9: 32-34. Mtt. 9: 27-31; 438. Ibid. z). 32. 439. bid. 440. Ibid. 441. For a test view see F. G. Downing case in defence of this "Towards the Rehabilitation of Q1' NTS 11(1964-5) pp. 169-87; also Honor6 Nov. T 10(1968) pp. 95-147, esp. p. 135. That Luke did use Matthew A. W. Argyle see for example; "Evidence for the View that St. Luke used St. Matthewls Gospel" JBL 83(1964) R. T. Simpson "The Major pp. 390-6;

111

397

Agreements of Matthew and Luke Against Mark" NTS 12(1966-7) (It 273-84. pp. to say that the may even be possible in Bultmann is probably exorcism has a pre-Q origin. right supposing that "the discussion ite presupposes an exorcism preceding to the tradition and no story original would be likely to begin with a reference to some activit of Jesus in quite general terms 11 (History p. 13)). 442. Cf. T. W. Manson Sayings pp. 82ff. 1 A. PolagF*ra$me0q-Q (Neijk; (Q is rchener, Neukirchen- Vluyn, 1979) pp. 50f.. (see sometimes said to contain only 'sayings' material "IQ' is Only What You Make it" Nov. T 3(1959) p. 29) Petrie but apart from Lk. 11: 14, it may also have contained Lk. 4: 2-13; 7: 1-10,18-23; 11: 29-32; see Kdmmel Introduction p. 68). 443.1 take it that Mtt. 12: 23b. is Matthean, see below. 444. Hill Matthew p. 215; cf. T. F. Glasson "Anti-Pharisaism in St. Matthew" JQR 51(1960-1) pp. 316-20; S. van Tilborg The Jewish Leaders in Matthew (Brill, 1972). Leiden, 445. See E. P. Sanders The Tendencies of the Synoptic (Cambridge University, Tradition Cambridge# 1969) pp. 188f.; see also Schulz. Q p. 204f. n. 206; and B. M. Metzger "Names for the Nameless in the New Testament. A Study in the Growth of Christian in Kyriakon: Tradition" Festschrift Johannes Quasten (eds. ) P. Granfield and J. A. Jungmann I (Aschendorff, 1970) pp. 79-99. MUnster Westfalenr 446. Mtt. 12: 24/Lk. 11: 15. 447. T. Schramm Der Markus-Stoff bie Lukas (Cambridge Cambridge, 1971) pp. 46f.. University, 448. on the precise Schulz wording of Q see Schramm Ibid.; Luke pp. 473f.; Polag Q pp. 50f. p. 205, Marshall and , 449. Cf. Klostermann Lukas. p. 127. 450. )V4)t-c-'canon' that inconsistencies Stein's to be due to the last redactor are more likely than being found in his tradition( ZNW 61(1970) pp. 78f. ). Contrast Marshall Luke p. 474. 451. On Mtt. 12: 28/Lk. 11: 20 see below. 452. See the literature cited by Marshall. Luke, pp. 476f.. 453. Marshall Ibid. p. 477. 454. Only once , in Q (Mtt. 24: 42/Lk. 12: 44) - following R. A. Edwards A Concordance to Q (Scholars, 1975). Missoula, Mtt. =2 (excluding Mtt. 24: 42), yet Lk. =14 (excluding Lk. 12: 44) and Acts =25 and Paul =12. 455. Lindars Apologetic p. 85. 456. Marshall Luke p. 516. 457. Bultmann ,Histry p. 14; Lahrmann. Logienquelle p. 34,T. W. Manson Sayings p. 87; Marshall 'Ibid. p. 479; Polag _Q 52f.. To the C. E. Carl-Ston pp. contrary, see with no evidence, Parables of the Tr12le Tradition (Fortress, Philadelphia, 1975) p. 69. 458. That Mark intends *t-nbfe-fQ'-ro0torefer 'family' to Jesus' from Mark's conclusion is evident than 'friends' rather to the pericope where his mother and brothers are mentioned (3: 31).

111

398

459. Taylor Mark p. 235. 460. See chap. V below. 461. See Bultmann History Tradition pp. 29f, - cf. Dibelius p. 47. 462. See p. PC above. 463. See Cook Leaders pp. 85ff.; J. C. Weber "Jesus' Opponents in the Gospel ;f Mark" JBR 34(1966) pp. 214-22. 464. See n. 445 above. 465. See chap. V below. 466. See Taylor Mark p. 239; Schweizer Mark pp. 83f. 1 Dibelius Tradition p. 237; 'Xertelge Wander p. 126 n. 5051 Best ZTK 58(1961) p. 16. Temptation p. 117; Schreiber 467. Taylor Mark p. 240; J. D. Crossan "Mark and the Relatives of Jesus" Nov. T 15(1973) p. 92. 468. See the discussion in Todt Son of Man pp. 118ff., 312-18. Further on this verse see, for example, Jeremias 35f.; Theology_1 pp. 11,14ff., K. Berger Die Amen-Worte 1970) p. 41; Pesch Markus. 1 pp. 216f. (Gruyter, Berlin, "A Note on the p. 92; J. G. Williams and notes; Crossan Ibid. 'Unforgivable Sin' Logion" NTS 12(1965-6) pp. 75-7. by some early 469. R. Scroggs ("The Exaltation of the Spirit JBL 84(1965) p. 361 here cites Johnson Mark Christians" p. 83. 470. Scroggs Ibid. for the position 471. That Mark, is responsible of vv. 31-35 Taylor'Mark see, for example, Schweizer Mark pp. 83f.; 96ff.; Stein p. 245; Crossan Nov. T 15(1973) pp. 85ff., Nov. T 13(1971) pp. 193f.. 472. Ibid. p. 113. 96. 473. Contrary Ibidp. to what Crossan thinks, 6: 1-6; 15: 40, 474. Contrary to Crossan (Ibid. p. 81) who cites 47 and 16: 1. 475. Ibid. p. 112. 476. Taylor Mark p. 235. 477. Cf. Mk. 3: 21 and'30 and p.. Zelbelow. 478. See Dunn Jesus pp. 49ff.. 479. See Carlston P rables p. 135 n. 30. 480. Temptation p. 13. 481. Deissmann Light p. 306 and n. 5, see also pp. 307ff.; and F. Buchsel TDNT II p. 60 esp. n. 3. 482. Cf. Gospel of Thomas 35 which also takes the house to be at risk. than the contents rather 483. P. JOUon in J. Jeremias The Parables of Jesus (1970, ET, SCM, London 1972) p. 197. 484. See Marshall Luke p. 477. 485. In fact Luke seems unlikely to have added the word for he takes up from Mcrk while it occurs 14 times in the material 5: 40; 6: 13; 9: 18t 28,38; (Mk. 1: 12,34,39,43; 3: 15,22,23; 11: 15; 12: 18) he only uses the word 5 times (from Mk. 3: 22; 9: 18,38; 11: 15 and 12: 8) and as far as we know he only once (Lk. 20: 21; cf. Mk. 12: 5). On added the word to his tradition the other hand while Matthew only drops the word a few times

111

399

(from Mk. 1: 12/Mtt. 4: 11 Mk. 1: 39/Mtt. 4: 231 Mk. 1: 43/Mtt. 8: 41 Mk. 7: 26/mtt. 15: 25; Mk. 9: 18/Mtt. 17: 16) he has a known for Ozpw"wr4w - see j! SE P. 62. predilection Z; Ftis 486. on the probable historicity story see n.441 above. 487. on it being a charge of magic see pp-Boqff. below. 489. The view of William Manson Luke p. 1381 cf. Bauer. 490. Plummer Luke p. 301. , 491. Ralph Marcus on Ant. 9: 19 in H. St. Z. Thackerary Josephus Loeb Classical Library VI (Heinemannj Londont, 1958) p. 12, note (a). 492. For most of what follows I am dependent on L. Gaston "Beelzebub" TZ 18(1962) pp. 247-55. 493.1QM. 12: i-, 21 1QS. 10: 13; 1QH. 3: 34. 494. E. Bickermann Der Gott-der Makkabaer (1937) esp. pp. 50ff., cited by Gaston Tz is(1962) p-252 mal. 495. Ezra 1: 2; 5: 11,12; 6: 9,10; 7: 12,21,23; Neh. 1: 4,5; 2: 4,20; 4: 34; 5: 231 Ps. 136: 26; Dan. 2: 18,19,37,44; Tob. 13: 11; 2 Mac. 15: 23. 496. LXX Ps. 95: 5; 1 Cor. 10: 20; cf. LXX Dt. 32: 17; Ps. 105: 37; Bar. 4: 7; Rev. 9: 20. 497. Gaston TZ 18(1962) p. 253. Gaston goes on to suggest that Zebul was used, 498. Ibid. , because the among the possible synonyms for heaven, probably knew a certain in the Beelzebub controversy Pharisees claim made over the temple (Ibid. 'p. 254). 499. on ol uIal Parables p. 18 n. 11. see Carlston , 'by God' is clear from 500. That Jewish'exorcistsdid operate (quoted p. 31 above).. PGM IV: 3019ff. Ammel 631 501. For example, Perrin W. G. Rediscovering p. (1956, ET#, SCM, London, 1957) Promise and Fulfilment pp. 105f.. 502. Luke pp. 160f.. Parables p. 18 also finds vv. Carlston , 20 incompatible. 19 and See also Schweizer Matthew p. 284. by Kln-e-l Promise 503. Bultmann, History p. 14, followed pp. 105f.. 504. Creed Luke p. 161. 505. For the literature and notes. see Dunn Jesus pp. 44ff. 506. Ibid. in 507. the Old Testament the term 'finger of God' is used the direct to identify activity of God. So in Ex. 31: 18 it is the finger of stone. of God that wrote on the tablets (See also Ex. 8: 19; Dt. 9: 10 and Ps. 8: 3). The activity of the Spirit the activity of God also indicated of God himself, _ falls in 11: 5 Ezekiel the Spirit on and of the Lord Ezekiel and he is addressed by the Lord. What is most interesting is that in Ez. 8: 1 it is the hand of the Lord that falls to-produce Thus here is an on Ezekiel a vision. instance are used synonymously. where 'hand' and 'Spirit' (See alsolCh. 28: 11-19. R. G. Hammerton-Kelly "A Note on Matthew 12: 28 par. Luke 11: 20" NTS" (1964-5) p. 168). Further, in the Old Testament the 'finger of of God' is a variation (Ibid. the 'hand of God' with no alteration in meaning. and Barrett Spirit p. 144 and notes. )

111

400

508. Recently Dunn Jesus pp. 44ff.. 509. See also SB II pp. 526ff.. 510. Blass Grammar par. 227: lf.; Moulton cf. and Turner Grammar III pp. 37f.. 511. E. , Stauffer TDNT II p. 348. 512. -N. Perrin The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (SCM, London, 1963) chap. 10; and Rediscovering chap. 1; Jeremias Jesus Theology I par. 11; R. H. Hiers The Historical Gainesviller and the Kingdom of God (University of Florida, 1973) chap. 2. 513. OnZ'0jx(rrrsee Cf. Jeremias Ku'mmel Promise pp. 106-9. Ibid. P. 34. T1-4. G. Dalman The Words (1898, ET, T&T Clark, of Jesus 1902) p. 107. Jeremias Edinburgh, Ibid. pp. 103ff. 1 Barrett (1968, ET, Herder, Spirit New York, Jesus p. 1401 D. Flusser , 90; H. Baltenweiler "Wunder und Glaube im Neuen 1969) p. Testament" TZ 23(1967) pp. 243-8. 515. Jeremi7as Ibid. p. 14. 516. Literature: Jeremias I p. 68. Theology 517. Luke p. 170. in 518. ,See further Schuyler Brown Apostasy and Perseverance Rome, the Theology Institute# Biblical of Luke (Pontifical 1969) pp. 6ff. the Teachand Baumback inT. Rohde Rediscovering (1966, 1968) ing of the Evangelists ET, SCM, London, pp. 243f.. 519. Schulz p. 181. , orkwDxt: 520. '1Sc#j'Mtt. =52, Lk. Mtt. Mk. =62, =7, =57. : Mk. =5, Lk. =10; see also Ibid. is 521. Hawkins Horae Synopticae Schurmann Lukas. I p. 16; cf. p. 214 n. 198. 522. Cf. Klostermann Lukas p. 61. 523. Temptation Carlston, Parables p. 15; c. p. 135 and n. 30. 524. Best Ibid. p. 10. in Ibid. 525. Lohmeyer p. 4 and n. l. : 15; 8: 3.3. Mark does not use StAfloOS. 23,26; 526.1: 13,3: 527. Best Temptation p. 10. (SCM, London, 1963) 528. U. W. Mauser Christ in the Wilderness 32: 34; 33: 2. Ex. 14: 19; 23: 20,23; p. 101; see 1 Kings 19: 5,7; 529. Contrast Nineham Mark p. 63ff.. 530. See also H. P. Thompson "Called-Proved-Obedient: A Study in the Baptism Narratives and Luke" and Temptation of Matthew JTS 11(1960) pp. 1-12. 531. Literature: Jeremias Dunn Theology I pp. 43 and 103-5; Jesus pp. 55-60 and Marshall Luke p. 289. 532. On Luke's Style avoidance of repb-tition see Cadbury pp. 83-90. 533. Schrmann Lukas. I p. 410 n. 18. 534. HSE p. 79. 535. Cadbury Style pp. 142ff.. 536. Hawkins Horae Synopticae p. 16. 537. HSE p. 81; cf. Ibid. pp. 21 and 45. 538. Cf. Black Aramaic p. 109.

III

4ol

539. Hawkins Horae Synopticae Luke pp. 19 and 41; Marshall p. 291. 540. Also at 8: 2; 11: 26 (par. Mtt. 12: 45): Acts 19: 12,13,15t 16; Mark also does not use the phrase. Cf. Marshall Luke p. 291. 541. In the Gospels, Lk. =3; cf. Marshall Ibid. 542. Cf. Marshall Luke p. 290.. (Stein ZNWZl(1970) p. 78). 543. Cf. Creed Luke P. 106; W. Manson Luke pp. 78f. 1 Thompson Luke p. 123. 544. Cf. Polag Q p. 40. 545. Discussed in more detail in Schulz Q pp. 190f.. 546. R. T. France Jesus and the Old Testament (Tyndale, Londcnp 1971) p. 96. 547. Cf. A. E. Harvey Jesus on Trial (SPCK, London, 1976) p. 9 and n. 21. 548. Cf. G. N. Stanton "On the Christology of Q" in CSNT p. 30 and 32. Cf. Dunn Jesus pp. 60f.. 549. On the order of Csee. V. Taylor "The original Order of Q" in New Testament Essays (Epworth, London, 1970) pp. 95-118. 550. Held in Tradition p. 251. 551. Scharman-n (Lukas i p. 410 n. 18) thinks that Matthew is following his custom of abbreviating his source so that LK. 7: 21 would have been found in Q. But the signs of Lukan tip the balance in favour of this being a Lukan editing (cf. Marshall Luke pp. 290f. ). creation 552. Cf. Conzelmann Luke p. 191. 553. Dunn Jesus p. 6677 ' 554. Note Ibid. Cf. Bultmann History pp. 60ff. p. 126. 555. 231; Jeremias Pesch Theology I Markus. I p. -Literature: Schrmann Lukas. I pp. 498f.. The brief pp. 331f.; nature of discussion the following does not warrant including the texts. rather extensive 556. F. Hahn Mission in the New Testament (1963, ET, SCM, London, 1965) pp. 41-6 also Jeremias Theology I p. 231. 557. Hahn Mission pp. 41f.. 558. Schramm Markus-Stoff pp. 26-9 and Hahn Ibid. p. 41; F. W. Beare "The Mission of the Disciples an-d the Mission Charge: Matthew 10 and Parallels" JBL 80(1970) p. 2; Jeremias Theology I p. 231. 559. Hahn Mission pp. 42ff.. 560. Marshall Luke p. 412; see also T. W. Manson sayings p, 74. , 561. On the reading of Sv'o see esp. Metzger'Commentary and "Seventy or Seventy-Two Disc iples"'NTS pp. 150f.; 5(1958-9) pp. 299-3061 cf. also Beare JBL 89(1970) p. 1 n. l. 562. Sayings p. 73; cf. G. B. Caird "Uncomortable Words 11 Shake , off the Dust from your Feet (Mk. 6: 11) Exp. T 81(1969-70)' than any p. 41 - "The mission charge is better attested other part of the gospel record*. 563'. 'Beare'JBL 89(, 1970) p. 12. 564. 'Ibid. p. 13. 565. Bultmann'History Jeremias'Theology I p. 1451 contrast ' p. 233 Lhn. 566. *Mission p. 43; cf. Beare JBL 89(1970) p. 10; Bultmann'Ibid.

111

402
Exp. T 81(1969-70) p. 41.

567. Caird

568. P. Hoffmann der Logidnquelle Studien zur Theologie Winter, (Aschendorf, 1972), pp. 312-31. 569. Schulz p. 415. _QEaston Luke (T &T Clark, 1926) 570. See B. S. Edinburgh, p. 160. 571. Further 105ff.. Promise pp. 22ff., see Knmel i-p-. 572. Jeremias 232. Theology 573. See SB II p. 166. 574. See SB I p. 571; cf. Caird Exp. T 81(1969-70) p. 41. 575. Cf. Jeremias I p. 232 and n. l. Theology 576. MarshallILuke p. 413. 577. Cf. Jeremias I p. 95. Theology 578. Taylor Mark p. 318. 579. Ibid. 580. A relatively view is Hoffmann recent of this champion Lk. 10: 1 The key to this Logienquelle case is that pp. 248ff.. being is Lukan. But this on redaction may have no bearing have drawn from one of his Lk. 10: 17-19 which Luke could 10: 17-20 fits Luke's Hoffmann also says that sources. however can sh-ovno more This theology argument of mission. his is in line he has included that than that material with ("St. S. Jellicoe Luke and the theology of mission. it is 'Seventy(-Two)"') that NTS 8(1960-1) argues pp. 319-21) love of the LXX led him to use the Luke's Lukan in that "Just Letter emissaries as the seventy-two of Aristeas brought had, by their the knowledge translation, of Aristeas (-two) so the seventy world, of the Law to the Greek-speaking fulfilment its in to proclaim are divinely commissioned I'St. Luke See also S. Jellicoe the Gospel message " (p. 321). JBL 80(1961) of Aristeas" pp. 149-S, and the Letter "&ompostion, Quellen by G. Sellin followed und recently (Lk. 9: 51-19-28)" Lu-kanischen Reise1jAchtes Furkion-des Nov. T 20(1978) p. 115. Works and A. M. Hunter 581. T. W. Manson Sayings pp. 73ff.; 1973) pp. 203 and 208; Caird Luke Words (SCM, London, p. 144 ; 582. treeter Gospels p. 192. and 291 and in Studies pp. 289f. Hawkins in Studies p. 135. (Calwer, 1960) p. 281. 583. A. Schlatter Stuttgart, Lukas Note also SB II pp. 167f.. Promise 584. On the visions p. 113 and of Jesus see K&mel n. 27. (and notes). 585. Note K&mel Promise pp. 133f. (eg. ) Jeremias 586. Besides here see also the two mentioned Parables p. 122 n. 33. (Lutterworth, London, 587. The Historic Mission of Jesus 1941) p. 66. 588. Langton Essentials p. 170. 589. As does KUmmel Pr3mise p. 113. Parables 590. So Jeremias Pearabiles, p., 122 and E. Linnemann (SPCK, London, 1966) p. 102. of Jesus be drawn in the next 591. Conclusions to this chapter will two chapters.

IV JESUS-THE-EXORCIST (Notes) 1. On what follows see also Dunn and Twelftree Churchman 94(1980) pp. 211-215. 2. See Dunn Jesus -p. 44 and n. 17. 3. See Eitrem Notes p. 9 and notes. , 4. Cf. t. Hul. ii: 22f.; J. Shab. xiv: 4: 14d; J. Abodah Zarah ii: 2: 40d-41a; b. Abodah Zarah 27b. 5. Cf. Justin 30: 3; 76: 61 85: 2; Apology Martyr Dialog 11: 6. The topic in the post-apobtolic of exorcism is one period interest, but beyond the scope of this of considerable (See W. M. Alexander Demonic Possession in the present; study. (T &T Clark New Testament Edinburgh, 1902) 129-233; pp. , A. Harnack The Mission 1 (1905, and Expansion of Christianity ET, Williams 1908) pp. 125-461 J. S. McEwin "The and Norgate, Ministry SJT 7(1954) of Healing" pp. 133-52). See Dunn and Twelf-tree Churchman 94(1980) think b. San. 43a "is probably that p. 213. I no longer an echo laid (sic. ) Jesus by the Pharisees of the charge against in Mark 3: 22" (Ibid. ) - see chap. V n. 57 below. preserved 7. See also Pistis Sophia 102: 255,258; 130: 332-335; Hippolytus Refutatio VII: 15,20. 8. Strauss Life Miracle pp. 415-37, esp. p. 436; Richardson J. M. Robinson A New Quest of the Historical pp. 68-74; Jesus (SCM, London, 1959) p. 121; M.. Dibelius (1939, ET, SCM, Jesus 1963) chap. VI; Fuller London, Miraclbs: chap. 2; Perrin -, Rediscovering p. 65; 0. Betz What Do We Know about Jesus? (1965, ET, SCM, London, 1968) p. 58; Hahn Titles p. 292; Jeremias Theology I pp. 86-92; 0. B8cher Christus pp. 166-70; Vermes Jesus pp. 58-65; Dunn Jesus p--44. 9. See literature in n. 133 chap. I. cited 10. See chap. I. 11. See p. 333 bdow. 12. See pd+jabove. 13. See p. doabove. 'Midrashl 14. On the genre "The see for example A. G. Wright Lite3mry Genre Midrash" CBQ. 28(1966) PP. 105-38 and 417-57 and notes. 15. St. Th. 18(1964) pp. 35? -, 72. 16. See also A. Vo"gtle "The Miracles in Jesus of Jesus ...... in His Time (ed. ) H. J. Schultz (1966, ET, Fortress, 1971) p. 101. Philadelphia, 17. See pJ75 'above. 18. H. Greeven TDNT VI p. 762. 19. kpa, 7w has a religious in the Greek world, significance but only in relation to the demonic and so we can infer in the use of the word itself in Mark save that nothing we (cf. the demonic as far as Mark is concerned, are dealing with W. Grundmann TDNT III pp. 898f. ). 20. Weiss quoted by B. W. Bacon ....... " Demonic Recognition.... (Bacon (p. 156) takes ZNW 6(1905) 1: 24 to be the p. 154. theoretical (cited on the basis addition of 5: 7; Weiss p. 157L the other way round. )

IV
21.

4.04

(cf. 16; 31); Lucian Philops Philostratus 111: 38; Life (cf. IV: 20; 2: 4: 11; Acts Acts 13 of Peter of Andrew p. 9 line (Hennecke II Acts fifth 44f4 Acts p. 403) of Thomas of act: "The Destruction John 40); of the Temple of Artemis": see 6; b. Pes. 112b-113a. Lucian Disowned also 22. See also Fp. aslfbelow. 23. Hull in Tradition Magic Held See pp. 128ff.; pp. 172ff.. also pp. 137ff. above. 24. See note 19 above. 25. Kertelge Wunder p. 52.

26. Thel-Iteratureon "Son of God" is overwhelming. Much of the material is collected in the following; TDNT VIII p. 334; ThWNT X/2 pp. 1282f.; DNTT, pp. 665f. 1 see also "Sohn Gottes" In-RGG3VI: 118-20 and M. Hengel The Son of God (1975, ET, SCM, London, 1976); in the and now J. D. G. Dunn Christology (SCM, London, Making 1980).

30. "Zum Traditionsgeschichtlichen Christologischer Hoheitstitel" 31. Jesus DiD. 206-10.

27. For example see Taylor Mark p. 225; Nineham Mark p. 112; Schweizer Mark pp. 78ff.. 28. W.G. iel (1972, ET, Theology 6F the New Testament SCM, London, 1974) p. 74. 29. Ibid. p. 76.
Hintergrund NTS 17(1970-1) pp. 422-4.

32. Son p. 41. 33. Such a survey has been done before on more than one for example, E. Schweizer (et al. ) TDNT VIII occasion; Hengel Son. pp. 340-55; and recently 34. Hengel Son p. 21. 35.1b; dpp. 21f.; cf. G. Fohrer TDNT VIII pp. 347f.. 36. Hengel fbid; p. 22. 37. Md. 22f.. pp. 38. Vermes Jesus T)p. 205-10; JJS 23(1972) pp. 28-50 and 24(1973) Hengel Ibid. p. 42 n. 85; pp. 51-641 cf. Flusser Jesus pp. 98ff.; J. D. G. Dunn Unity and Diversity (SCM, London, 1977) p. 45 and notes. 39. Cf. Mtt. 4: 6/Lk. 4: lof.. "The Contribution 40. J. A. Fitzmyer of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament" NTS 20(1973-4) p. 393; cf. Dunn Unity p., 45. 41. See the discussion in Fitzmyer Ibid. p. 392. Dunn in the Making p. 47 places Mk. 3: 11 and 5: 7 Christology together However, we have seen (nt7 as demonic confessions. by Mark so that above) 3: 11 is probbly entirely rewritten Nevertheless only 5: 7 can be said to be a demonic confession. Dunn is right to say that it "would seem to imply recognition simply of one specially commissioned or favoured by God being sent without necessarily evoking the idea of a divine from heaven". 42. Ver-IM 'EMI-j'afP-2'06ff43. Dunn Unity p. 45. 44. Ibid. 45. Ibid.

IV 46. Ibid. p. 46 (his emphasis). 47. Eg. L. Morris Luke (IVP, London, 1974) pp. 109 and 156. 48. For example by McCasland Finger Taylor pp. 110-15; Mark p. 176; E. Fascher Die Formsgeschichtliche Methode (T8pelmann, 142-4) pp. 127f.; Giessen, S. E. Johnson Mark (Black, 1960) p. 48. London, 49. Spirit p. 57. 50. R. Herzog Die Wunderheilungen von Epidauros p. 17 in Loos Miracles p. 330. 51. Cf. Hull Magic p. 68. "The Saliva 52. F. W. Nicolson in Classical Superstition 8(1897) in Classical Studies Philology Literature" Harvard Magic pp. 76-8; Loos Miracles pp. 23-40 and n. 1; also Hull in particular on the Babylonian texts pp. 306-13. see .. (Hinrichs, im Neuen Testament A. Jeremias Babylonisches 1905) p. 108; Eitrem Notes p. 46 Leipzig,

405

53. P04 111: 420. 37. 54. NH XXVIII: E-ee 55. b. Sheb. 15b: (cf. Blau Zauberwesen p. 68). The Essenes did not permit BJ 11: 8. spitting, 56. See Loos Miracles p. 310 and notes. 57. See E-LahseTDNT IXPP-*31f-(et al. ) (Aramaic from Qumran (Leiden, 58. B. Jongeling Texts 1976) pp. 99, n. 22) are incorrect Brill, when they say "the is well on of hands as an act of exorcism of)52eying practice " in the New Testament, mark V: 23.... cf. especially attested because Mk. 5: 2i is not related and 1 QapGen. as an exorcism is our only other of evidence. piece 'sighing' 59. on Jesus p. 325. see Loos Miracles 60. Some of the Apologists tried to make a case for the he used that miracles authenticity of Jesus' on the grounds by at all; cited see the literature no aids or medicines i; -ridrichsen Miracles pp. 305f.. pp. 89ff. and Loos. Miracles , in Miracles by E. R. Micklem The suggestion and the New (Oxford 1922) p. 105, that University, Psychology Oxford, foundationin his healings is without Jesus sometimes used oil 94(19801 61. Dunn and Twelftree churchman pp. 214f.. 62. Cf. Vermes Jesus p. 64, though we cannot Vermes agree with Jesus was accused because he never invoked that any human (p. 66) some Rabbis for even as Vermes notes exorcised source demons without evoking an authority. 63. SB. II p. 10. 64. SB. II p. 17f.. 65. See for example Fiebig iiadische Wundergeschichten p. 72; (and notes). Jeremias Prayers Dunn Jesus pp. 15-21 pp. 72-8; "Prayer 24(1973) 66. P. T. O'Brien in Luke-Acts" T. Bull pp. 111-27;, cf. also Dunn Jesus p. 17 and n. 23, and most in "The Prayer-Motif in Luke-Acts" A. A. Trites recently (Association Professors Perspectives on Luke-Acts of Baptist 1978) Clark Danville, Edinburgh, of Religion, and T&T , pp. 168-86.

IV

406

67. Bauer; TDNT V pp. 462f. cf. K. L. Schmidt and notes; (cf. Josephus Ant. 18: 124); P. Oxy. 3275: 40,46; cf. 3295: 19,24 (et al. ) is an loath'. See also Bell where opkaS 19f., PBA 17(1931) p. 251, lines cf. pp. 255,266 and eg. PGM IV: 3019,3033,3039,3045,3052,3056, Deissmann Studies p. 274; cf. P. Oslo 1: 153 and pp. 72f. 1 (and though Christian, Sol. Moulton see Test. passim)l and Milligan; Scott; Liddelland cf. Acts 19: 13. 68. On which see E. Schweizer (Vandenhoeck Ego Eimi & , 1965) pp. 18f.; I Ruprecht, Go"ttingen, Theology Jeremias pp. 250ff. 69. E. Stauffer TDNT II p. 348 (quoted p. 123above). 70. In fact to find any examples so far I have been unable its that use in Mk. 9: 25. parallel 71. HTR 36(1943) pp. 47ff. 1 see also HTR 37 (1944) pp. 334ff.. 72. In Bonner's (see note above) he cites second article a modern example. 7j. Mussner Miracles p. 5. 74. Ibid., R. Schnackenburg also Loos Miracles pp. 280-6; 1968) (1959, ET, Herder, G o. d1s Rule and Kingdom New York, (SPCK, London, G. E. Ladd Jesus and the Kingdom pp. 120f.; 1964) pp. 145ff.; Kdmmel Promise pp. 109ff.. 75. Ibid. cf. p. 49. pp. 16ff., 76. See Achtemeier JBL 89(1970) p. 265. (1963, 77. X. Ledn-Defour The Gospels and the Jesus of History 1968) p. 123. ET, Collins, London, 78. on John's Cf. also Mk. 8: 14-21. Gospel see chap. V below. 79. Apart below see Fridrichsen from the literature cited Miracle-. pp. 75f.. in contrast 80. Bultmann History see his Jesus p. 112, though 1962) p. 124! London, and the Word (1934, ET, Fontana, 81. NTQT p. 100. (Evangelische 82. W. Grundlmann Das Evangelium nach Lukas 1963) p. 211; cf. E. Neuhausler Berlin, Verlagsanstalt, 1962) pp. 200: t. Gottes(Patmos, Anspruch I)dsseldorf, und Antwort "On the 83. K. Berger NTS 17(1970-1) Cf. D. Hill pp. 10-40; from the Creative Prophets" Role of Christian Evidence 'V NTS 20(1973-4) pp. 271-4 and J. D. G. Dunn "Prophetic Sayings NTS 24(1977-8) pp. 181f.. and the Jesus Tradition I 84. Jeremias Promise p. 50 n. 1; see also his, Theology, 15f., 19. pp. 10f.,

85. Mussner Miracles

86. Cf. N. Perrin I pp. 31-5. KTmgd6m and Jeremias Theology 87. Jeremias Ibid. pp. 152-6. 88. Taylor Mark pp. 191f.; Schweizer Mark p. 60; ' Anderson -, in Jesus p. 103. 98i-. Mark pp. -V8gtle 89. Jesus p. 14; ci. His ry p. 12 and notes. 90. i7i,kas. 1 p. 309f.; Marshall Luke p. 234. cf. 91. Td_erson, Mark pp. lllf.; in DNTT III W. Stott p. 408. Cf. Jeremias I pp. 6 and 208ff.. Theology 92. Anderson Mark p. 112. , 93. See Jeremias Theology I pp. 208f..

p. 21.

IV

407

94. Cf. Sevenster cited by Loos Miracles p. 2811 Kallas Significance p. 77. 95. Ibid. pp. 280-6 I' E. Schweizer Jesus (1968, ET, SCM, London, 1971) p. 43; see also M. Grant Jesus (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1977) p. 33 and n. 18. 96. Cited in Loos Miracles p. 282. 97. Ibid. 98. Jesus Christ and Mythology pp. 12f. 1 also cited by Hiers SJT*27(1974) p. 37, see also p. 38 for mention of others who hold these views. 99. Cf. Hiers Ibid. Miracle pp. 37f., and note Fridrichsen pp. 63-72. Eabove. 100. See FpA15 101. Hiers Jesus p. 63. 102. See also Hunter Work P. 83; V" 09 tle in Jesus p. 101. Wundergeschichten 103. Fiebig iddische pp. 72f.. 104. Hull Magic, see A. Macpherson's review in Scripture 5(1974) P. 48. Bulletin 105. Hengel Judaism. Dibelius Tradition 106. History pp. 133ff.. pp. 218ff.; 107. Bultmann History p. 240. 108. Symbols II pp. 173ff., and 191. 399 and 401. Quest Schweitzer pp. -109.

v AS OTHERS

SAW HIM

(Notes) 1. Loos Miracles pp. 131ff.. 2. Taylor Mark p. 176. (my emphasis). 3. Ibid., Die Fascher Taylor also quotes for7m-geschichtliche Methode pp. 127f.. 4. H. Wansborough it was the crowd that that was suggests 'out of control', ("Mark 3: 21 - Was Jesus out of his Mind? " NTS 18(1971-2) mean pp. 233f. ) butyqTI-vrc. can hardly 'calm down'. Cf. Dunn Jesus p. 384 n. 115; D. Wenham "The Meaning of Mark 3-.'Il" NTS 21(1974-5) pp. 295f.. 5. E. Best "Mark 3: 20# 21,31-35" NTS 22(1975-6) pp. 309-19; Mark p. 236. cf. Taylor 6. Cf. Taylor Mark p. 235; Dunn Jesus pp. 86f.. 7., See Pryke Style pp. 309f. '. p. 12. Cf. Best NTS 22(1975-6) 8. Anderson Mark p. 121; Jn. 10: 20; (Acts 12: 15f. ). In Josephus Ant. 6: 168 Saul, who had had a demon which was cha=ed Cf. PR 40ab to himself". away, is said to have been "restored by Vermes Je9us pp. 64f. ). and Tanh. B. 4 (quoted in the 9. on the equation and 'Son of David' of 'Messiah' in the First Centuries Gospels of the see G. F. Moore Judaism 1946) p. 329 (Harvard Era II Cambridge, Christian University, (London, Christology R. H. Fuller New Testament and notes; 1965) pp. lllff.. See also Mk. 3: 11. 10. SB IV pp. 534f.; The Method and Message of D. S. Russell (SCM, London, Barrett 1964) pp. 285ff.; Jewish Apocalyptic des 57ff.; Religion Bousset, Die Gressmann Sptrit and pp. (Mohr, Tubingen, 1966) pp. 218ff.; Paul Volz Judentums im Neuestamentlichen der jildischenGemeinde Die Eschatologie 9 31; Schdrer (Olms, Hildesheim, History II, 1966) Zeitalter pp. 527ff.. 11. See last note. (Vandenhoeck 12. C. Burger Jesus als Davidssohn & Ruprecht, 1970) p. 41; Dunn Unity G8ttingen, pp. 43f.. 13. Duling NTS 20(1973-4) pp. 68f.. (1904, ET, 14. J. Klausner The Messianic Idea in Israel 1955) p. 392. Macmillan, New York, 15. Dalman Words p. 317; Fuller Christology p. 33. 16. Mid first old Testament BC; Eissfeldt p. 613. century 17. See Charlesworth Pseudepigrapha p. 196. is 18. Dzlman (Words p. 317) says that the designation dependent as Is. 9: 5 ; 11: 10; upon such passages probably Jer. 23: 5; 33: 15. 19. Dalman Ibid. but see below. 20. See n. 10 above, 21. Ps. Sol. 17 (cf. Sir. 47: 11; I. Mace. 2: 57); Dalman Words Christology p. 317; Fuller p. 33. 22. Cf. Duling HTR 68(1975) pp. 235-52. 23. See references by H. F. D. Sparks' of de Jonge review given in JTS 6(1955) Testaments Patriarchs P-287. of the Twelve 24. M. de Jonge The Testaments A of the Twelve Patriarchs: (Van Gorcum, Study of their-Text, Composition and Origin 1953). debate Assen, On the present see J. Becker der der Testamente Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte

4og
(Brill, 1970); Patriarchen Leiden, Charlesworth zwolf de Jonge "The Interpretation Pseudepigrapha of pp. 211ff.; in in Years" Patriarchs Recent the Testaments the Twelve of Text and Patriarchs; 'Studies of the Twelve on the Testaments (Brill, 1975) by M. de Jonge Leiden, Interpretation The Testaments H. D. -Slingerland of the Twelve pp. 183-92; (Scholars, A Critical History Patriarchs: of Research 1977) esp. chap. VI. Missoula, in "The Messiah 25. de Jonge Testaments M. Black p. 89; cf. Exp. T 60(1948-9) the Testament p. 322. of Levi xViii" 26. Cf. Mk. 1: 10f.. 3: 63,72, being Sib. 27. The earliest or. about occurrences "The Provenance BC (J. J. Collins and Date century mid-second Bulletin Sibyl" of Jewish of the Institute of the Third 2(1974) ERE ii p. 459; W. Bousset G. A. Barton Studies pp. 1-18), 11 (1920) pp. 76ff.; Revelation R. H. Charles ERE I pp. 587ff.; TDNT I p. 607. W. Foester RGG3 1: 1025f.; K. Galling 28. Sea Pre vious n 0c; cAce Eissfeldt Old Testament and pp. 615ff. literature cited). 29. R. H. Charles The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 1908) pp. 103ff.; de Jonge Testaments (Black, London, p. 32. 30. de Jonge Ibid. 24 set out in Charles 31. Compare the texts of chapter Testaments pp. 101f.. 32. Ibid. pp. 128f.. 33. de Jonge Testaments p. 90; (cf. Mk. 16: 18). "Priestly 34. Ibid. p. 87; cf. p. 92. Cf. A. J. B. Higgins NTS 13(1966-7) Messiah" pp. 227f.. 35. de Jonge Testaments p. 37. 36. Ibid. p. 89 and n. 245. led. ) The Books of Enoch (Clarendon, oxford, 37. J. T. Milik 1976) p. 91; M. A. Knibb "The Date of the Parables of Enoch: C. L. Mearns NTS 25(1978-9) Review" A Critical cf. pp. 345-9; "The Parables and Date" Exp. T 89(1977-8) of Enoch - Origin pp. 118f.. 38. Followed by Barrett Spirit p. 59. (Yehuda and Shimon) 39. The Rabbis mentioned are both from ) notes. (Ibid. the second century as Barrett I 40. See Schu'rer History p. 97; cf Enc. jud. 13: 335. Method Russell 41. Charles Pseude igrapha p. 412; cf. P. 29o. 42. Cf. W. Foester TDNT II p. 78 (and note 43). 4Q Flor. Jud. include 43. In this Test. and we should category 1: 7f. which Also see the demise of Satan as part of the new than the work of a particular rather of affairs state individual. 44. Russell Method p. 309 45. Ibid. p. 285. 46. Spirit p. 59. the 47. If Jesus was, in his exorcisms, self-evidently to explain Messiah then it is difficult why the fourth

410
Gospel does not make use o,f what would potentially be a useful in his Gospel. component 48. Jesus p. vii. 49. Smith p. 59. So. Smith p. 46. Cf. R. in T. Herford Christianity Talmud and (Reference Midrash Book Publishers, Clifton New Jersey# 1966 (19031) pp. 35ff.. 51. Smith p. 47. 52. See b. San. 67a (The Soncino 1935) Press Edition, London, p. 456 n. 5. 53. See n. 50 Above. 54. Herford Christianity p. 38. 55. H. L. Strack. Jesus, di6 Ha'retiker... (Hinrichs, 1910) Leipzig,, IV. chap. 56. b. Gitt. 90a. Epstein's note to b. San. 67a (The Soncino 1935) p. 457. Press, London, 57. Ibid. (H. Derenbourg Essai et la sur 11histoire de la-Palestine (Paris, 1967) note 9 pp. 468-71); geographie (1922, ET, Macmillan, J. Klausner Jesus of Nazareth 1927) p. 21 and notes; New York, Christianity cf. esp. Herford "Jesus in the Talmud" pp. 344ff. and notes and J. Z. Lauterbach (Ktav, in Rabbinic 1973, reprint Essays New York, of 1951 ed. ) p. 477 to us one single preserved statement not-even literature in the talmudic-midrashic can be regarded in the in the sense that it originated as authentic half time of Jesus or even in the first of the Christian (his emphasis). era" for the G. Bornkamm Jesus p. 28 (cf. n. 3) - regarding sources is what the Talmud life of Jesus says - "Even less productive later and end. It betrays reports about Jesus' appearance but a knowledge whatsoever and is nothing no independent of the Christian and tendentious misrepresentation polemical It makes Jesus into tradition. seducer and a magician, his condemnation". to justify * and tries agitator, political 58. Smith p. 47. His evidence for this is the unsupported by second the same charges statement cre specified - "because in the Jewish century pagan and Christian writers as elements ) of him " (Ibid. account . 59. Pages in parenthesds Jesus. to Smith's refer (Mohr, Tubingen, 60. An die Galater 1971) pp. 45f.. 61. Ibid. 62. studies, p. 358, his empahsis. (Galate 6: 17 45) more reasonably 63. Lietzmann that says p. , is undoubtably to 2 Cor. 4: 10; Rm. 8: 17; Ph. 3: 10; related Col. 1: 24. 64. SeeEp. 3/qftelow. (Blackwell, 65. Martyrdom in the Early Church and Persecution 1965) p. 174 n. 51. oxford, 66. Ibid. p. 162 and footnotes. 67. TbId. (and see note 52). 68. Letters X: 96.

411
69. The Letters (Clarendon, 1966) pp. 704f.. Oxford, of Pliny (Sherwin-White is interacting principally with Mohlberj, Coulton and Lietzmann with regard to early Christian liturgical ) practices. 70. Ibid. p. 705. 71. Smith p. 180 and see p. 3z1below where Justin is quoted more fully. 72. F. F. Bruce Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1974) p. 21. 7,3. Although Smith has not adequately dealt with Josephuss the problems of the authenticity of Ant. 18: 63-4 makes a discussion impossof the use of the passage here virtuallr ible. Paul Winter "Josephus on Jesus" Journ. of Hist. Stud. 1(1968) pp. 289-302 and in a revised form in Schiarer History I pp. 428-41. 74. Smith p. 21 (chap. 3). 75. This verse, in a Homily by Abraham Bishop of Ephesus in 10 00,0zicts is cited with the addition the sixth century, P<dt"& J. Mehlmann "John 8: 48 in Some Patristic fcgivv-101"t 44(1963) p. 2061 cf. 8: 41. Quotations" Biblica (n. p. 179), 77, cf. 96f.. 76. Smith pp. 32,47f., 77. For example 1yo has this meaning in Demosthenes or. 47: 45. 78. To the (without "Was C. H. Kraeling evidence) contrary Jesus Accused of Necromancy? " JBL 59(1940) p. 154. 79. TDNT, II pp. 816-32, esp. pp. 821f.. 80. Ibid. pp. 821f.. 81. Ibid. p. 822. 10: 20,21; 82. Jn. 7: 20; 8: 48,49,52; and Mk. 3: 30 where 'unclean is used rather than 'demon'. spirit' 83. See Marshall Luke p. 516, cf. p. USabove. 84. The phrase is used by Matthew and Luke only v Verea, (Mtt. 11: 18/ in relation to John the Baptist's aesthetics Lk. 7: 33) and the Gadarene Demoniac (Mtt. 8: 28/Lk. 8: 27). 85. As a Samaritan Goet or Gnostic, Bultmann John p. 299 n. 4; Studies I" BJRL 40(1957-8) see also J. Bowman "Samaritan pp. 298-308. 86. Bowman Ibid. pp. 300f. ; 87. So-- for example R. E. rown John I (Chapman, London, 1971) London, 1972) p. 365; p. 387; B. Lindars John (Oliphant, John (1967) p. 314. Barrett 88. Cf. H. Preisker TDNT IV p. 361. 89. Bowman BJRL40(1957-8) pp. 305f.. 90. Ibid. p. 306. 91. Ibid. p. 307. 92. Ibid. p. 308. 93. Smith eg. pp. 33,54,181.
94. "Llaccusation de madie contre le Evangiles" ETL 15(1938) pp. 44.9-90. 95. Ibid. -p. 459f.. 96. Ibid.. p. 460. 97. Ibid. 98. H. Braun TDNT VI p. 229; Diodorus Christ dans les

Sicdlus

Hist.

11: 18

412
(P. 'Lond. 11: 483: 19). 99. Plato Rep. IV: 444b, -. Phaedo 81a. 100. Braun TDNT VI p. 233. 101. Ibid. p. 235. 102. amain-ETL 15(1938) p. 45.6. 103. Smith pp. 33,174. 104. Samain ETL 15(1938) pA62. 105. Ibid. 106. E 11: 13. 107. Fk-. III ch. 2 and 3. 108. Smith p. 33 tnd: note p. 174. 109. Scorniace-12: 3. 110 T il"vinarlullmn3I2n3mqtituti'onm 11: 16: 4. 111: 112. -In. Danielem Iii: 2c%. 113. Cf. *Smith p. 174.
(oxford, 1961) p. 167. Epistle F. W. Beare First of Peter 11:1 and 112 above. Cf. notes See note 109 above. See note 110 above. Cf. Smith p. 33. 699,782; Epistle Sherwin-White Letters cf. pp. -119. Annals XV: 44; C. Bigg Epistles X: 96: 3; Tacitus of St. Peter 1902) p. 137. Edinburgh, and St. Jude (T &T Clarke, (Frank Kermcde The New York 120. Cf. a review of'-Smith is 1978 p. 58), "It Review of Books XXV (20, Dec. 21st, be referred to as that magicians might plausible perfectly doers. that it does not follow not accuse one could evil he was a that without-claiming somebody of doing evil magician". Proof 121. Cf. Eusebius also note of the Gosz)el 3: 3. We could is at the heart it was the fabrication that that of element 'magic'. the Roman 1_sagainst 122. Cf. the categories. in Acts 13: 10 and see above on Tertullian. if 123. Cf. Winter thought that Trial an p. 144. It is often does not involve'the or use of physical exorcism is not then the healing aids or incantations mechanical in Qumran? " Kairos (eg. W. Kirchschla'ger "Exorcismus magical is said "the New Testament 18(1976) Thus it miracles p. 52). " have bonnection Jesus and processes... means no of with'magic M Grundmann TDNT II p. 302).. There is a note of here desperation (see the editorial Magic in review of Hull r 355f. ). Exp. T 85(1973-4) The abho ence of magic in the pp. is noted Jesus must be absolved Bible and so, at all costsf from any charge in terms of of magic - magic defined (cf. IDB technique Mendelsohn. IDB III Hull pp. 223ff.; here. Supp. pp. 312ff. l. There are two problems or errors is-a there We have seen that *Firstly of definition. problem in relation to miracles the bald categories and exorcizm of Imagicall(evil)/Inon-magicall(good), when defined in terms of technique, in are not helpful primarily in the NT era (contrast the exorcisms Hull understanding in t1ne attempt Magic chapjVj. The second problem at 114. 115. 116. 117. 118.

413
Jesus from the charge to absolving of magic is., one relating historical if we define method. magic in terms of is technique it aids or incantations an error - physical judgment (or to say that Jesus' techniques of historical for example) have nothing to do with magical exorcism in this or that processes way he is quite unique and from his contemporaries (eg. L. Morris The Cross separate (Paternoster, 1976) pp. 56f. in the New Testament Exeter, is We saw in chaps. III there and notes). and IV above that had clear that Jesus' technique as an exorcist good evidence in this 'magic' so called parallels world. 124. JBL 59(1940) pp. 147-57. 125. Ibid. p. 153. 126. Ibid. p. 154. 09, 127. Vermes Jesus p. Dunn JesuS, p. 88 and Barrett cf. p. 57. 128. Vermes Ibid. V. '7q Mid. 129. pp. 69 and 79. 130. Cf. Ibid. p. 63. 131. Cf. Mtt. 12: 27/Lk. 11: 19 132. Vermes ;Le_sus p-&Soadn-31133. See also A. R. C. Leaney's of Vermes in JTS 25 review (1974) p. 490. 134. Cf. Robinson Problem chap. 3. is a Markan summary-see History 135. That this Bultmann p. 341; Mark pp. 180ff.; Dibelius Tradition Taylor pp. 44,224; (for Wunder pp. 31f.; Anderson Mark p. 93; Kertelge other literature I p'. 136. ). on these verses see Pesch Markus. 136. See Bultmann History p. 341; Best Temptation pp. 73; JIM Christology" L. E. Keck "Mark 3: 7-12 and Mark's 84(1965) Kertelge Horstmann Studien pp. 341-358; pp. 119,126; Wunder pp. 34f.; Marxsen Mark p. 63 n. 38; E. Trocme The, ;f Mark (1963, ET, SPCK, London, Formation of the Gospel Mark p. 225; 1975) p. 153 n. 2; Schweizer Mark pp. 78ff.; Taylor (for literature I on the pericope other see Pesch Markus. p. 202). in Mark" T. Bull 137. J. D. G. Dunn "The Messianic Secret 21(1970) Cf. C. F. Evans The Beginning of the pp. 92-117. (SPCK, London, 1968) p. 45. Gospbl 138. Schweizer Mark pp. 54ff.. 139. Hull magic p. 144. 140. See especially the discussion of Smith above. 141. Magic chap. 7. See esp. pp. 128ff.. 142. Ibid. p. 129. 143. 'Ibid 144. In Tradition pp. 168ff.. 145. See also Mtt. 22: 41-45. 146. cf. NTS 24(1977-8) Duling pp. 393ff.. 147. Magic chap. 6. 148. Note particularly Achtemeier I*n Peespechves pp-diff-

414
149. Note Achtemeier Ibidp. 163 n. 2o. 150. Ibid. p. 163. 151. ! bid. p. 164. 152. See also Leaney Luke p. 157 'and Marshall Luke p. 341. 153. The problem has been noted before, for example, C. F. D. Moule "The Classification in Stories" of Miracle Miracles p. 241. 154. Cf. Grayston Ep-R 2(1975) pp. 90-4. 155. Cf., for example, Taylor Mark p. 171. 156. See Loos Miracles pp. 306ff.. 157. -Fridrichsen Theology 22(1931) p. 127 and note. 158. See also Dunn and Twelftree Churchman 94 (1980) p)*--2A0F-159. Pausanias Description See of Greece VI, XXXVI, 1,2. Loos Miracles John (1978) p. 188. p. 601; Barrett 160. ,See Loos Miracles pp. 328ff.. 161. Though some do not see any relationship between this (for example Johannine miracle traditions and Synoptic L. Morris John (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1971) p. 288) See the same incident may lie behind both traditions. Barrett John (1978) p. 245. Brown John pp. 192f.; ,I 162. Loos Miracles pp. 435ff. 163. History pp. 619ff.. p-. 234; see also Loos Miracles 164. Loos Miracles pp. 655ff. and notes gives the sources for parallels. 165. See Dunn and Twelftree Churchman 94(1980) pp. 220f.. 166. Eusebius HE 4: 3: 2. See P. 306above. 6-9. 167. Dialog. See p. 3;U above. 168. CC 1: 7,28,68. See p. 322.above. Zf 169. FfAbove. ul pp. . 170. In view of the present position of the 'divine-man' debate - in which it is now generally doubted that it is a to use in relation to Jesus - it is useful category it in our discussions. for us to consider See unnecessary Dunn Jesus p. 69 and notes, and C. R. Holladay Theios Aner in , (Scholars, 1977); cf. the Missoula, Hellenistic-Judaism in JTS 30(1979) pp. 246-52. review of Holladay by W. Telford 171. Cf. Tiede Charismatic chap. Three. 172. Cf. L. Morris Cross pp-66 F.. , 173. Cf. J. P. Heil "Significant Aspects of the Healing in Matthew" CBQ 41(1979) pp. 285f.. Miracles

vi JESUS-THE-EXORCIST

(His

Self

Understanding) (Notes)

1. See particularly Dunn Jesus p. 13. 2. Fridrichsen Miracle p. 72. , 12f. 3. Dunn Jesus pp. (his emphasis). 4. Ibid. (b) C[bid. pp. 47f. ). p. 47, though see Dunn's point S. Ibid. Exp. T 82 (1970-1) p. 49 and "Spirit and Kingdom" This 39, p. emphasis). 6. Dunn almost in "Spirit Ibid. says this and Kingdom" (History Bultmann Cf. Dunn Jesus pp. 47f.. p. 239) says from his success Jesus "concludes that the Kingdom of God has be for there is no question that come". -This can hardly other were successful exorcists eyes, - even in Jesus' Mtt. 12: 27/Lk. 11: 19. cf. Mk. 9: 38f. /Lk. 9: 49E.; 7. As Otto Betz "Jesu Helliger Krieg" Nov. T 2(1958) pp. 116-37. B. Note Dunn Jesus p. 47 "We should this aspect not permit our familiarity with to dull the edge of this assertion. of Jesus' preaching For this The was an astonishing and audacious claim. " (his kingdom was already present! eschatological emphasis). Churchman 94(1980) See also Dunn and Twelftree p. 220. 9. See Dunn and Twelftree Ibid. pp. 220 and n. 31. 1O. Parables pp. 81-5. ll. Cf. L. Cope "Matthew xxv 31-46, 'The Sheep and the Goats' Nov. T 11(1969) Reinterpreted" pp. 32-44. 12. 'The Ruler in the NT only in in. World' of this occurs John 11 (1971, ET, Burns & Oatesp London, Cf. R. Schnackenburg 1980) pp. 39off. John p. 431. and Bultmann 13. Bultmann Ibid. p. 508 and n. l. 'EH. Fuller 14. Contrast The Mission of Jesus and Achievement (SCM, London, 1954) p. 38. 15. Their to Jesus' view of the end of Satan in relation ' is well simmed up by Barrett. ministry "The devil is defeated, but he is not destroyed. The his devices to Church was too well acquainted with Satan had died " Spirit suppose that p. 52. (expressed 16. This conclusion in with the view would tie by Bultmann I p. 4) that Theology, Jesus proclaimed and impending irruption of the Reign of an immediately expected KGmmel Promise God. See particularly esp. pp. 105ff.; "Eschatological in the Proclamation ExpectAtion of Jesus" (ed. ) J. M. Robinson in The Future Past of Our Religious (1964, ET, SCM, London, 1971) pp. 29-48; Kingdom and Perrin esp. chap. V. 17. See the summary of evidence in Perrin Kingdom p. 83. 18. See Jeremias Parables Matthew pp. 230f. pp. 224f. and Hill (Mtt. 13: 36-43) (The interpretation is of the parable the work of Matthew, Ibid. probably see Jeremias pp. 81-5). 19. Luke in particular this theine. up and develops picks healing For example in relating-the Mother-in-law of Peter's

vi

416

(Mk. 1: 29-34/Mtt. 8: 14-17/Lk. 4: 38f. ) he describes it as an exorcism saying that Jesus rebuked the fever and that it left her. And in 13: 10-17 Luke has written up a healing into an exorcism so that Jesus' assault against Satan is "The (J. Wilkinson seen as wider than just the exorcisms. Case of the Bent Woman in Luke 13: 10-17" EQ 49(1977) pp. 195-205. ) 20. Dunn Jesus pAB.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY (Excluding dictionary articles Miracle and commentaries) Tradition and Divine Man".

Achtemeierol -----Interp.

P. J.

"Gospel

26(1972)

PP-174-97. on the Miracles Perspectives Edinburgh, of Jesus: A ) (ed. Luke-Acts on and Association Danville USAj

"The Lukan Perspective Preliminary C. H. Talbert of Baptist Sketch"

(T&T Clark, Professors

of Religion,

1978) PP-153-67.

Jesus: A Study of Mark and the Historical 9: 14-29" CBQ 37(1975) pp. 471-91. "Miracles
"The Origin Catenaell and Function of the Pre-Marcan Miracle JBL 91(1972) pp. 198-221o

"Toward the Isolation

Allegroo, JO *Mo "Further

of Pre-Markan Miracle
Messianic References

Catdnaell

iBL 89(1970) Ppo265-91o

in Qumran

Literature"
Ambrozic.,

JBL 75(1956) pp. 174-87.

with Power (Mk. 1: 27)"

A. M. "New Teaching

Michael Word and SPirit: in Honour of*David --E_ssays Allowdale (Regis College, (ed. ) J. -Plevnik Stanley Ontario, 1975) PP-113-49Annen., F. '! Die DAmonenaustitibungen .TB 50976) Jesu in den synoptischen History in the Evangelien" Attridge.,

PP-107-46. of Biblical of Flavius Josephusl(Scholars,

H. The Intearetation Judaicast 1976).

tAntiquitates Missoula,

Bacon.,
Baron.,

B. W. "The Markan Theory of Demonic Recognition NW 6(1905) PP-153-8. the Christ. ". Ze. .:............. .... ...
S. W. A Social and Religious (Col=bia-University, History

of

of the Jews

Vols. I and II London, 1952).

New York and

. 418
Barrette, CeKe The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (SPCK, London, 1947)-* Tradition Stories 1972)(SPCK, London, in the Gospel 1967).

Jesus and the Gospel Bartlett., D. L, Exorcism Yale, (Ph. D Thesisq Bauernfeind.,

of Mark

0. Die Worte der DUmonen im Markus ='evangelium (Koh1hammer, Stuttgart, 1927) F. W. "The Mission Matthew of the Disciples and the Mission JBL 89(1970) PP-1-13M41anges

Beare.,

Charge: Beasley-Murray.

10 and parallels"

9 (edse) Bibliques hommage P. R. B4da Rigaux en au (Duculot, A. Descamps and A. de Halleux Gdmblouxl

G*R. "Jesus

and the Spirit"

1970)

PP-463-78.
Becker., J., "Wunder und Christologiell NTS

16(1969-70)
(Wissenschaftli'che

PP-130-48.
Behm. im JDie Handauflegung Urchristentum 9 Buchgese32schaftg Darmstadt, 1968). HI. Nock., A. D. and Thompson.,

Bell.,

H. "Magical

Texts

from a Bilingual Papyrus in the British PBA 17(1931) PP-235-87Berger., K. "'Zu den sogennanten pp. lo-4o. Sfftzen heiligen NTS 17(1970-1)

Museum"
Rechts"

Best.,

E. 17, xorcism in the New Testament and Today" B Th 27(1977) PP1-9Iqlark's Use of the Twelve" ZNW69(1978) pp. 11-35. "The Role of the Disciples in Mark" NTS 23(1976-7) :PP-377-401. .................... The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology, (Cambridge University, Cambridge, 1965)as Divine Man" Jesus and the Historian:

Betz*J. H. D. "Jesus

(ed. ) F. T. Trotter-(Westminster, In Honour of E. C. -Colwell Philadelphia, 1968) pp. 114.;.33. .................................. ....... Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Testament, ....religions! . -. ___. 7 -,_. 1-1. , _, _, _*_, _, " -- (Akademie, . Parallelen geschichtliche und__pargnetische Berlin, 1961).

419 Betz., 0. Mark's Christian "The Concept Christology'l Literature of the So-Called Studies 'Divine-Man' in aiid Ear Leiden, in New Testament

(ed. ) D. E. Aune (Brill,

1972) pp. 229-40. Betz., 0. and Grimm., W. Wesen und Wirklichkeit der'Wunder Jesu (Peter Langq Frankfurt am Main, 1977)-

Betz. * 0. "Jesu Black.,

heiliger

Krieg"

M. An Aramaic Mroach (Clarendon Oxford, 1967) 9 "The Messiah in the Testament of Levi xviii"

PP-117-37to the Gospels . and Acts Exp. T 60

Strasbourgj

Nov. T 20958)

(1948-9) pp-321-2,
Blau., L. Das altj'Udiische Zauberwesen (TrUbner,

1898).
Bligh, JO "The Gerasene Demoniac the Resurrection and j CB 310969) pp-383-90Christ" 2M Oo'Christus Exorcista: (Kohlhammer, DUmonismus und Taufe -Stuttgartj 1972)Beitrag zur im Neuen Testament IlDghonenfurcht Vorgeschichte Stuttgart-Mainz, Das Neue Testament (Katholisches Bonner., -...... C. Studies

of

BUcher.,

und DYmonenabwehr. Ein der christlichen 1970). und die d9monischen Taufe

(Kohlhammer*

MUchte

Bibelwerk, in Magical

Stuttgart, Amulets

1972). Chief Press, GraecoAnn Arbor, 1950).

Egyptian

(University

of Michigan

"The Technique

----)'Traces

HTR 360943) PP-39-49. of Exorcism" Technique in the Miracles" of Thaumaturgic PP-171-81. of Departing Demons" HTR 370944) PP-334-6.

200927) "The Violende

Bornk&mm., G. Barth., G. and Held., H. J. Tradition and ...................... Interpretation in Matthew (19609 ET, SCM, London, 1963). Bouss6t., W. and Gressmann., H. Die Religion des Judentums ............................. (Mohr, Tilbingen, Zeitalter im spffthellenistischen 1966). Braude., W,G. Pesikta Rabbati (Yale University, New Haven,

1968).

42o
Breasted., JH, The Edwin Smith University, Records Surgical 1930). Documents Vol. III 1906). Papyrus 2 Vols. (Chicago Ancient Chicago,

of Egypt:

Historical Chicago,

(University

of Chicagog

Brown.,

P. "The Rise

Antiquityll The World*of 1971). Brox. j. Jesus"

of the Holy and Function 80-101. JRS 610971) pp. Iate'Anti4uity

Man in Late

(Thames & Hudson,

London

N. 'Mas Messianische

Selbstverstffndnis Christus*(ed. Basel,

des Historischen ) K. Schuhert

in Vom Messias'zum Wien, Freiburg, Egyptian London, Magic

(Herder, Bryan;,

1964) pp. 165-201The Papyrus Ebers

C. P. Ancient Bles,

Medicine: 1930).

(Geoffrey Budge;,

E. A. T, Egyptian

(Kegan Paull

London,

1899)

p. 2o6. Bultmann.,. R. The History (1921,19319 Burger., liche 1970). C. Jesus

fAe of Synoptic

Tradition 1963).

ET, Blackwell, als Dav;dssohn:

Oxford, Eine

Traditionsgeschicht& Ruprecht, GUttingen,

Untersuchung

(Vandenhoeck

Burkill.,

T. A. "Concerning (1957) PP-159-66.

Mk-5: 7 and 5: 18-201, St. Th 11

"The Historical Syrophoenician

Development of the Story of the Woman(Mark vii: 24-31)" Nov. T 90967)

pp. 161-77"Mark 3: 7-12 and the Alleged Dualism in the Evangelist's Miracle Material" JBL 870968) pp. 409-17-

Mysterious Revelation (Cornell University, 1963).

"The Syrophoenician P-4-31i, ZNW570966)
Busse.,. Bibelwerk, Stuttgart,

New York,

Woman: Mark 7. Congruence of -The PP-23-37.

Jesus (Katholisches 1977)-

U. -Die Wunder des Propheten

Cadbury.,

H. J.

421
The Style and Liter Studies VI Method of Luke (1920) (Kraus Reprint,

Harvard New Yorkt Calvert.

Theological 1969).

D. G. A. "An Examination , the Authentic -Distinguishing

of the Criteria Words of Jesus"

for

NTs 18(1971-2) pp. 209-19.

Carlston., C. E. The Parables Philadelphia, of the Triple 1975). Tradition (Fortress,

"A Positive PP-33-44.

Casey., Cave.,

Criterion

of Authenticity?
Vol-59

" BR 70962)

R. P. "Simon Magus" Beginnings C. H. "The Obedience of Unclean Celsum

PP-151-63. NTS 11

Spirits" (Cambridge

(1964-5) Chadwick.,

PP-93-7Contra 1953). Universityp

H. Origen: Cambridge,

Charles.,

R. H. The Apocrypha

Old Testament 1913). Charlesworth. (Scholars Clarks, j JH,

Pseudepigrapha of the and (Clarendong Oxfordl in English 2 Vols.

The Pseudepigrapha Missoula, 1976).

Modern Research and Egypt (Thames &

Press,

R. T. Myth and Symbol in Ancient London, 1959). Work Ascribed L. "An Apocryphal

Hudson, Cohn.,

to Philo

of

Alexandria" Colson.,

JQR 100898)

pp. 277-332.

F. H. and Whitaker., G. H. Philo Loeb Classical (Heinemann, London, 1929-62). Library 10 Vols. J. A. "The Verb Therapeu 431-4. pp. of in Matthew's Gospel" -,JBL 970978)

Comber.

Conybeare.

C. -Philostratus: Apollonius The Life of 9-F. (Heinemann, Tyana Loeb Classical Library 2 Vols. London, 1948). of Solomon" JQR 11(1898) pp. 1-45. 30(1968)

"'Me Testament Craghan., J. F.

"The Gerasene Demoniac"'CBQ '

PP-522-36.

4;,p Cranfield., G.E. B. "St. Mark 9: 14-2911SJT 3(1950) PP-57-67Cumont., F. LIEgypt6 des Astrologues (La Foundation Egyptologique Reine Elizabeth, Bruxelless 1937)Da2man., G. The Words of Jesus (1898, ET, TO Clark, Edinburgh, 1902). Danker., F. W."The Demonic Secret in Mark: A Reexamin tion (15,34),, 61(1970) Cry Dereliction ZNW the of -of 48-69. pp.
Daube., D. The New Testament Press, London, and Rabbinic 1956). PP-45-59ET, Hodder Judaism (Athlone

39(1938) in 27" Ito Mark 1.22 JTS and rfova-tk Deissmann., A. Light from the Ancient East (1909, & Stoughton, Dellihg., London, 1910). Wundertexte 2., v8llig G. (ed. ) Antike

neu

Eestalt_d_te Auflage , bearbeiteten Hefts Delling., G. "Josephur.

des vorher von Paul Fiebig (de Gruyter, Berlin, 1960)9' und das-Wunderbarell Nov. T 2(1957)

pp, 291-309. Denis., A-M. Introduction (Brfll, Aux Pseudepigraphes Leiden, in 1970)The SyroGrecs D'Ancien

Testament Derrett.,

J. D. M; "'Law

the New Testament:

Phoenician

Woman and the Centurion pp. 161-86.

of Capernaum" An Inquest Studia Biblicat,

No4. T 150973) "Legend into

&nd Event:

The Gerasene Demoniac: Projection"

and Liturgical 1978: 11 pp. 63-73. History

Dibelius., Dieterich.,

*M. From Tradition A. Abraxas;

to Gospell(1933,

ET, James CL&rke, des

London, 1971). zur religionsgeschichte _studien (Teubner, Leipzig, 1891). spfften alterti3m ....... * ................... Med. ) Witch6raft, Douglas; Confession and Accusations
1 (Tavistock, 'Londong 1970).

DozentO, P. P. "The Temptation NTS 20(1973-4)*pp. 115-27.

Stories

and Their

Intention"

423 Drewes.,
Duling.

B. F. "The Composition
PP-92-101D. C. "The Promises Christianity

8-911 SEAJT 12 Matthew of

and their Entrance Hypothesis"

(1971) 9 into

to David

Nailing PP-55-77-

Down a Likely

NTS 20(1973-4)

IlSolom6n, Exorcism, (1975) PP-235-52"The Therapeutic Christological Dunn.,

68 the David" Son HTR of and

An Element in Matthew's PP-392-41o. 1980).

Son of David: Apologetic"

NTS 24(1977-8)

J, D, G, Cjistolog Jeddsandthe ItSpirit-and-Fire . !'Spirit. PP-36-40. Spirit

. in I the . Making I (SCM, London, (SCM, London, lT6v, T 1975)o 14(1972) ppo8l-92.

Baptism"

and Kingdom" Exp; T-'82(1970-1)o

. Dunn., * J. D. G. and Twelftree., Exorcism pp. 210-25. Dupont-Sommer., -...,., -ET9 ItExorcismes Oxford, in

G. Ho 'Temon-Possession 94(1980)

and

the New Testament"'Churchman

A. The Essene Writings Blackwell, 6t Gu6risons 1961).

From Qumran (1959,

Dans les Ecrits

de QoumrAnII

YZ(PuPP0,7099) Th6 Jewish Sect

pp. 246-61.

of Qumran and the Essenes: New Studies (1953, ScroUs Dead Sea ET, VaUentine, the on

Mitche3-19 London, 1954). Ebbell. 9 B.. The Papyrus Ebers: The Greatest Egyptian Medical Document (Ejna Munksgaard, Copenhagen & Oxford University Edelstein., Press, London, 1937). Relation to Religion L. IfGreek Medicine in its

and MagicIf-BHM 50937) pp-201-46. Edwards., I. E. S. 'Hieratic Papyri in the British Museum 4th Series 2 Vols. (British Museum, London, 1960). Eitrem., S. and Amundsen*, L. (eds. ) Papyri Osloenses Vol. I Magical Papyri (Norske Videnskaps. -Akademij Oslo, 1925). S. Some Notes in the Demonology in the New Testament (Brogger, Oslo, 1950).

Eitrem.,

424 Elliott.,
Ellis.,

J*Ko "The Synoptic

'A Cautionary [E. "The Composition

Problem and the Laws of

Note" Exp. T 8a(1971) pp. 148-52o of Luke 9 and the Sources Issues Studies in Biblical and in Honour of Merrill (Eerdmanns, Grand Rapidsj (Soncino

Tradition:

of its*Christology" Patristic

Current

Interpretation:

C. Tenney, (ed. ) GoFo Hawthorne 1975) pp. 121-7; Epstein., *Wed. ) The Babylonian Press, Erman., London, 1935-52).

Talmud 34 Vols.

A. ItDie Bentreschstele"

ZAS 210883) Religion (1904,

pp. 54-60o ET, Constable,

Handbook EUptian of ,A London, 1907)Fascher., E. Jesus

und der Satant

Eine

Studie

Auslegung 1949). Fiebig.,

der Versuchungsgeghichte IN Wundergeschichten

zur (Niemeyer,

Halle,

P. W.Jo Artike

zum Studium und Weber,

der

Wunder des Neuen Testamentes Bonn, 1911),

(Marcus

, JUdische Wundergeschichten (Mohr, TtIbingen, Z6italters ..., Rabbinische-Wundergdschichten , Zeitalters (Marcus "Neues zu den rabbinischen

des neutestamentlichen 1911). des neutestamentlichen Bonn, *1911). ZNW 35

und Weber,

Wundergeschichtent?

(1936) pp-308-9. -- ., -

AX44 "Zu. &.-n Wundern der Apostelgeschichtell Archiv ,0,*;, ftir neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte 2 und Kulturkunde (1926) PP-157f. L*R. "Can this be the Son of David? " Jesus and the Histotian: Colwell in Honor of Ernest Cadman (ed. ) F. T. Trotter (Westminster, Philadelphia, .............. Publications 1977). (Pqifical Written

Fisher.,

1968) pp; 82-97. .......................... Fitzmyer. -, J. A. The Dead Sea Scrolls Tools. for'Study-(Scholars, The Genesis , Biblical

Major

and,

Missoula,

............Cave I Apocibyphon of Qumran Rome, 1971)-

Institute,

425 Flusser., D. uHealing

F. J. Part

Through the Laying-on

70957) and Lake., I: Vol. Iq pp-107f Weds.

of Hands in a
of

Dead Sea Scroll"ZJ Foakes--Jackson., Christianity (Macmillan, Fohret., Frazer.,

) The Beginnings

The Acts

of the Apostles ZAW 370966) pp. 25-47.

London,

1920, Vols. IV and V, 1933)A StILdZ in Magic and (Macmillan, London, 1955)BASOR 1450957)

G. "Prophetie

und Magiell 12 Vols.

J. Ge- The Golden Bough; 3rd ed.

Religion Freedman.,

D. N. "The Prayer

of Nabon: idustt of Miracle

PP-31-2. Fridrichsen., A. The Problem in Primitive 1972). (1925, ET, Augsbur&*,. Minneapolisg '-. j -. -. --Christianity "The Conflict'of Jesus with the Unclean Spirits" Theology Fuchs., Fuller., 220931) pp. 122-35. (Mohr, Tat und TtIbingenj

E. Jesu, -'Wort RZ., Interpreting

1971)o

the Miracles'(SCM,. of Jesus

Londong 1963). (SCM, Londoii, 1954).

The Mission

and Achievement

The Foundations London, 1969).

of New Testament Christian

Christology

(Fontana,

Funk. -, R. W. (ed. ) Early (Society Gardiner., ......... AH. of Biblical Hieratic 2 Vols.

Stories

Semeia 11 1978). Museum 1935).

Literature, Papyri (British

Montana,

in the British

3rd Series 'Trofessional

Museum, London, Egypt"

Magic ians

in Ancient

PSBA 390917)

PP-31-44.
Gartner., R. B. "The Person PP-32-43, (.1.9_6_2_)_ pp...24.7. -55 _1_8. Statistics Electrohicae'Word TZ (Scholars Theurgic Press, Powers: Missoula, Parallels of Jesus and the Kingdom of God" Th-T 27(1970) Gaston.

L* "'Beeliebull?

Horae Svno-pticae Synoptic Geller., M. J. Gospels "Jesus'

of the 1973). in the pp. 141-55-

Talmud*and'Incafitation Georgi., D. "The*Records

BowlsIf

JJS*28(1977)

Accounts

Ancient Light'of of Jesus-izi*the ......... ................ Vol. II Revered Proceedings Men" SBL 1972 of

(ed. ) Lane C. McGaughty-PP-527-42. Gerhai-dssono, Matthew Be The Mighty (Gleerup, Lund, Acts of Jesus According to

1979)-

426
Ghalioungui., Egypt Gibbs. P. Magic and Medical Science in Ancient (Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1963)-

M; "'rPurpose and Pattern Use of the J. in Matthew's 9 Title 'Son of David"? NTS 100963-4) pp*446-64. X. Eusebii P.: Evange icae Praeparationis Gifford. E mphili: t 4 Vols. (Oxford Universityl Oxford, 1903)Ginzberg., Le'The Legends of the Jews 7 VolsSociety of Americaq in (The Jewish 1909-38).

1-johr;

Publication Glasswell., Miracles Gollancz., 1912). Goodenough., 13 Vols-

Philadelphia,

M, E* "The Use of Miracles pp. 149-62. H. The Book of Protection EeRo Jewish (Pantheon Symbols Books for

the Markan Gospel"

(Henry

Frowde,

London,.

in the Greco-Roman Period the Bollingen Foundation,

New York, -1953-68)0' Goodwin., G*W* Fragment Macmillan, of a Graeco-Egyptian Cambridgel 1852). Work Upon Magic (Deighton; Grant.,

R. M. Miracle

and Natural Thought 1952)-

Law in Graeco-Roman (North-Holland Publishing

and Early Christian . Company, Amsterdam,

Apologist" "Quadratus, The First Christian .............. ......... Studies in Early Christian to Arthur V88rbus A Tribute ----------------------------in the Primarily Literature and its Environment, (The Lutheran School of Syrian East. (ed. ) R*H. Fischer Theology Grayston., at Chicago, 1977) pp-177-83. the New Testament" Ep. R 20975)

K. ITExorcism. in

pp. 90-4. The Significance ---'? -Testament" of the Word Hand in Bibliques the New en hommage au

M41E&2s

R. P. B6da-Rigaux ed. -A. Descamps and A. de Halleux (Duculot, Gembloux, 1970) pp. 479-87. Grelot., P. La Priere de Nabonide (4 Q Or Nab) RQ 90978)

.......... .... ... F, and Thompson. H. The Demotic . Magical . Papyrus Griffith., 9 ...................... . London Londong 1904-9). of and Leiden 3 Vols- (Grevel,

483-95. pp.

427 W. Der Vegriff Grundman-n. 2

lichen cedankenwelt

der kraft'inder
(Kohlhammerq

neutestament1932).

Stuttgart,

Gutwenger., Sicht"
Hadas.,

E. "Die Machterweise Jesu in Formeschichtlicher ZKT, 89(1967) PP-176-90.

M. Heroes in Antiquity of Jesus London, and Gods: Spiritual (Harper and Row, New York, (19639 ET, in Christology (1963, 1965)-

M. -and Smith.,

Biographies

Hahn. ', F. The Titles Lutterworth, Mi ss ion 1965)Ham? "erton.;. Kelly. in

1969). ET, SCM, London,

the New Testament

ReG. "A Note on Matthew 9 Luke 11: 20" NTS 110964-5) pp. 167-9A. M. Lucian Loeb Classical Library (Heineman, Londong 1913-67)-

12: 28 pare 8 Vols.

Harmon.,

Harriiigton., Liber

D. J. The Biblical Antiquitatum'Biblicarum"

Text, of Pseudo-Philo's CBQ 330971) PP-1-17'Liber P-W3-14. in the

"The Original Antiquitatum Hawkin., D. J.

Language of Pse-ado-Philds HTR 630970) Biblicarum"I

"The Incompreh6nsion JBL 910972)

Marcan*Redaction't Hay.,.

Disciples of-the 491-500. pp.

L. S. The Son-of-G6d Christol6gy pp. io6-i4.

in Mark JBR 320964)

Heil.,

J. P, "Significant in*Matthew"

Aspects

of the Healing

Miracles

CBQ 410979)

pp. 274-87Aspects of the ... ....... ... Period the pre-Christian in their Encounter Period

Hengel.,

M. Jewt,

Greeks. and*Barbarians: of Judaism7in 1980). Studies

Hellenitation (1976, Judaism Palestine _, .... (1973,

ET9 SCM, London, and Hellenism: during ET, SCM, London,

In

the Early

Hellenistic

1974). and the of Christology (1975, ET, Religion -

The Son of God: The Origins History of Jewish-Hellenistic

SCM, London, * 1976)'o Hennecke.,

............ . Schneemelcher., W. Testament-Apocrypha New -'E. and (1959 and 1964, ET, SCM, London, 1973 and 1974). 2 Vols.

Herrmann., L, "Les premiers exorcismes juifs

Revue de l'Universite Hiers., de Bruxelles

428 et jud4o-chretiens"
PP-305-08.

70954-5)

R. Ho Th6 Kingdom of God in the Synoptic Tradition (Florida University Press, Gainesville, 1970)I'Satan, Demons, and the Kingdom of God" SJT 270974) of Philo Studies, 1974-197511

PP-35-47. Hilgert., E. "A Bibliography St., Pii Hinnells., 4(1976-7)

PP-79-85. Saviour Imagery and its

J. R* "Zoroastrianism

Influence

oft the New Testament"

Numdn 16(1969)

pp. 161-85.
Holladay., C. R. Theios Press, Aner in Hellenistic Missoula, Judaism 1977). the New Evans (Scholars Hooker.,

M. and Hickling. Essays

Testament?

9 in Honour

. C. (eds. ) What About of Christopher

(SCM, London,

1975).

Hopfndr., To Griechisch.;. Agyptischer Offenbarungszauber 2 Vols. (Hassell Leipzig, 1921 and 1924). Hull., -'J*M. Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition (SCMI London, 1974).
Hultgten., A. J. Jesus and His Conflict Adversaries Stories in The Form and the Synoptic 1979). pp. 127-34. Function'of'the Tradition Hunt.,

(Augsburg,

Minneapolis,

A. S. "A Greek Crypbgram" "An Incantation in

PBA 150929)

the Ashmolean Museum" JEA 150929)

PP-155-7. "The Warren Magical Papyrus" in Studies Presented to F. Ll. dr*iff, ith. (Egypt Exploration Society, London, 1932) pp. 233-40. Huntress., - E. "Son of God' Era" in Jewish Writings PP-117-23LZ 15(1959) Prior to the Christian Huppenbauer., JBL 54(1935) in

H. W. "Belidl

den QumranteVten't

81 pp. -9.
Iersel., B. M. F. van 'Der Sohn' in Den Synoptischen (Brill, Leiden, 1964). jesumorten Ncv; T (SuPP-3)

The'Apocryphal James., MORO Oxford,

Jastrow., 'M.

429 New Testament (Clarendon Press,

of Philo of Babylonia (SPCK, Londong 1917). and Assyria.

1924).
The Religion

The Biblical'Antiquities (Ginn

& Co, Boston,

1898).

W.A' The Healing Gods-of Ancient Civilizations Jayne-,Univeresity Books Inc., New Yorkj 1962). Jeremias., J. Jerusalem 1969). Theology Vol. I The Proclamation 1971)(1970, ET9 SCM, London, in the Testaments pp. 182-235. of the Twelve Patriarchs: 1975). and the New , 1972)of'the of Jesus in the Time of Jesus (1967, ET9

SCM, London, New Testament The . Parables

(19719 ET, SCM, London, of Jesus

JongeO, M. de "Christian Twelve Patriarchs" "Recent Studies

Influence

Nov. T 40960) on the Testaments pp. 77-96.

Patriarchs" Studies Text

SEA 360971) on-the Testaments

and Interpretation

of the Twelve (Brill, Leiden,

I'The Testaments Testament" Jongeling., (Brill, Kallas"O, J. Met

of the Trelve Patriarchs pp. 546-56. Texts Aramaic - 1976). of the Synoptic (Westminster,

SE 10959) al)

From Qumran Vol. I

' Miden,

The Significance 1961).

Miracles

(SPCK, London,

Jesus and the Power of Satan Philadelphia, KUsemann., E. Essas 1968). -

on'New Testament

Themes (1960,

ET,

SCM, London,

1964).

28(1979) Die Heilung der Reformatio 7-18. Besessenen" pp. t! Keck.; -L. E-* "Mark, 3: 7-12 and Mark's Christology1t JBL-84(1965) pp-;341-58. Kee., HOC. "Satang Magic, and Salvation in the Testament of Jobtf SBL 1974 Seminar Papers Vol. I (ed. ) GO McRae (SBL, -Cbmbridge, Mass. -, 1974) PP-53; -76. f? Thb Terminology of Mark's Fkorcism Stories" (19674) pp. 232-46. NTS 14

430 Keller.,
Kenyon.,

E. and M-L.. Miracles

F. G* Greek Papyri in

in Dispute:
1969). the British 1893).

A Continuing
Museum Vol. I

Debate, (1968,

ET, SCM, London,

(British Kertelge.,

Museum, London,

K. Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium: Untersuchung Msel,

Eine

rdactinsgeschichtliche

.... King.,

MUnchen, 1970). I'Die Wunder Jesu in der Neueren Exegesell Th-B 50976) pp-71-105.
L. W. Babylonian Magic and SorcerZ Structure, (Luzac, London, *Kingdom 1896).

Kingsbury.,

J. D. Matthew: 1976).

Christoiogy,

(SPCK, London,

"Observations on the 'Miracle Chapters' of Matthew 8-91, CBQ400978) PP-559-73"The title in Matthew's Gospel" At 940975) 'Kyrios' pp. 246-55 Kirchschlffger., pp-135-53.
Klein., G, 'Mer Synkretismil Apg 19 11-20" als theologisches ZTK 64(1967) PP-5o-6o. Problem:

W. "Exorzismus

in Qumran? " Kairos

180976)

Knibb.,

M.A. The EthibpiC*Book (Clarendon Press, Oxford,

of'Enoch 1978).

2 Vols.

Knox., -W.L. "Jewish Liturgical pp. 191-203a

Koch., D. A. Die BedeutuAg Cristologie Berlin,

Exorcismt' HTR 310938)

fUr die

der Wundererzffhlungen

des'Markusevangeliums 1975).

(de Gruyter,

New York,

Kraeling.,
Kuhn.,

C.H. "Was Jesus accused of Necromancy?" JBL 59 (1940) pp. 147-57H. WO Altere Sammlungen im, Markusevangelium G8ttingen, 1971)(Vandenhoeck

& Ruprecht,

KUmmel., W.G. Promise

The Eschatological and Fulfilment: Message of Jesus (1956, ET, SCM, Lonson, 1969)9 P. IIL6 Poss4dS de Ge'rasalt NRT 90(1968) PP-581-97-

Lamarche.,

431
Langdon., S. "An Incantation for Expelling Demons from a House" ZA 2(1925), Langton. pp. 209-14-. A Study of Jewish

E. Demonology: Essentials of t Doctrine Its Origin and Christian (Epworth, London, 1949). Spirits

and Development 1942). in 'The Assumption

Good and Evil Lattey.,

(SPCK, London, Expectations pp. 9-21.

C. "The Messianic

4(1942) Moses"? CBQ of Lauterbach.

J; Z. * "Jesus iji the- Talmud" in his kainic I 1 ) pp. 473-. 570Essays (KTA. V, -New York, 1973,1951 R. "Dominical. Authority Healing" Ex. 65(1953-4) for the Ministry of

Leaney.,

PP. 121-3.

Leivestad.,

the Conqueror: Ideas of Conflict R. Christ .......... (SPCK, in Victory the New Testament London, 1954). and "Christ and Unclean Spirits" Theology 23(1931) antique 3 Vols. de llancien (G6uthner,

TjewiSo, E. L.

87-8. pp. Lexa., F. La magie aans 1'Egy pte empire Paris, Lindars., jusqu'A 1925); 1'Lfpoque -

copte

S. S. (eds. ) Christ Spirit and 9 in the New Testament (Cambridge University# B. and'Smalley. 1973)-

Cambridge,

(SPCK, Ling., -, T. The Significance London, 1961). Satan of Lohse., 'E. "Miracles in the Fourth Gospel" WANT pp. 64-75. (Brill, Loos., H. van der The Miracles Leiden, Jesus 1965)of McArthur., H. Wed. ) In Search 1970). 'Confessions' of Jesus" 1951). JBL 510932) of the Historical Jesus (SPCK, *Lbndon, McCasland7.,

S. V. "The Demonic PP-33-6.

JR 240944) By the Finger "Portents

(Macmillan, God of in

New York,

in Josephus-and

the Gospels"

pp-323-35.
"Religious Environmental J*T. McNeill, Healing in First Century Palestine" History (edsQ) Factors in'Christian

M. Spinka

and H. R. Willoughby'

(University

of Chicagor

Chicago,

1939) pp. 18-34.

432 McCasland., S. V. "Signs and Wonders" JBL 76(1957) pp. 149-52. McCown., C.C. "The-Christian Traditi6n*bLs to-the Magical Wisdomof-Solomon" JPOS20922) pp. 1-24. "The Ephesia Gr ta in Popular Belief" TPAPA 54 (1923) pp. 128-4o. .... .............. ... (Hinrich, Tdstament Solomon Leipzigq 1922)e of The McEleney.9 N. J. "Authenticating Criteria'and Mark 7: 1.;. 2311 340972) pp-431-60. I" VT 19 Ma. cintbsh,, -A. A. 'IIA Consideration of Hebrew'111 (1969) pp-471-9E. C.Be "Beelzebul" Nov,T 200978) pp. 156-60. MacRae., G. I'Mir&cld'in The Afttiquities-of Josephus" Miraclea PP-127-47-' Martin., A. D. "The Loss of the Godarene Swine" Exp.T 25 (1913-4) PP-38o-1. Maclaurin., Mastin., B. A. "Scaeva the Chief Priest" JTS 270976) pp. 40512. ... ........... I .... ....... .... ..... Mead., G.R.S. Apollonius Tyana: The Philosopherof . Reformer'of'the First'Cdntj . (University AD Books, ; ry New York, '1966). Metzger., --B.M. "Namesfor the Nameless in the New Tesiainent. -A Study in the Growth of Christian Tradition" Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten (eds. ) P. -Granfield and J. A. Jungmann(Aschendorff, MtInster, Westfalen, 1970) Vol-I PP-79-99. "A Magical Amulet for Curing Fever" Historic and Literary Studies: Pagan', Jewish, and Christian (ed. ) B. Mi, Metzger (Brilli Lei4enj 1968) pp. 104-10. "St Paul and the Magicians" PSB 380944) pp. 27-3o. Meyer;, - P.W. "The Problem of the mebsiahic self-consciousness 40961) T Jesust"Nov. pp. 122-38. of
Milik., J. T. "_#Priere d6 Nab6nidelet .cycle*dd'Daniel. RB 630956) pp-407-15. d1un Fragments. Arameens de Qumran 4t, Autres 4crits

ll.,Z,z r,;. ol

Miyoshi.

M. Der Anfang Lk. 9i51-10: des Reiseberichts l (Biblical Institute, Rome, 1974).

Montefiore.,

C*J. G. and Loeweq, H. A Rabbinic Anthology: Selected'and Arranged With Comments and Introductions (Macmillan, London, 1938). C. J. G* Rabbinic London, Literature and Gospel Teahijs from Nippur 1913). (Macmillan,

Montefiore.,

1930).

Montgomery.

Ac Incantation J. A. ALw Texts , (The University Museum, Philadelphia, from Palestine"

"Some--Early Amulets pp. 272-81. Moore.,

JAOS 310911)

G. F. Judaism in the First the*Age

Centuries (Harvard

of the Christian University,

Era,

of Tannaim 3 Vols. Mass., Religion (1960,

. Cambridge, Morenz., Moule, S. Eg7ptian 1973).

1948-5o). ET, Methuen, Londong

(ed, ) Miracles. Cambridge Studies in their C, F, D, q (MOwbraysl Philosophy History London, 1965)and (William Moultonw, J. H. Early Zoroastrianism, and Norgate, London, 1913). "The IranianPP-257-60. Mussner., Nestld,, F. The Miracles (University of Notre E, "JildischeParallelen of Jesus: Dame, An Introduction Notre Dame, 1968). Background of Tolbit" Exp. T (1899-90)

zu neutestamentlichen Wundergesehichten" ZNW 80907) pp. 239-40. . ... . ... . ...... ... Neusner., J, From Politics The Emergence of to-Piety: Pharisaic N. J. Prentice Judaism (Englewood Cliffs, 1972), The Rabbinic 3 Vols. (Brill, Traditions Leiden, about the Plfarisees 1971). Current Events in 401-18. pp. Laying on of Hands" Before

Hall,

70

"New Problems, Rabbinic

New Solutions: SR 80979)

Studies"

New., S. "The Name, BAptism; Bejinins, Vol-5

and"the pp. 121-40.

434
Nilsson., M. P. Die Religion Lunc JEA 150929) of the-Old pp. 219-35Testament in den griechischen Zauberpapyri (Gleerup, Nock.

A, D. "Greek Magical Papyri" 9 Oesterley;, W. O. E. "The Demonology Illustrated by-Ps. En -9,111.

1,6, -18(1907)

PP-132-51-

..... ... and ... Other .... Possession T. K. Demoniacal 9 (1921, ET Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, London, 1930)Ostere-, R*E. Jr. A Historical Commetary'on the*Missionary' ........... Success*Stori6s in Acts 19: 11-40 (Ph. D Thesis, Oesterreich.

Princeton Theological Seminary, 1974).

Perels,, 0, Die4underUberlieferung . der . Synoptiker in ifiem*'Veii. Ultn3. s'tur'WortUberlieferunE . Stuttgart, -Berlin, 1934). (Kohlhammer,

Perrin.,

... of ........ ........ Kingdom N. The God in the Teaching.......... of Jesus (SCMi London, 1963).
Der Besessene von Gerasa (Katholisches Bibelwerk,

Peschtbi-R.

Stuttgdrtl'1972).

.......... ....... Jesu ureigene Tatem? Ein ... Beitrag Wunderfrage zur (Herder, Freiburg, Vienna', 1970),
"The Markan Version Demoniac" ER 230971) of th ,e pp. 349-76. Healing of the Gerasene.

tTin vollmUchtigen Wikens Jesu in Kapharnahum (Mk. 1: 21-349 35-39),, BL 90968).

Peterson., E. EIS THEOS. --Epigraphisdhe, formgeschichtliche und religi6nsgeschichtliche (Vandenhoeck, & Ruprechtl Peterson., P*M* Andrew, Untersuchungen GUttingen 1 Simon Peter, 1926). His History Leiden, 1958).

Brother-of

and His Legends Nov-.T Petzke., G. ItDie historisch6 d&rgestellt

(Supp. 1) (Brill, Frage

nach den Wundertaten des Exorzismus pp. 18o-2o4. von Tyana und 1970),
Lk

Jesu,

am Beispiel Uber Apol-Ionius (Brill,

Mark. IX

14-29 par. " NTS 22(1975-6) Die Traditioneft , Ploeg.,

das Neue Testament

Leiden,

J-, P. M, van der llTn petit- r eau de pa=es a) (11 QpAp l' Tradition apocryphes und Glaube pp. 128-40.

435 Pokorny., P, "The Temptation Stories

NTS 20(1973-4) PP-115-27--a

and Their Intention" Stories"

Polhill.,

J, B, "Perspectives pp-389-99.
Ke "Die

on the Miracle

RE 740977)
Preisendanz.,

griechischen

und lateinischen

Zaubextoreln" AP 110935)

PP-153-64.

"Neue griechische-Zauberpapyrill Cd1E 260951) Pp-405-9. (ed. ) Papyri'Graecae Magicae: .Die kriechischen Zauberpapyri 3 Vols. (Teubner, Leipzig and. Berlin, 19289 1931,1942).
"Zur Uberlieferungsgeschichte der SpUtantiken Festgabe zum Leipzigl Magie" Aus Des Welt Des Buches: 70 Gebursta#

(Harrassowitz, Leyh Georg von

1950) PP-223-40. Reif., S, Ce "A Note on-13IJ 11VT 210971) Reiner,, E, "gurpu: A Colledtion Beiheft Incantations"-AO Reisn6r.,

pp. 241-1.

of Sumerian and Akkadian 110958). Papyrus (Hinrichs, Leipzig,

G. A. The Hearst'Medical

1905)Reitzenstdin., (Teubner, Poimandres: R. Hellenistische Leipzig, . Studien 1963)zur Literatur Griechis-Ilg-ytii; (Teubnqr, he'und Leipzig, 1904). New York, Wundererzghlungen_

FrtthchristlichenRichardb.. 1974). J. But Deliver

Us From Evil

(Seabury,,

Exorcism, 1976).
Riga., P. "Signs

Deliverance.

and Healing
The Use of

(Grovel

Nottingham,
in

of Glory: 170963;

1S9meionl

St

John's

Gospel" Rist.,

Interp.

402-24. pp. Isaac, and Jacob: JBL 570938) in Mark A pp. 289-303. (SCM, London,

M. I'Th6 God of Abraham, Liturgical and Magical

Formula" of History

Robinson., 1963).

J. Me The Problem *

"The'Problem of History in Mark, Reconsidered" USQR2-00965) pp-131-47.

436 Rodd., C,S, "Spirit

Rohde., E. Ptyche: Immortality Kegan Paul,

or Finger" Exp. T 72(1960-1) PP-157-8.

The Cult of Souls and Belief in Among-the Greeks (1921, ET, Routledge & London, 1925) "-

Ross.*, J. M. "The Decline of the Devil'? Exp. T 66(1954-5) '58-61. PPe

or Moonstruck? " BT 29(1978) pp. 126-8. D*S. The Method and Message-of Jewish Apocalyptic Russell., (SCM, London, 1964). ITpileptic Saggs. -, H. W', F. The Greatness That Was Babylon. A Survey . . Civilization of the Tigris-Euphrates of the'Acient Valle
Sahlin.,

(Sidgwick
des

& Jackson,

London, 1966).
Besessenen 11St. Th 17(1963)

H. trDie Perikope

vom gerasenischen

und der-Plan PP-159-72. Samain., les

Markusevangelium

de magie contre le Christ J. I'Llaccusation 2vaftgiles" ETL 15(1938) pp. 449-go.

dan

Santo., Schenk.

de C. "The-Assumption
W. "Tradition

Gospel".
9 Perikope j

of Moses and the Christian 16(1962) pp. 305-10.

und Rddaktion in der EpileptikerPP-76-94.

Mk 9,14-2911 ZNW 63(1972)

Schenke,

L, Die WundererzHhlungdn

des Markus-evaneliums

(Katholisches Schill6.,

Bibelwerkj

Stuttgart,

1974). Ein Jesus

G. Die Urchristliche

Wundertradition:

Beitrag zur Frage nach dem irOdischen (Calwer, Stuttgart, 1967)Schindler.

Schlatter.,

in the Synoptic '! C. Demonic Possession J. I Gospels" LCQ-1(, 1928). Pp-385-414.

A. 1! Das'Wunddr dhristlicher in der Synagoge-At Beitrffge Theologie 16(51-1912) Auslegung FUrderung zur pp. 49-86.

Schmithals.,

W. Wunder und Glaube.

Eine

von

Markus 4,35-6,6a 1970).

Schreckenberg., (Brill,

(Neukirchen-Verlag,

Neukirchen-Vluyng
Josephus

H. Bibliographie Leiden, 1968).

zu Flavius

437
Schultz., We "Ephesia Grammata" Philologus 68(1909) pp., 210-28.

SchUrer.,

....

E. The History of the Jewish People in the Time (TO Christ Clark, Edinburgh, Vol. 1,19739 Vol-Ut of 1978).
the Jewish 1972). People in the Time'of Christ (Schocken, New York,

The Literature-of

Schwabi, M. Le'Tlmd'de 1891-89).

Schweitzer., (1906, Schweizer.,

Mrusalem

(Maisonneuvel*Paris,

'A. The Quest of the Historical ET, Black, London, 1910). Ee "Anmerkungen zur Theologie

Jesus

Neotestamefitica Leiden,

et Patristica

des Markus" Nov-7 5, *pp, (Brill,

1962) pp. 35-46.

'odIs... "Towards a Christology " Mark? G Christ of and His ) People Studies in Honour of Nils Alstrup'Dahl(eds. Jacob Jervell and Wayne-A. Meeks (Universitetsforlaget, of Jesus" Oslov 1977) PP-29-42. Shae.,- G. S. "The Question on the Authority Nov. T. 16(1974) pp. 1-29. -

Skehan., P. W. '.11A Fragment of the 'Song of Moses' (Deut-32) From Qumr&nII-BASOR 136(1954)'PP-12-15. Testaments H, D. Patriarchs: the Twelve 'The of 9 (Scholars, Research A Critical'Histar''' Missoula, 1977), of Iy Smalley. i S. S. "Spirit, Kingdom.,and Prayer in Luke-Acts" Nov. T-15(1973) PP-59-71Slingerland. Smith-i, M Jesus the Magician Parties (Gollancz, and Politics Testament (Columbia Universityp London, 1971)"Prolegomena. to Discussion a , Man, the Gospels and Jesus" of Aretalogies, JBL 90(1971) Divine PP-174-99.

Palestinian

London, 1978). ... ...... Shaped that the .. Old New York &

Somerville.,

J. E. "The Gadarene-Demoniaclt Exp. T 25(1913-4)

pp-550-1

438
Stantono , Starobinski. G. N. "On the Christology of Qtv CSNT pp. 27-42. Analysis 5: Mark 1-2011 in Literary J; Essay -IIAn -, PP-377-97in Mark 1: 2211 "The-meaning of Authority Methodology

ER 23(1971) Starr., J.

HTR'23(1930) Steizi.

pp-302-5for Ascertaining a History" Nov. T 13(1971) Inv6stigation pp. 181-98. of a

9 Markan Redaction "The

R. H; "The Proper

'Redaktionsgeschichtlicht

Markail Seam (mc. 1.21f. Stewart.,

)" ZNW 61(1970)

pp-70-949

J. S. "On a Neglected Emphasis Theol(5gy" SJT 4(1941) pp. 292-301. H. L. -Introduction (19209 ET, Jewish Philadelphia, Publication ,

in New Testament

Strack.,

to the Talmud and Midrash Society of America, nach den Leipzig, 1910).

1931).

Jesus die Httretiker 92testen jtldischen

, Strack.,

und die Christen Angaben, (Hinrichs,

H. L. ufid Billerbeck.

Testament

PO-Kommentar z-um Neuen 9 6 Sanden Talmud Midrasch und aus

(Beck, MUnchenj 1922-61). Strugn611.1 J; "Flovius XVIII, Antiquities More Psalm Suhl., Taylor., Josephus and the Essenes: 18-221, JBL 770958) pp. 10.6-15-

of' tDavidIIICBQ*27(1965) pp. 207-16. A. IrDer Dxvidssohn im Matthgus-Evangelium" PP-57-81. B, E, "Acts 19: 14!1 Exp. T 57(1945-6)

ZNW590968)

p. 2M. Taylor., V. "The Original-Order of Q'I New Testament Essays: Studies'in Memory of T. W. Manson (ed. ) A. J. B. Higgins (Manchester University, Manchester, 1959) pp. 246-69. and the Jews
Loeb Classical 1929-65)Ein Beitrag

Tcherikover., V. Hellenistic Civilization (Atheneiim, New York,. 1977)Thackeray. 9 Library II. St. J. 9 Vols. (et ) Josephus al. -Minemann, , London,

Theissen., zur

G. Urchristliche formgeschichtlichen

Wundergeschichten: Erforschung

der synpotischen 1974).

Evangelien Thompson., 2 Vols.

(Gerd Mohnj GUtersloh, and Evil

R. C. The Devils (Luzac,

Spirits-

of Babyl

-T-ondon, 1903-4).

439 Thompson., R. C. Semitic

(Luzacq

Magic: Its

Origins, and Development

of Nineveh

London,

1908).

2Le Reports and Babylon

of the Magicians and Astrologers (Luzac, London, 1900). 2 Vols. on the Composition Figure as Miracle of

Thompson. *, W.G. I'Reflecti6ns

Mt. 8: 1-9: 341,

330971) PP-365-88. CBQ

Tiede. ', D. L; The Charismatic (Scholars, Worker Missoula, 1972).

Trocm6., E. "Is Turner.,

there a Marcan Christology? " CSNTPP-3-13C. H; "'Markan Usage: Notes Critical'and Exegetical, PP-377-851 26(1925)

on the*Se6ond Gosper iTs 2509aQ 337-46. pp. 12-20l 145-56,225-4o,

Turner.,

N. A Grammar of New Testament Greek Vol. 1V (TO Clark, 'Style' 1976). Edinburgh, Minor Verbal Agreements pp-223-34. of Mt. and Lk. Against

"Me

Mark" SE 10959)

Tysonos J; Bi-'tThe Blindness JBL-8o(1961)

VanderKam.

of the Disciples

in Mark"
in the Book

pp. 261-8.
Studies 1977). DUJ 520960) pp. 97-

C, -Textual Historical and 9'J, (Scholarsq Missoula, of Jubilees 'G. I!Essenes-Therapeutai-Qumran't

Vermes.,

115.
The Dead Sea Scrolls 1975).
The Dead Sea Scrolls:
(Collins,

in English

(Penguin,

Harmondsworth,

Qumran in Pers-; )ective

London, 1977). Jewish Studies (Brill, Leiden, 1975)

Post-Biblical

8-29. pp. "Hanina ben Dosa'? 'JJS PP-51-64. (Collinsl the Jesus Jew -; -VUgtl6.1 A. "Thd Miracles Background" Philadelphia,

230973)

pp-28-50,2-40973)

loondon, 1973)of Jesus Against Their Contemporary

Jesus and His Time (1966. ET, Fortress, 1971)(ed. )H. J. Schultz pp. 96-105.

44o
Walker., W.O. "A Method for on Functional Identifying Redactional Passages in Matthe* and Linguistic Grounds"

CBQ-39(1977) P15-76-93.
Wansbrbugh.; H '."Mark 3: 21 - Was Jesus out of his mind? " . NTS 18(1971-2) PP-23-5"Jesus' Opponents in the Gospel of4 Mark" JBR-34(1966)'pp. 214-22. Weederf.9 T. Je "The Heresy that Necessitated Mark's Gospel" ZNW590968) pp. 145-58. (Fortress, Philadelphia, in Conflict Mark Traditions ,. 1971).
Weinreicho, Oo Antike Heilungswunder. Untersuchungen zum Wunderglauben Giessen,, 1909). der Griechen (TUpelmann, R8mer und

Weberi,, -J. C* Jr.

Wetter.,
-

G.P, 'Der-Sohn Gottes"eine'tLtersuchung't'Iber

und die rendenz des Johannes-ev&ngeliiim

den CharaRter (Vandenhoeck

GottinSen, 111/6). & Ruprecht, ... .... ... ... .. Whiteo, i A. N. S Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Clarendon, Oxford, 1963). Wiedemann., (Grevell Wilkifison.., Ao Religion. London, Jo-IThe of the Ancient 1897)Case of the Bent Woman in Luke 13: 10-17" Boy" Exp. T 79(1967-8) Egyptians

EQ 490977)

ppol95-205o

Epileptic "The the Case of ,

PP-39-42.
William ., (SPCK, New York & Toronto, A. L. Justin Martyr: The Dialogue 1930)With Trypho

Winst6n-0, 'D. --IIThe Iranian ApocryphiL ER 50965-6) Witt*', Isis E. --R. Londonl*1971)-" and'Qumran:

Component in the Bible, A Review of the Evidence" (Thames & Hudson,

.... ...... in the Graeco-Roman World

pp. 183-216.

Wrede., W. "Zur Missiaserkenntnis ZNW--5(1904) pp. 169-77.

der Dffmonen bei Markus"

441
Wundt., WUnsch., M. "Apollonius Wed. 49(1906) Tyana ZWT PP-3og-66. von ) Antike fluchtafdln--(Markus und Weber,, Pergamon (Reimerg Berlin, 1905).

Bonn--.I 912). -Intikes7aubergerlit-aus Yates., Pt. I(1q64)pp. 295-299.

J. E. I'Luke! s. Pneumatology

and Luke 11: 2011 SE II 1963). Gospels"

-,, -The'Spirit-and-the Yates., R. "Jesus and the Demonic in IN Zeitl='-*,, 44(1977) pp-39-57. S "Th6 Account

--Kingdom. (SPCK, London,

the Synoptic

Philosophumenall

of the Essenes in Josephus JQR 49(1958-9) pp. 292-300.

and the

z 0 A0No