Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen

zum Neuen Testament • 2. Reihe

Begründet von Joachim Jeremias und Otto Michel
Herausgegeben von
Martin Hengel und Otfried Hofius

54

Jesus the Exorcist

A Contribution to the Study
of the Historical Jesus

by
Graham H. Twelftree

J. C. B. Möhr (Paul Siebeck) Tübingen

 Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme

Twelftree, Graham H:
Jesus the exorcist: a contribution to the study of the historical Jesus /
by Graham H . Twelftree.
- Tübingen: Mohr, 1993
(Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament: Reihe 2; 54)
ISBN 3-16-145959-8 978-3-16-157112-1 Unveränderte eBook-Ausgabe 2019
NE: Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament / 02

© 1993 b y J . C . B . Mohr (Paul Siebeck), P.O. Box 2040,72010 Tübingen.

This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright
law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations,
microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems.

The book was typeset by Sam Boyd Enterprise in Singapore using Times typeface, printed by Guide-
Druck in Tubingen on acid-free paper from Papierfabrik Niefern and bound by Heinr. Koch in
Tübingen.

Printed in Germany.

ISSN 0340-9570
 To
my parents
Eric and Iris Twelftree
as a
token of
my appreciation
 Preface

Although I take full responsibility for the contents of this study I am very
conscious of the debt I owe to others. The late Professor George Caird,
when principal of Mansfield College, Oxford, introduced me to the world
and critical study of the New Testament. I remain grateful for his en-
couragement and patience with a beginner and am deeply sorry he is not
still with us. I cannot say how much I appreciated Professor James Dunn's
supervision of an earlier version of this study which was submitted to
the University of Nottingham as a Ph. D. degree dissertatioa He gave
generously of himself and of his time. His love of the New Testament text
and enthusiasm for discovering both the intention of the ancient writers
and their significance for the present has had a considerable and lasting
impact on me. I continue to value his scholarship, friendship and critical
Christian faith.
Librarians at Nottingham University, Pastor Trevor Zweck and Ruth
Strelan of Luther Seminary (Adelaide), Dr. Lawrence Mcintosh of Ormond
College (Melbourne), .VaL Canty of Parkin-Wesley College (Adelaide) and
Margery Kirschke of the State Library of South Australia are to be
thanked for their willing and forbearing help. I am indebted to and wish
to thank those who have read parts or various drafts of the whole of this
material; especially Professor David E. Aune, Canon Anthony E. Harvey,
Professor Howard C. Kee, Rev'ds. Robert Morgan and Philip Muston,
Professor Harold Remus, Dr. Stephen H. Travis, Professor Edwin Yama-
uchi and Professors C. Kingsley Barrett and John Heywood Thomas
(examiners of the thesis), as well as many others. Their comments have
greatly helped improve the final product. I have also appreciated the help
and support of Professors Martin Hengel and Otfried Hofius, as well as
Georg Siebeck, Ilse König and the staff of J.C.B. Möhr (Paul Siebeck).
Thanks is also due to those who have typed various stages of this study —
particularly to Wendy Jettner.
The literal translations of the Greek text at the beginning of each
section of chapter III are my own. In order to handle the ever increasing
volume of secondary literature, relevant to chapter III, I have not at-
tempted to repeat the material cited by Joachim Gnilka and Rudolf Pesch
vi Preface

in their commentaries on Mark's Gospel Also, the bibliography of sec-

ondary sources is only able to contain a selection of the literature.
I could not have undertaken this project without the complete support
of my parents — thank you, Mum and Dad! Please accept this volume as a
token of my gratitude. Then, again, to Barbara my wife, I tender my
gratitude for her love, help and patience. Our children, Catherine and Paul,
continue to be long-suffering and hope that the completion of this project
will help make good the promise of more time together as a family.

Adeladie 1991 Graham H. Twelftree

 Contents

Abbreviations IX

§1 The Debate 1

II
Exorcism and Exorcists in First Century Palestine

§2 Materials 13
§3 Exorcism and Exorcists 22
§4 Conclusions 48

III
Jesus the Exorcist: The New Testament D a t a

§5 Gospel Research 53
§6 The Demoniac in the Synagogue (Mark 1.21 — 8) 57
§7 The Gadarene Demoniac (Mark 5.1-20) 72
§8 The Syrophoenician Woman's Daughter (Mark 7.24—30) 88
§9 The Epileptic Boy (Mark 9.14-29) 91
§ 10 The Beelzebul Controversy
(Mark 3.22 — 7 and Matthew 12.22 — 30/Luke 11.14 — 23) 98
§ 11 The Temptations
(Mark 1,12,13andMatthew4.1,2,ll/Luke4.1,2,13) 114
§ 12 Jesus' Answer to John the Baptist
(Matthew 11.2-6/Luke 7.18-23) 118
§ 13 The Disciples' Mission(s) (Mark 6.7- 12,30/Matthew 10.1 -15/
Luke9.1-6; 10.1-11,17-20) 122
§14 The Brief Summary Reports 128
VIII Contents

IV
Jesus the Exorcist

§ 15 Historical Method 130

§ 16 Was Jesus an Exorcist? 136
§ 17 Jesus as an Exorcist 143
§ 18 Distinctive and Unique Features of Jesus' Methods 157
§ 19 Miracle and Message in Jesus'Ministry 166
§ 20 Conclusions 172

V
As Others Saw H i m

§ 21 Introduction 175
§ 22 Jesus' Audience 176
§ 23 Messiah? 182
§ 24 Magician? 190
§ 25 Necromancer? 208
§ 26 Hasid? 209
§ 27 Conclusion 213

VI
Jesus the Exorcist: His Self Understanding

§ 28 Introduction 216
§ 29 Exorcism and Eschatology 217

VII

§ 30 Conclusions 225

Bibliography 229
Indexes 249
 Abbreviations

For abbreviations see Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (1988) 579—96.

Other abbreviations are as follows.

CC H. Chadwick Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1980).
DNTT C. Brown (ed.) The New Interantional Dictionary of NT Theo-
logy 3 vols. (Exeter Paternoster, 1975—1978).
ERE J. Hastings (ed.) Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics 13 vols.
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1908ff.).
Hennecke E. Hennecke New Testament Apocrypha 2 vols. (London:
SCM, 1973 and 1974).
HSE L. Gaston Horae Synopticae Electronicae (Missoula: Scholars
Press, 1973).
ND G.H.R. Horsley, (ed.) New Documents Illustrating Early Chris-
tianity (Macquarie University: The Ancient History Documen-
tary Research Centre, 1981—).
 I

§ 1 The Debate

"Men lacked woman to death in attempt at exorcism, court told.

A preacher and his friend went berserk and kicked a mentally unstable woman to
death as they tried to rid her of Judas Iscariot's evil spirit, the Central Criminal Court
was told yesterday.

During the 'exorcism' John Sherwood and Anthony Strover punched Miss Beatrix
Rutherford, aged 31, unconscious and then kicked and jumped on her stomach, it was
alleged.

Mr Strover was said to have told the police that as they tried to chase the devil out
of her. Miss Rutherford spoke in a strange voice which claimed to be the spirit of
Judas Iscariot,"1

Press reports such as this, popular interest in the occult, and renewed
interest in Christian deliverance, have generated considerable discussion on
exorcism with the Church.2 However, there is by no means a consensus of
opinion within the Church on the place or the form exorcism should take
in the twentieth century. For example, the Bishop of Exeter's report on
exorcism recommended that "every diocesan bishop should appoint a
priest as diocesan exorcist"3 On the other hand, in an open letter to the
Archbishops, the bishops and members of the General Synod of the
Church of England, Reverend Don Cupitt and Professor G.WH. Lampe
wrote: " . . . we believe that the Church of England is in danger of making
a serious error of judgment . . We believe that exorcism should have no
official status in the Church at a l l . .
The different views represented in these two quotations — and the
spectrum of opinions between them — usually seek the support of the

1 The Times (London) 4 September 1980, 2.

2 Cf. the "Barnsley Case" The Times (London) 26 March 1975, 4; 27 March 1975, 6 and
GJL Twelftree Christ Triumphant: Exorcism Then and Now (London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1985) chaps. I and V. See also the bibliographies in John Richards But De-
liver Us From Evil (New York: Seabury, 1974) 222-40; and Exorcism, Deliverance and
Healing: Some Pastoral Guidelines (Nottingham: Grove Books, 1976) 24.
3 Dom R. Petitpierre (ed.) Exorcism. The Report of a Commission Convened by the
Bishop of Exeter (London: SPCK, 1972) 26. For other church "reports" see Richards
Exorcism 3 n. Z
4 D. Cupitt and G.WH Lampe "Open Letter on Exorcism" reprinted in D. Cupitt Ex-
plorations in Theology 6 (London: SCM, 1979) 50-3, quotation from 50.
2 § J The Debate

New Testament, especially the reported activities of Jesus.5 Therefore, in

the current debate on exorcism, the student of the New Testament has a
weighty responsibility to elucidate the data in the Gospels in relation to
Jesus and exorcism.
The Gospel of Mark has as one of its key questions: Who is
Jesus?6 And, ever since Mark wrote his Gospel, Christians have been
writing and rewriting the story of Jesus, attempting to explain for their
readers Jesus' identity. However, Schweitzer showed us that, in attempting
to depict Jesus for our contemporaries, we too often merely create an
image of him after the likeness of our own cultural and theological
predispositions.
In the Gospels the earthly Jesus has, at times, been obscured behind, and
at least partly identified with, the early Christians' view of the risen
Christ. The problem is that in trying to see again the Jesus of Nazareth —
so important to early Christianity — we strip away the first century
cultural and Christian garb only to replace it with the comfortable clothes
of our own culture. In relation to the nineteenth century study of the life
of Jesus, Schweitzer's words are apt:
"It loosed the bands by which He had been riveted for centuries to the stony rocks of
ecclestiastical doctrine, and rejoiced to see life and movement coming into the figure
once more, and the historical Jesus advancing, as it seemed, to meet it But He does not
stay; He passes by our time and returns to His own."7

Yet, we must still attempt to discover anew the historical Jesus — the
founder of Christianity — in order that our age may see and understand
him more clearly. To follow Kasemann:
". . . defeatism and scepticism must [not] have the last word and lead us on to a
complete disengagement of interest from the earthly Jesus. If this were to happen, we
should either be failing to grasp the nature of primitive Christian concern with the
identity between the exalted and the humiliated Lord; or else we should be emptying
that concern of any real content, as did the docetists."8

5 E.g. J J l Crehan in Petitpierre (ed.) Exorcism 11-15; Cupitt Explorations 6, 51 and K.

Grayston "Exorcism in the NT" Epworth Review 2 (1975) 90-4.
6 E.g. L27; 2.7; 4.41; 6.3; 14.16; and 8.7-9. Cf. JD. Kingsbury The Christology of Mark's
Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 80-9.
7 A. Schweitzer The Quest of the Historical Jesus (London: Black, 1910) 397. Cf. D.C.
Duling Jesus Christ Through History (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979); J.
Pelikan Jesus through the Centuries (New Haven and London: Yale University Press,
1985). On scholars continuing to cast Jesus after the fashion of their own christologies,
see EA. Johnson "Images of the Historical Jesus in Catholic Christology" Living Light
23 (1986) 47-66.
8 E. Käsemann "The Problem of the Historical Jesus" in Essays on NT Themes
(London: SCM, 1964) 45-7. Cf. V A Harvey The Historian and the Believer (London:
SCM, 1967) 4, 6. On the recent move away from excessive scepticism regarding
historicity see C A Evans "Jesus of Nazareth: Who Do Scholars Say That He Is? A
Review Article" Crux 23 (1987) 15-19.
 § 1 The Debate 3

This book presupposes that the life, ministry and passion of Jesus of
Nazareth were — and remain — of fundamental significance to the life of
the Church.9 In turn, therefore, the search for the historical Jesus is an
important enterprise for scholars who wish to serve the Church.10
Thus, the present study is an attempt to make a modest contribution to
our understanding of the historical Jesus; to sketch a picture of the his-
torical Jesus in his ministry of exorcism. In other words, this study seeks
to determine if the historical Jesus was an exorcist and then to answer the
three-part question: If Jesus was an exorcist, What did the first reports of
his activities as an exorcist contain? How would he have been viewed by
those who saw him at work? And, how did he understand his ministry of
exorcism?
If we turn to the Synoptic Gospel writers, even a brief survey reveals
how important exorcism was for them. For example, of the thirteen
healing stories of Jesus in Mark's Gospel — L29—31, 40—5; 21—12; 31—6;
5.21-43; 7.31-7; 8 2 2 - 6 ; 10.46-52 and 1.21-8; 51-20; 7.24-30; 9.14-29 -
the last four mentioned are exorcism stories. .This makes exorcism the
most numerous category of healing story in Mark. Also, even though
(apart from Matthew 1222/Luke 1114) Matthew and Luke provide no
extra detailed stories of exorcism they, like Mark, agree that exorcism was
an important aspect of Jesus' ministry and go so far as to suggest that
Jesus' dealings with the demon-possessed is of central significance in
understanding Jesus and his ministry. At least this is the case on a first
reading of Matthew 12.28/Luke 11.20 (see §10 below).
This importance of the miracles for the Evangelists' portrayal of Jesus,
as well as the presentation of the Christian Gospel itself, was reflected in
the eighteenth and nineteenth century scholarly preoccupation with mir-
acles. Representing the mood of his time Ludwig Feuerbach (1804—72) put
it sharply: "The specific object of faith . . . is miracle; faith is the belief in

9 Cf. RA. Niebuhr Resurrection and Historical Reason (New York: Scribner, 1957) 146;
C.F.D. Moule The Phenomenon of the NT (London: SCM, 1981) 77; J.P. Mackey Jesus
the Man and the Myth (London: SCM, 1985) 2-3.
10 See also M.J. Borg "What Did Jesus Really Say?" BibRev 5 (1989) 18-25; JJL Charlesworth
"Research on the Historical Jesus Today . . ." Princeton Seminary Bulletin 6 (1985) 98:
"What do 1 consider the central task of the New Testament scholar? It is to seek
what can be known about the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth." Cf. J A
Charlesworth Jesus Within Judaism (London: SPCK, 1988) 9. It is well known that the
term "historical Jesus" is an ambiguous one. JJvt Robinson A New Quest of the
Historical Jesus (London: SCM, 1959) defines the term "historical Jesus" as "What can
be known of Jesus of Nazareth by means of the scientific methods of the historian"
(26). But the earthly Jesus - like any other figure in history, lost to us - is the Jesus
of Nazareth as he actually was, whereas Christ is reached through faith and doctrine
(28). More recently, see J.P. Meier "The Historical Jesus: Rethinking Some Concepts"
TS 51 (1990) 3-24.
4 § 1 The Debate

miracle; faith and miracle are absolutely inseparable."11 For Hermann

Reimarus (1694—1768), however, whose notorious 'Fragments' were
published posthumously by Gotthold Lessing between 1774 and 1778, the
substance of Christianity were the principal articles of faith in the
Kerygma: ". . . spiritual deliverance through the suffering and death of
Christ; resurrection from death in confirmation of the sufficient suffering
of Christ; and, the return of Christ for reward and punishment, as the fruit
and consequence of the deliverance."12 Miracles, he goes on to say, are not
essential, not least because of Jesus' criticism of those who sought as-
surance in signs and wonders. But Reimarus stands apart from those who
followed him.13 For, as post-Enlightenment people attempted to subject
their world views to the critical eye of reason and scientific knowledge,
the concept of miracle became more and more a focus of attention and
difficult for scholars to accept.14
So, in various ways, the major contributors to the nineteenth century
search for the historical Jesus sought to remove the miraculous from the
centre of the theological stage. Heinrich Paulus (1761—1851), who ex-
emplified the rationalist approach in New Testament scholarship, offered
rationalistic explanations for the miracles. For example, the feeding of the
five thousand is explained by suggesting that, on seeing the hungry
multitude, Jesus said to his disciples, "We will set the rich people among
them a good example, that they may share their supplies with the others."
According to Paulus, Jesus then began to distribute his own provisions,
and those of the disciples. Soon, as the example was followed, every one
had plenty.15 The main interest and objective of Paulus' enterprise was to
show that miracles need no longer be an obstacle to faith for the intel-
ligent person.
The most important contribution to the nineteenth century debate about
the miracles came from D.F. Strauss (1808—74). In his two volume The
Life of Jesus (1835), he faced head-on the problem of miracle, proceeding
not by seeking 'what actually happened' but by examining the narratives.16
He postulated that much of the New Testament, including the miracle
stories, should be understood as, and placed in one of a number of

11 L A Feuerbach The Essence of Christianity (New York: Harper & Row, 1957) 126.
12 C.H. Talbert (ed.) Reimarus: Fragments (London: SCM, 1971) 229-30.
13 BP. Meyer The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM, 1979) 30, who also cites material from
Reimarus not in the above English translation.
14 Cf. JD.G. Dunn "Demythologizing - The Problem of Myth in the NT' in LH. Mar-
shall (ed.) NT Interpretation (Exeter Paternoster, 1977) 289.
15 From Schweitzer Quest 52, cf. 57.
16 DP. Strauss The Life of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973).
 § ] The Debate 5
categories of, mythP Myths which related directly or indirectly to Jesus
Strauss designated 'evangelical' myths. In turn, these were of two kinds. On
the one hand, there were pure myths, like the transfiguration, which had
no foundation in a historical event in the ministry of Jesus. On the other
hand, the historical myth "has for its groundwork a definite individual
fact which has been seized upon by religious enthusiasm, and twined
around with mythical conceptions culled from the idea of the Christ" As
examples of this category of myth Strauss gave the "saying of Jesus such
as that concerning 'fishers of men' or the barren figtree, which now
appear in the Gospels transmuted into marvellous histories."18
Strauss' Life unleashed a torrent of criticism, directed primarily at the
way he approached myth and the problem of miracle. As Schweitzer put
it: "Scarcely ever has a book let loose such a storm of controversy."19
Nevertheless, the significant and long term results were, to continue with
Schweitzer, that "With Strauss begins the period of the non-miraculous
view of the Life of Jesus. . . The question of miracle constantly falls
more and more into the background."20
However, in the early part of his lectures, "The Essence of Christianity",
delivered in the winter semester of 1899-1900, Adolf Harnack (1851—1930)
attempted a protest at this fear of treating the miracles. He put it: "Not
Strauss only, but many others too, have allowed themselves to be
frightened by them [the miracles] into roundly denying the credibility of
the Gospels." Yet, was not Harnack still under the spell of Strauss when he
said that miracles did "not possess the significance for that age which, if
they existed, they would possess for ours," and "that Jesus himself did not
assign that critical importance to his miraculous deeds which even the
evangelist Mark and the others all attributed to them"?21

17 "The myth, in its original form, is not the conscious and intentional invention of an
individual but a production of the common consciousness of a people or religious
circle, which an individual does indeed first enunciate, but which meets with belief
for the very reason that such individual is but the organ of this universal conviction.
It is not a covering in which a clever man clothes an idea which arises in him for
the use and benefit of the ignorant multitude, but it is only simultaneously with the
narrative, nay, in the very form of the narrative which he tells, that he becomes
conscious of the idea which he is not yet able to apprehend purely as such." New
Life of Jesus (London: 1865) I, 206. Qupted by Dunn in Marshall (ed.) NT Interpre-
tation 303 n. 22.
18 Strauss Life 87. Cf. Peter C. Hodgson's "Introduction" to Life xxxviff. Strauss did not
escape the rationalism he criticised, for, in relation to our subject, he said, "that Jesus
cured many persons who suffered from supposed demonical insanity or nervous
disorder, in a psychical manner, by the ascendancy of his manner and words" ( L i f e
436).
19 Schweitzer Quest 97; cf. 97-120 on Strauss' opponents and supporters.
20 Schweitzer Quest 111.
21 A. Harnack What is Christianity? (London: Williams and Norgate, 1901) 24, 25 and
28-9.
6 § 1 The Debate

This attempt, exemplified by Harnack, to shrug off the problem of

miracle was thwarted by Bultmann in his denial that myth and Gospel
could be separated.22 In Bultmann's view the element of myth could not be
eliminated from the Gospel. Rather, myth was to be demythologized: its
meaning interpreted for twentieth century people. This approach to the
problem of miracle, along with the view that a modern person "does not
acknowledge miracles because they do not fit into [the rational order of
the universe!"23 meant that, in Bultmann's assessment of the life of Jesus,
miracles received less attention than might have been expected in the light
of the Gospel data. For example, in Jesus and the Word, Bultmann's 'life'
of Jesus, he devotes only about five pages to 'miracles'. He says there,
"Most of the wonder tales contained in the gospel are legendary, at least
they have legendary embellishments.'"'2'-
In the last decade there has been a renaissance of interest in research
related to the historical Jesus. This is evidenced not only in the literature,25
but also in the inauguration of the Historical Jesus Section of the Society
of Biblical Literature in 1981 and the Jesus Seminar founded by Robert
Funk in 1985.26
However, in contrast to the great interest in Jesus as a teacher, the low
profile of the treatment of the miracle stories in the Gospels as well as in
the treatment of the historical Jesus, has continued to the present day 27

22 R. Bultmann "NT and Mythology" (1941) in RW. Bartsch (ed.) Kerygma and Myth
(London: SPCK, 1957) 3.
23 R. Bultmann Jesus Christ and Mythology (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958)
37-8.
24 R. Bultmann Jesus and the Word (London and Glasgow: Collins/Fontana, 1958) 124.
25 E.g. LW. Batdorf "Interpreting Jesus since Bultmann: Selected Paradigms and their
Hermeneutic Matrix" in KJL Richards (ed.) SBLSP (Chico: Scholars Press, 1984)
187-215; MJ. Borg Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus (Lewis-
ton, NY: Mellen, 1984); D. Oakman Jesus and the Economic Questions of His Day
(Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1986); MJ. Borg Jesus, A New Vision: Spirit, Culture and the
Life of Discipleship (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987X DJ. Harrington "The
Jewishness of Jesus: Facing Some Problems" CBQ 49 (1987) 1-13; R. Horsley Jesus and
the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1987); Charlesworth Jesus within Judaism 9-29 and Appendix 5; MJ.
Borg "A Renaissance in Jesus Studies" TToday 45 (1980) 280-92. Further, see the
following bibliographies and bulletins: W.G. Kümmel "Jesusforschung seit 1965:
Nachträge 1975-1980" TR 47 (1982) 136-65, 348-83; WS. Kissinger The Lives of Jesus:
A History and Bibliography (New York and London: Garland, 1985); W.G. Kümmel
"Jesusforschung seit 1981, L Forschungsgeschichte, Methodenfragen" TR 53 (1988)
229-49; LJ. White Jesus the Christ (Wilmington: Glazier, 1988); P. Hollenbach "The
Historical Jesus Question in North America Today" BTB 19 (1989) 11-22; W.G. Kümmel
"Jesusforschung seit 1981, IL Gesamtdarstellungen" TR 54 (1989) 1-53.
26 See Hollenbach BTB 19 (1989) 11-13 and the new journal Forum (Bonner, MT) 1 (1985).
27 P.W. Hollenbach "Recent Historical Jesus Studies and the Social Sciences" in K A
Richards (ed.) SBLSP (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983) 66: "Most contemporary study of the
historical Jesus focuses almost wholy on him as a teacher of ideas with the almost
 § 1 The Debate 7
Consonant with this has been the particular neglect, in scholarly study, of
the exorcism stories in the Gospel traditions.
Richard H. Hiers, among others, has pointed out that in more recent
times the exorcism stories and associated themes in the New Testament
have been neglected in scholarly New Testament work. He mentions
Schweitzer, Bultmann, Morton Enslin and Pannenberg as sharing this
neglect 28 Hans Conzelmann's famous RGG article,29 which reviewed the
then current position in the life of Jesus research, offers no treatment of
the miracles or of the exorcism traditions associated with Jesus.
This neglect is also noticeable in the 'lives' of the so-called New Quest
For example, Bornkamm's emphasis is on the words of Jesus and his
authoritative ministry. There is a token mention of Jesus' activities,30 but
the works — including miracles and exorcisms — play no signifcant role
in Bornkamm's Jesus.31 The same neglect of exorcism and associated
themes can be noticed in, for example, the works of Gustaf Aulen, BP.
Meyer, John Marsh, as well as Leonard Goppelt's Theology32 In Jesus and
Judaism EP. Sanders has a very brief, though important, section on
'Miracles and Crowds' (chap. 5) in which he includes some discussion of
exorcism. We shall interact with Sanders in the course of this study. Yet,
in Sanders' concluding thumb-nail sketch of Jesus, only the miracles in
general and not the exorcisms of Jesus in particular are treated.33

total omission of his actions and involvements in the material side of life." Cf.
Hollenbach BTB 19 (1989) 12. On miracles of Jesus and the historical Jesus see K.
Kertelge "Die Uberlieferung der Wunder Jesu und die Frage nach dem historische
Jesus" in K. Kertelge (ed.) Rückfrage nach Jesus. Zur Methodik und Bedeutung der
Frage nach dem historischen Jesus (Freiburg-Vienna: Herder, 1974) 174-93.
28 R J i Hiers "Satan, Demons, and the Kingdom of God" SJT 27 (1974) 35 and n. 2. Cf.
Hollenbach BTB 19 (1989) 14.
29 H. Conzelmann RGG (3rd. ed.) III cols. 619-53, Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973).
30 G. Bornkamm Jesus of Nazareth (London: SCM, 1960) chap. 8.
31 Cf. Hiers SJT 27 (1974) 35 n. 2. For some recent reviews on "historical-Jesus studies"
see, e.g. Hollenbach in Richards (ed.) SBLSP (1983) 61-78; WB. Tatum In Quest of
Jesus (London: SCM, 1983) part two; Batdorf in Richards (ed.) SBLSP (1984) 187-215;
Kissinger The Lives of Jesus.
32 See G. Aulen Jesus in Contemporary Historical Research (London: SPCK, 1976);
Meyer The Aims of Jesus-, J. Marsh Jesus in His Lifetime (London: Sidgwick and
Jackson, 1981); L. Goppelt Theology of the NT 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981
and 1982). See also the following recent studies of Jesus which give little or no
attention to the exorcism stories: A.E. Harvey Jesus and the Constraints of History
(London: Duckworth, 1982>, J. Riches Jesus and the Transformation of Judiasm (New
York: Seabury, 1982); Tatum Quest parts two and three; J. Breech The Silence of
Jesus: The Authentic Voice of the Historical Man (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983>, G.W.
Buchanan Jesus: The King and his Kingdom (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1984>,
Horsley Spiral of Violence, H. Braun Jesus - der Mann aus Nazareth und seine Zeit
(Gütersloh: Mohn, 1988>, B.L. Mack A Myth of Innocence (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988).
' 33 EJ>. Sanders Jesus and Judaism (London- SCM, 1985) 319.
8 § 1 The Debate

So, despite the apparent importance of Jesus' exorcistic activity in the

Synoptic tradition, the present state of New Testament research on the life
of Jesus appears still to be under the spell of Strauss when it comes to this
aspect of the reports of Jesus' ministry. This is probably because the
exorcism stories are seen to form part of the miracle tradition in the
Gospels. Also, they carry special difficulties in that exorcism stories
presuppose a belief in the existence of demons or evil spirits. For the vast
majority of twentieth century people such a belief is no longer possible
nor necessary in the face of the advance in our knowledge of our world.34
Over against this general neglect there have been a few specific studies
that have taken up the theme of miracles, including exorcism, in the
Gospels. One of the most formidable studies is that by H. van der Loos in
which he has a large section on 'Healing of the Possessed'.35 However, it is
mainly a compendium of the views of others with little historical-critical
analysis.
There are four other studies which, while contributing to this study, are
fundamentally different in purpose from it. First, Gerd Theissen's Miracle
Stories of the Early Christian Tradition (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1983) is
an attempt to develop "the methods of classical form criticism by way of
an analysis of one Synoptic literary form," namely the miracle story.
Second, H.C. Kee sets out the two aims of his Miracle in the Early
Christian World as follows. He wishes
" . . . to offer a critique of what have been, for the past century and more, the
prevailing historical methods in the study of religion; and to propose a historical
method which more faithfully portrays and interprets religious phenomena in their

34 See Twelftree Christ chap. V, also Pi,. Berger The Heretical Imperative (London:
Collins, 1980) and E. Yamauchi "Sociology, Scripture and the Supernatural" JETS 27
(1984) 169-92. Cf. Schweitzer Quest 111, "Scientific theologians of the present day who
desire to show their 'sensibility,' ask no more than that two or three little miracles
may be left to them - in the stories of childhood, perhaps, or in the narratives of
the resurrection. And these miracles are, moreover, so far scientific that they have at
least no relation to those in the text, but are merely spiritless, miserable little
toy-dogs of criticism, flea-bitten by rationalism, too insignificant to do historical
science any harm, especially as their owners honestly pay the tax upon them by the
way in which they speak, write, and are silent about Strauss."
35 H. van der Loos The Miracles of Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 1965) 339-414. Many of the
other studies of the miracles have given only a low priority to the exorcism stories.
E.g. A. Fridrichsen The Problem of Miracle (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972) 102ff_; A.
Richardson The Miracle Stories of the Gospels (London: SCM, 1941) parts of chap. Ill;
F. Mussner The Miracles of Jesus (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press,
1968) 4Iff.; RJL Fuller Interpreting the Miracles (London; SCM, 1963) 29-37. For a
survey of work on the miracles of Jesus, including detailed criticism of Fuller
Miracles and G. Schille Die urchristliche Wundertradition. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach
dem irdischen Jesus (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1967) see K. Kertelge "Zur Interpretation der
Wunder Jesu. Ein Literaturbericht" BibLeb 9(1968) 140-53.
 § I The Debate 9
original setting and which seeks to develop safeguards against imposing modern
categories on ancient data."34
Third is The Miracles of Jesus and the Theology of Miracles by René
Latourelle, which is dominated not by a historical but a theological
concern: a hermeneutic of the signs of credibility of the Christian faith.
His direct purpose, says Latourelle, "is to tackle the question of the signs
that reveal and accredit Jesus as Son of the Father."37
Fourth, in a recent book, Human Agents of Cosmic Power in
Hellenistic Judaism and the Synoptic Tradition (Sheffield: JSOT, 1990),
Mary Mills calls into question writing off the tradition of Jesus' ability to
command spiritual forces as the views of ignorant and undeveloped
humanity. Her concern is not so much with a detailed historical
investigation into the traditions of Jesus as an exorcist but with the
background to Jesus' control of the cosmic forces and their significance
for Mark and Luke.
The present book differs from these studies. It is not a comprehensive
theological study of Jesus' miracles or his background but an examination
of his reported ministry of exorcism from a historical perspective.
In The Significance of the Synoptic Miracles (London: SPCK, 1961),
James Kallas has also recognized the central significance of the miracle
stories in the Gospels and has, in turn, seen the importance of the
exoricism stories in Jesus' cosmic struggle. Nevertheless, Kallas does not
critically examine the exorcism stories nor does he clarify our knowledge
of the historical Jesus the exorcist.38
Geza Vermes also acknowledges the importance of the exorcism stories
in understanding the historical Jesus (Jesus the Jew [Londoa- Collins,
1973]). Yet, his very brief treatment of this aspect of Jesus' ministry does
not do justice to the Synoptic data. In chapter V I will examine Vermes'
suggestion that Jesus was simply a Palestinian Hasid.
In Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition (London: SCM, 1974),
John Hull gives considerable attention to the exorcism stories in the
Synoptic Gospels. He uses Hellenistic magical traditions in an attempt to
throw new light on the Synoptic Evangelists' portrayal of Jesus, especially
as a miracle-worker. However, I will question whether or not Hull's
concentration on Hellenistic magical traditions to the virtual exclusion of
the Jewish traditions gives an accurate view of the background against

36 H.C. Kee Miracle in the Early Christian World (New Haven and London: Yale Uni-
versity Press, 1983) 1.
37 R. Latourelle The Miracles of Jesus (New York; Paulist, 1988) 1.
38 J. Kallas The Significance of the Synoptic Miracles (London: SPCK, 1961) chaps. 5 and
6. The same is to be said of, e.g. R. Leivestad Christ the Conqueror (London: SPCK,
1954); J M Robinson The Problem of History in Mark (London: SCM, 1957).
10 § 1 The Debate

which this aspect of the Gospel traditions is to be interpreted. I will also

question the perspective of Fiebig who sets Jesus' miracles against an
exclusively rabbinic milieu.39 As this study proceeds, it will become ap-
parent that matters of detail also need correction in Hull and Fiebig. In
relation to the Hellenistic background to the exorcism stories I shall also
be asking if Bultmann is correct in saying that folk stories or miracle
stories and miracle motifs have come from the Hellenistic milieu into the
Synoptic oral tradition.40
In contrast to these studies, what follows is an attempt to press behind
the Jesus of the Evangelists to the Jesus of history. Also, this study differs
from Hull's work in that I want to concentrate on Jesus and exorcism
rather than the whole miracle tradition associated with Jesus. Further,
Hull's work also raises the question of an appropriate first century Pal-
estinian definition of magic. I shall investigate magic in relation to Jesus
as an exorcist in chapter V.
Another study that pays more attention to Jesus and exorcism than
most contemporary studies of Jesus is Jesus the Magician (Londoa- Gol-
lancz, 1978) by Morton Smith. Smith examines the Gospel material to try
and show that Jesus' contemporaries considered him a magician. Because it
so directly cuts across our study I will be discussing this book at some
length in chapter V where I will be asking: Would those who saw Jesus
perform an exorcism have considered him to be a magician?
In the light of the purpose of this study and what I have said so far I
will need to do two things. In the first place, I will need to reconstruct the
background against which Jesus' ministry of exorcism would have been
viewed by his contemporaries. Secondly, I will need to make an attempt at
recovering the historical Jesus the exorcist. This will involve trying to
sketch a picture of this aspect of the historical Jesus, as well as attempting
to see how Jesus understood himself in relation to his exorcisms. I will
also attempt to see whether I can say how Jesus' audience assessed and
understood him as an exorcist.
Therefore, in chapter II, I shall begin by addressing the question: What
notions of exorcism and exorcists would probably have been available to
Jesus and his audience in first century Palestine? In chapter III, the
principal data in the Gospels on Jesus and exorcism will be examined in
order to attempt to indentify material that can probably be traced back to

39 P. Fiebig Jüdische Wundergeschichten des neutestamentlichen Zeitalters (Tübingen:

Mohr, 1911) 71ff.
40 R. Bultmann History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford: Blackwell, 1963) 231, cf. 38;
cf. M. Dibelius From Tradition to Gospel (Cambridge and London: Clarke, 1971) chaps.
V and VL
 § 1 The Debate 11

the ministry of the historical Jesus. This analysis will form the basis for
the next three chapters where I will be sketching out a picture of the
historical Jesus the exorcist (chap. IV), seeing if I can say how his con-
temporaries saw him (chap. V) and, finally (chap. VI), attempting to
discover how Jesus understood himself in relation to his exorcisms and
what significance, if any, he gave to them.
Before I begin, we need to note two subjects which are closely allied to
our own. First, demonology and demon-possession. In contrast to exorcism,
these themes have been dealt with relatively well, both in the ancient
world and in relation to Jesus and I have dealt more fully with them in
Christ Triumphant: Exorcism Then and Now (London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1985).41 Therefore, apart from occasional necessary references, I
will not give my attention to demonology and demon-possession.42 In any
case, the New Testament in general, and the Gospel writers in particular,
show little interest in demons for their own sake.
Another area that is related to, but outside the scope of this study is the
question of exorcism in our own time. Before we can approach this
question — not least because of the place of the canon in the construction
of modern theology and practice — we have to deal thoroughly with the
Jesus tradition in relation to our theme. That is the purpose of this book.
Nevertheless, I readily concur with a sentence in Harnack's preface to the
English edition of What is Christianity?: . . this I know: the theologians
of every country only half discharge their duties if they think it enough
to treat of the Gospel in the recondite language of learning and bury it in

41 To my knowledge the most important literature on demonology and demon-possession

is: F.C. Conybeare "The Demonology of the N T JQR 8 (1896) 576-608, 9 (1897) 59-114,
444-70, 518-603; M Dibelius Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des Paulus (Göttingen; Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1909); TX. Oesterreich Possession Demonological and Other
(London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1930); B. Noach Satanas und Soteria (Kaben-
havn: Gads, 1948); E. Langton Essentials of Demonology (London: Epworth, 1949), S.
Eitrem Some Notes on the Demonology of the NT (Osloae: Bragger, 1950); O. Bücher
Dämonen furcht und Dämonenabwehr (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, etc, 1970); W. Kirch-
schläger Jesu exorzistisches Wirken aus der Sicht des Lukas: Ein Beitrag zur
lukanischen Redaktion (Klosterneuberg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1981)
45-54; E. Ferguson Demonology of the Early Christian World (New York: Mellen,
1984); E. Yamauchi "Magic or Miracle? . . . " in D. Wenham and C Blomberg (eds.)
Gospel Perspectives 6 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986) 115-20; W. Kirchschläger "Engel, Teufel,
Dämonen. Eine biblische Skizze" BLit 54 (1981) 98-102; PJ_. Day An Adversary in
Heaven (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988). Cf. the bibliographies in ¡2. Smith "Towards
Interpreting Demonic Powers in Hellenistic and Roman Antiquity" ANRW IL161 (1978)
425-39 and E. Schillebeeckx Christ (London: SCM, 1980) 499-500. Also see JD.G.
Dunn and G.H. Twelftree "Demon-Possession and Exorcism in the NT" Churchman 94
(1980) 215-19; W. Wink The Powers: Naming the Powers vol. 2 (Philadelphia: For-
tress, 1986) 9-68.
42 Hence we shall not be dealing here with passages like Matt 12.43-5/Luke 11.24-6.
12 § J The Debate

scholarly folios."43 Therefore, in Christ Triumphant, I have attempted to

take the next step. There, at a more popular level, I have sought to apply
some of the results of this study to the question, Should exorcism be part
of the ministry of the twentieth century Church?44
As I have just intimated, before we can better understand the historical
Jesus the exorcist we need to understand particular aspects of the cultural
setting in which Jesus' ministry was exercised and the range of options
open to Jesus as exorcist That is our task now.

43 Harnack Christianity? Preface.

44 See also G H Twelftree "The Place of Exorcism in Contemporary Ministry" Anvil 5
(1988) 133-50. Cf. J. Kremer "Besessenheit und Exorzismus. Aussagen der Bibel und
heutige Problematik" BLit 48(1975) 22-8; JJC. Howard "New Testament Exorcism and
its Significance Today" ExpTim 96 (1985) 105-9.
 II
Exorcism and Exorcists in First Century Palestine

§ 2 Materials

According to the programme just outlined our first task is to set out the
background against which we shall examine and understand the historical
Jesus, particularly with regard to his reported ministry of exorcism.
However, before going any further we need to discuss: What is meant by
the term, exorcism? and What material should be used to provide an ap-
propriate background to understanding Jesus as an exorcist?
What is meant by the term exorcism? The view of the vast majority of
Church leaders and theologians can probably be summed up in a sentence
from the Church of Scotland's 'Report of the Working Party on Para-
psychology' (May 1976): "We believe that it (exorcism) effects nothing that
cannot be accomplished by expeditious use of medical skills, the latter
including prayer, blessing and such healing procedures as the pastoral agent
may "have at his disposal" (paragraph 36).
However, regardless of whether or not this is correct, we cannot use
our twentieth century presuppositions to determine the understanding of
people in the first century AD. We require a definition of exorcism which
would have been understood in a first century milieu and will, in turn,
enable us to assemble appropriate material to provide a background to the
stories and sayings associated with Jesus. Therefore, we furnish the fol-
lowing working definition.
Exorcism was a form of healing used when demons or evil spirits were thought to
have entered a person and to be responsible for sickness and was the attempt to
control and cast out or expel evil spiritual beings or demons from people

Our definition omits reference to specific techniques for, as we shall see

in this and the next chapter, the techniques varied from a few words of
command to a full cultic ceremony.
Our definition also omits reference to exorcism of evil spirits from
places. It is probable that the parable of the Strong Man (Matthew 12.29/
Luke 11.21—2, see §10 below) and the story of the return of the evil spirit
with seven other evil spirits to a clean swept house (Matthew 12.43—5
/Luke 1L24—6) reflect ancient views on the possession of places, as well as

1 For other definitions of exorcism see, e.g. Eitrem Notes 20 and 57; C J l Ratschow
RGG (3rd. ed.) II cols. 832ff; L Mendelsohn IDB II, 199; JJvt Hull IDBSup 31Z
14 II Exorcism and Exorcists in First Century Palestine

the possession of people. However, apart from these references, there is no

interest in either the Jesus tradition or in the rest of the New Testament
in the possession of places and so our definition and focus in this study
will only be on exorcism in relation to people.2
Our other preliminary question is, What material should be used in an
attempt to set Jesus the exorcist within his own milieu?3 Two further
questions are involved in making this decision.
First, should only Palestinian or Jewish material be used? We have
noted (§1 above) that some recent works related to our theme have greatly
concentrated on either the 'Hellenistic' or the 'Jewish' milieu of Jesus and
earliest Christianity.4 Such a rigid approach is now seen to rest on doubtful
premises.5 And, there is ample evidence to support the idea that Palestine,
and not least Galilee, was far from insulated from the outside world.4 For
example, Senzo Nagakubo studied the funerary inscriptions at Beth
She'arim (a post-biblical Jewish village about 15 kilometres west of Naza-
reth), and concluded that it is impossible to say that the Jews of the
Diaspora were any more or less Hellenized than those from Palestine.7

2 Twelftree Christ 175-6.

3 Harrington CBQ 49 (1987) 13, "Our increased understanding of the diversity within
Palestinian Judaism in Jesus' time makes it difficult to know precisely what kind of
Jew Jesus was and against which background we should try to interpret him" More
broadly see J£>. Crossan "Materials and Methods in Historical Jesus Research" Forum 4
(1988) 3-24.
4 On the history of the use of the labels "Hellenistic" and "Jewish" in NT scholarship
see APJ. Klijn "The Study of Jewish Christianity" NTS 20(1973-4) 419-31; M. Hengel
Judaism and Hellenism 2 vols. (London: SCM, 1974) I, Iff.
5 See Hengel Judiasm and Hellenism I, Iff.
6 See S. Safrai "Relations between the Diaspora and the Land of Israel" in S. Safrai and
M. Stern (eds.) The Jewish People in the First Century 2 vols. (Assen: Van Gorcum
and Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974 and 1976) I, 184-215; S. Freyne Galilee from Alexander
the Great to Hadrian (Wilmington: Glazier and Notre Dame: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1980) chap. 2 and EJvt Meyers and J.F. Strange Archeology, the Rabbis
and Early Christianity (London: SCM, 1981) chap. 2, esp. p. 43.
7 In Meyers and Strange Archeology 102. Great trade routes passed through the area
along which came exotic cultures and their Weltanschauung and artifacts (see G.A.
Borrois "Trade and Commerce" IDB IV, 677-83), foreign powers had founded cities in
Palestine (V. Tcherikover Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews [New York: Atheneum,
1977] chap. 2; E. Schurer The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Christ 3 vols. [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973-1987] II, 85-183), the country was often
administered by foreigners (note the Zeno Papyri, C C Edgar Zeno Papyri 5 vols.
[Hildesheim and New York: Georg Olms, 19711 see also M. Smith Palestinian Parties
and Politics that Shaped the OT [New York and London: Columbia University Press,
1971] 59-60, 67ff.), and Jews returning from the Diaspora also contributed to the
Palestinians' contact with surrounding culture (J. Jeremias Jerusalem in the Time of
Jesus [London: SCM, 1969] chap. 3; Smith Parties 71-2). Importantly for us, the
literary activity of the period indicates the Palestinians were well aware of the
"outside world" (Hengel Judaism and Hellenism I, chap. 2, M Hengel Jews, Greeks
and Barbarians [London: SCM, 1980] 115-6; J X Sevenster Do You Know Greek?
[Leiden: Brill, 1968]).
 §2 Materials 15

Further, Hengel went so far as to say that: "From about the middle of the
third century BC all Judaism must really be designated 'Hellenistic Jud-
aism" in the strict sense . . ."8
However, there were differences between diaspora Judaism and Pal-
estinian Judaism which cannot be obliterated. Fergus Millar says no reader
of inter-testamental Jewish literature, and of the Dead Sea Scrolls in
particular
"will be readily disposed to assent without severe qualifications to the proposition that
Palestinian Judaism was as Hellenistic as that of the Diaspora . . . what we should
emphasize is the uniqueness of the phenomenon of an original and varied non-Greek
literary activity developing in a small area only a few miles from the Mediterranean
coast.

In addition, not only is there a distinction between Palestinian culture and

the rest of the Hellenistic world but Galilean culture had its own
distinctive characteristics (see §22 below). Indeed, as even Hengel is aware,
the Maccabean Revolt and the attitudes and practices of the Qumran
Essenes and the Pharisees are clear signs that not all Palestinian Jews so
readily accepted imported cultures.
For the purposes of our study this means that the material we use to
provide a background to Jesus' ministry of exorcism cannot be limited to
that of Palestinian origin or even to Jewish material alone. Nevertheless, it
also means that we need to pay particular attention to Palestinian material
and traditions that may help us understand exorcism in first century
Galilee.
The second problem, relating to the question of what material we
should use, is that of dating. It is essential that each story, idea or body of
tradition which is of potential value in contributing to our study can be
reasonably established as part of the intellectual currency of first century
Palestine. This applies to material that antedates and is contemporary with
Jesus as well as later literature. For this material often contains themes and
ideas that predate the literature in which they are now found. But, herein
lies the problem of ascertaining which ideas belong to the time of
publication of the literature and which ideas can be traced back to
the times referred to in the literature.10 This problem, though evident

8 Hengel Judaism and Hellenism I, 104 (his emphasis). Cf. M Hengel The 'Hellenizatiori
of Judaea in the First Century after Christ (London: SCM and Philadelphia: Trinity
Press International, 1989); S. Liebermann Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish
Theological Seminary, 1942) and Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish
Theological Seminary, 1962). Cf. the criticism of Hengel by L A Feldman "How Much
Hellenism in Jewish Palestine?" HUCA 57 (1986) 83-111.
9 F. Millar "The Background of the Maccabean Revolution: Reflections on Martin Hen-
gel's 'Judaism and Hellenism' " JJS 29 (1978) 9.
10 Cf. G. Vermes Jesus and the World of Judaism (London: SCM, 1983) chap. 6 on the
16 II Exorcism and Exorcists in First Century Palestine

elsewhere, is particularly apparent when dealing with exorcism stories

within the New Testament that are not reported as part of Jesus' activity.11
In response to these problems of suitable material and dating I argued
in chapter II of Christ Triumphant that 1 Enoch, Tobit,12 Jubilees,13 the
Qumran Scrolls,14 Josephus,15 Philo of Alexandria,16 Pseudo-Philo's Liber
Antiquitatum Biblicarum (LAB),11 the magical papyri,18 Lucian of Samo-
sata,19 Apollonius of Tyana20 and rabbinic literature21 can, with varying

issues and problems involved in using later Jewish material to help reconstruct the
world of the historical Jesus. See also Harrington CBQ 49 (1987) 13.
11 See the stories of the Jewish exorcists mentioned in the Beelzebul Controversy (Matt
12.27/Luke 1L9; the Strange Exorcist (Mark 938/Luke 9.49) and the sons of Sceva
(Acts 19.13-20) all of which we will discuss below. We will need to be aware of the
distinct possibility that these stories have been reshaped in the light of the Jesus
stories and the interests of the early Church.
12 On texts, translations and literature see M.E. Mills Human Agents (Sheffield: JSOT,
1990) chap. 6 and notes.
13 On texts, translations and literature see Charlesworth OTP 2, 35-142.
14 On texts, translations and literature see B. Jongeling (et al.) (eds.) Aramaic Texts from
Qumran I (Leiden: Brill, 1976) 77-81, 123-5; J A Fitzmyer The Dead Sea Scrolls:
Major Publications and Tools for Study (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990); JA. Fitzmyer
and DJ. Harrington A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Rome: Biblical Institute,
1978) 3; G. Vermes The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective (London: SCM, 1982)
66-8.
15 On texts, translations and literature see H. St. J. Thackeray (et al.) (eds.) Josephus LCL,
10 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press and London: Heinemann, 1926-65);
LH. Feldman Scholarship on Philo and Josephus, 1937-61 (New York: Yeshiva
University, 1963); H. Schreckenberg Bibligraphie zu Flavius Josephus (Leiden: Brill,
1968); LJL Feldman Josephus, a Supplementary Bibliography (New York: Garland,
1986).
16 On texts, translations and literature see R. Williamson Jews in the Hellenistic World:
Philo (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) 307-9.
17 On texts, translations and literature see Charlesworth OTP 2, 297-377; Cf. DJ. Har-
rington "A Decade of Research on Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities" JSP 2 (1988)
3-12.
18 On texts, translations and literature see HD. Betz (ed.) The Greek Magical Papyri in
Translation (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1986). The role of the
magical papyri for our study is confirmed by similar magical material being
discovered at Qumran. See 4QTherapeia (RG Kee Medicine, Miracle and Magic in
NT Times (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986) Appendix. On the debate on
the nature and value of this text see JJL Charlesworth The Discovery of a Dead Sea
Scroll (4QTherapeia) (Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press, 1985), J. Naveh "A
Medical Document or a Writing Exercise? The So-called 4Q Therapeia" 1EJ 36 (1986)
52-5. Even if this document was a writing exercise, as Naveh argues, it may still be
useful in illustrating first century Palestinian beliefs about healing.
19 On texts, translations and literature see HD. Betz Lukian von Samosata und das Neue
Testament (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961); A M Harmon (et al!) Lucian 8 vola
(London: Heinemann, New York: Macmillan and Putnam and Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1913-67).
20 On texts, translations and literature see §3 n. 4 below.
21 On texts, translations and literature see Schürer History II, 314-80. See also J. Neusner
A History of the Jews in Babylonia (Leiden: Brill, 1968) III, 110-26, Torah, Medicine
and Magic"; MJ. Geller "Jesus' Theurgic Powers: Parallels in the Talmud and Incan-
tation Bowls" JJS 28 (1977) 141-55.
 § 2 Materials 17

degrees of ease and reliability, be used to provide material to reconstruct

first century understandings of spirits, demons, possessions, magic, heal-
ing, healers, exorcism and exorcists.22 These materials were able to provide
a broad backdrop to Jesus' ministry of exorcism and the ministry of the
early churches as represented in the New Testament. However, our inquiry
here is more narrow; it focuses on the historical Jesus as an exorcist who
lived and worked only in Palestine, principally in Galilee. Therefore, while
drawing on some of the conclusions reached in Christ Triumphant, we
need to be more particular in the sketching of an appropriate backdrop
for Jesus the exorcist of Galilee in northern Palestine.
As well as these materials, three other bodies of material command our
attention briefly before we can proceed. That is, the Prayer of Nabonidus,
the Testament of Solomon and data from the New Testament Apocrypha
are generally thought to be useful for an enterprise such as ours.
1. The Prayer of Nabonidus (4QPrNab or 4QsNab),23 coming from the
Qumran Scrolls, is certainly appropriate comparative material for the
understanding of the historical Jesus. The entire fragment of 4QPrNab
reads:
T h e words of the prayer uttered by Nabunai king of Babylon, [the great] king, [when
he was afflicted] with an evil ulcer in Teiman by decree of the [Most High Godl
'I was afflicted [with an evil ulcer] for seven years . . . and an exorcist pardoned my
sins. He was a Jew from among the [children of the exile of Judah, and he said],
'Recount this in writing to [glorify and exalt] the Name of [the Most High God'. And I
wrote this]:
'I was afflicted with an [evil] ulcer in Teiman [by decree of the Most High Godl
For seven years [I] prayed to the gods of silver and gold, [bronze and iron], wood and
stone and clay, because [I believe] that they were gods . . .'
In this Prayer Vermes23 had translated "itt as 'exorcist' rather than
'diviner'.26 While this might be irreproachable linguistically,27 it is not the

22 For an appropriate cautionary note on using later material to reconstruct the milieu
of Jesus see Kee Miracle 211, 288 and Kee Medicine 78.
23 On texts, translations and literature see Vermes Perspective 72—3; M F. Stone (ed.)
Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Philadelphia- Fortress and Assen: Van
Gorcum, 1984) 35-7; F M Cross "Fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus" IE] 34 (1984)
260-4.
24 From G. Vermes The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1978)
229. Jongeling (et aL) Aramaic Texts I, 123 add a fragment to this text but it is so
mutilated that its contents cannot readily be reconstructed or interpreted and so does
not affect our discussion.
25 See also A. Dupont-Sommer The Essene Writings from Qumran (Oxford: Blackwell,
1961) 322 a 3, 177ff_; A. Dupont-Sommer "Exorcismes et guérisons dans les écrits de
Qumran" VTSup 7 (1959) 246-61; Fitzmyer and Harrington Manual 3.
26 See J.T. Milik " 'Prière de Nabonide' et Autres écrits d'un cycle de Daniel Fragments
Araméens de Qumrân 4" RB 63(1956) esp. 409; Jongeling (et al.) Aramaic Texts I, 128;
Cross IEJ 34 (1984) 263-4.
27 See Dupont-Sommer VTSup 7 (1960) 246-6L
18 II Exorcism and Exorcists in First Century Palestine

most natural translation of the term. The noun, literally 'diviner', occurs in
Daniel 2.27,28 and it is probably this translation, rather than 'exorcist', that
is to be preferred here.29 Also, there is no suggestion in the Prayer that the
writer had an exorcism in mind. There is no doubt that the "iu is
involved in a healing, but there is no mention of an evil spirit or its
departure, simply that the Jewish exile pardoned the king's sins. Thus, the
Prayer of Nabonidus was probably not understood as an exorcism story
and therefore will be excluded from consideration when we attempt to
reconstruct a first century Palestinian understanding of exorcism and exor-
cists.
2. The Testament of Solomon.M This haggadic-type folk legend about
Solomon's building of the Temple in Jerusalem being frustrated by the
demon Ornias is headed:
Testament of Solomon, Son of David, who subdued all the spirits of the air, of the
earth, and under the earth; . . . (this tells) what their authorities are against men, and
by what angels these demons are thwarted"31 (Greek title; cf. 1513-15).

In view of this description of the contents of the Testament of Solo-

mon, it is hardly surprising that this pseudepigraphon is used to help
construct the background to New Testament demonology and exorcism.32
But, the key question is, How legitimate is this?
There are frequent and continuous thematic and vocabulary contacts
with, and echoes of, the New Testament. The introductions and footnotes
of Conybeare and Duling identify these contacts.33
The writer seems to be so familiar with, and reliant upon the New
Testament that it is most probable that the Testament of Solomon was
written by a Jewish Christian depending on various traditions including
the New Testament.34

28 Jongeling (et al.) Aramaic Texts I, 128; A. Lacocque The Book of Daniel (London:
SPCK, 1979) 42.
29 Yamauchi in Wenham and Blomberg (eds.) Gospel Perspectives 6, 121 and nj258.
30 On texts, translations and literature see Charlesworth The Pseudepigrapha and Mod-
ern Research With a Supplement (Chico: Scholars Press, 1981) 197-202; D. Duling "The
Testament of Solomon: Retrospect and Prospect" JSP 2 (1988) 87-112 and "The
Testament of Solomon" in OTP 1, 958—9; Schürer History IUI, 372-9. References and
translation are from Duling in OTP 1
31 Duling says in a note (e) here, "The Gk. verb kaiargeo is translated throughout T.
Sol. as 'I thwart.' It can mean 'I make ineffective,' 'I make powerless,' or 'I abolish,' 'I
wipe out,' 'I set aside.' " On the various recensions of the introduction (B [MSS P Q]
is quoted here) see C.C McCown The Testament of Solomon (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922)
99 and Duling in OTP 1, 960.
32 Cf. e.g. J M Hull Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition (London: SCM, 1974)
67-9.
33 Conybeare JQR 11(1898) 5f^ Duling in OTP 1, 960-87.
34 Cf. McCown Solomon 108f„ Cf. Conybeare JQR 11 (1898) 7. On the evidence of one
word M. Gaster concluded that the Testament was a translation of an Hebrew original
 §2 Materials 19

Like most hellenistic-Jewish 'magical' literature, the Testament has an

international quality so that it is not possible to reach any certain
conclusions about the Testament's place of origin.35 Neverthelsss, although
it is difficult to trace, the popular tradition about Solomon was growing in
Palestine and it is generally agreed that much of this Testament reflects
aspects of first century Judaism in Palestine.36
Dating the Testament is difficult because of the lack of explicit
reference to historical events other than the story line and the prophecies.
However, scholarly opinion has followed McCown who argued that the
Testament of Solomon should be dated in the early third century AD, yet
incorporating first century material.37 Thus, the Testament of Solomon is
an important witness primarily to exorcism in a part of the post-Apostolic
Church with reflections of earlier times.38
In turn, we need to conclude that it is only with care that the
Testament can be used to provide data for understanding exorcism in first
century Palestine (see further §3 below). This applies to those parts of the
Testament which are clearly reliant on the New Testament However,
because of its possible relatively late date, other elements will also need to
be shown to be more ancient than the document itself.39
3. The New Testament Apocrypha.40 There are a number of exorcism
stories in this literature which are often cited as appropriate background
material to the canonical Gospel exorcism stories.41 But, the late date, the

(M Gaster "The Sword of Moses" JRAS (18%) 155, 170, reprinted in Studies and Texts
in Folklore, Magic, Mediaeval Romance, Hebrew Apocrypha and Samaritan Ar-
cheology 3 vols. (New York: K.TAV, 1971) 1, 294, 309; cited by Duling in OTP 1, 939
n. 12 and Schurer History IIL1, 374 n. 50). But, McCown pointed out that, although
the author had used materials that had Semitic origins, the language of the Testament
as it now stands - similar in language and style to the NT - was koine Greek (Mc-
Cown Solomon 40, 43; followed by Duling in OTP 1, 939).
35 So also McCown Solomon.
36 Cf. Duling in OTP 1, 942 and 5. On traditions in Palestine associating Solomon and
demons see 944 n. 62.
37 McCown Solomon 105—8; cf. A.-M Denis Introduction aux pseudepigraphes grecs
d'Ancien Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1970) 67; and Charlesworth Pseudepigrapha and
Modern Research 198; J J t Charlesworth The OT Pseudepigrapha and the NT (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) 32 and 150 n. 13.
38 An exception to this dating is Preisendanz who suggested that the original Testament
was from the first or second century AD. See K. Preisendanz "Salomo" PWSup 8 (1956)
coL 689 and Eos. Commentarii Societatis Philologae Polonorum 48 (1956) 161-2.
39 Contrast the rather uncritical use of the T. Sol. by Mills Human Agents chap. 4.
40 Literature: Hennecke U, 167f„ 259, 390, 425f; DA. MacDonald (ed.) The Apocryphal
Acts of Apostles Semeia 38 (Decatur Scholars Press, 1986) and J J i Charlesworth The
NT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: A Guide to Publications, with Excursuses on
Apocalypses (Metuchen, NJ: American Theological Library Association and Scarecrow,
1987).
41 E.g. Bultmann History 22\ff; Dibelius Tradition 89, 106. Note the crirticisms of Bult-
mann and Dibelius by Kee Medicine 73-9.
20 II Exorcism and Exorcists in First Century Palestine

fantastic elements in the stories and the obvious dependence upon the
New Testament cast grave doubt on the direct usefulness of this material
for our purposes.
Thus, while ideas may not have been thought by the publishers of this
material to reflect their own times, they may have considered that the
fantastic' elements they included were appropriate to the apostolic age and
so happily worked them into the material. That is, while the publishers
may not have expected exorcists of their own time to behave as portrayed
in the Apocryphal Acts, they may have felt (perhaps wrongly) that the
Apostles would have so behaved.42
Nevertheless, a survey of the exorcism stories in the New Testament
Apocrypha reveals a few points which confirm the continuation of some
techniques of exorcism that had been used during, and even before, the
New Testament period. This helps us to substantiate a number of parts of
the picture of exorcism in the New Testament period which will emerge
from our investigation of more relevant data. That is, first, there was the
notion that the demons and the exorcist must, sometimes willingly, con-
front each other. Secondly, the exorcist, often only in general terms, was
believed to need to address or abuse the demon. Thirdly, the personal
force of the exorcist (verbally relying on some outside puissance or what
we will call a power-authority) was thought to be sufficient to affect
success without mechanical or physical aids. Fourthly, the conversation
between demon and exorcist, and fifthly, the 'conversion' of the sufferer
were also elements of the exorcisms.
In the toppling of a statue as 'proof of the success of the exorcist in the
Acts of Peter (2.4.11), we probably have a practise reflecting the period of
the publication of the Acts rather than an earlier time. The use of prayer,
and the exchange of old clothes for new ones in the Acts of Andrew,
probably reflect notions involved in exorcism over a long period of time
in antiquity. Apart from this, the writers seem to offer us no reliable
material as background information to the stories of Jesus. What they
seem to do, for the most part, is project back notions and speeches which
they felt appropriate to the Apostles they sought to venerate.
Conclusion. From our brief discussions on material which might be an
appropriate resource for sketching a backdrop for Jesus the exorcist we

42 Cf. E.R. Dodds The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1971), " . . . If a particular supernatural phenomenon, alleged to occur
spontaneously among civilized people in recent times, is not attested at any other time
and place of which we have adequate knowledge, the presumption is thereby
increased that it does not occur as alleged, unless clear reason can be shown why it
remained so long unnoticed" (158).
 § 2 Materials 21

have to exclude the Prayer of Nabonidus. Only with care can the
Testament of Solomon be used, for it is a witness primarily to exorcism in
the third century Church. On the New Testament Apocrypha we have just
concluded that its greatest value is in confirming the continuation of some
techniques of exorcism that were used in first century Palestine. Apart
from these documents, we are able to use 1 Enoch, Tobit, Jubilees, the
Qumran Scrolls, Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, Pseudo-Philo's Liber Anti-
quitatum Biblicarum, the magical papyri, Lucian of Samosata, Apollonius
of Tyana and the rabbinic literature (see further chap. II of my Christ
Triumphant).
 § 3 Exorcism and Exorcists

We can now proceed to ask, what would have been believed about
exorcism and exorcists in first century Palestine?
Surveying the available material reveals that a variety of exorcists and
forms of exorcism would have been known and used in Palestine around
the time of Jesus.1 But, from the variety, a pattern or series of clear op-
tions or parameters for exorcism and exorcists emerges.
The data show that an exorcism was thought to be successful as a result
of the interplay of three factors: (1) the exorcist, (2) a source of power -
authority and (3) the ritual or form of application of that power-authority
against the offending spiritual being. The range of kinds of exorcists and
forms of exorcism arose out of the varying understanding of importance
of these three factors. I will take soundings at the edges of these options
to illustrate the two basic kinds of exorcism and exorcists that would have
been familiar to Jesus' audience. In these soundings we will see, in par-
ticular, that the importance of the source of power-authority varied.
L Some exorcisms were thought to be successful because of the
exorcist who performed them. That is, the charismatic force of the
exorcist was believed to be sufficiently powerful so that what he said or
did was of little or no importance in his success; his mere presence and
command were sufficient to send the demon scurrying. The literature
bears witness to two kinds of such figures as exorcists: historical exorcists
and legendary exorcists.

(a) Historical charismatic figures2

(i) I will begin with the rabbinic literature for it provides us with insights
into the kinds of historical charismatic exorcists in first century Palestine.
Tradition places Hanina ben Dosa, the devout miracle worker, in the
pre-70 AD period. If not a Galilean, he was certainly active there (;'.

1 Cf. K. Thraede "Exorzismus" RAC VII (1969) 44-117.

2 On the "charismatic type" see especially S. Freyne "The Charismatic" in G.W.E.
Nickelsburg and J J. Collins (edsj Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and
Paradigms (Chico: Scholars Press, 1980) 233-58 and literature cited.
 § 3 Exorcism and Exorcists 23

Ber. 1.9d; j. Ma'as. S. 5.56a; b. Ber. 34b; Eccl. Rab. 1). We have no
exorcism story associated with him. However, there is the story of interest
to us of Hanina out walking one evening when he was met by Agrath,
the queen of the demons. She said: "Had they not made an announcement
concerning you in heaven, Take heed of Hanina and his learning,' I would
have put you in danger." Hanina replies, "If I am of account in heaven, I
order you never to pass through settled regions" (b. Pesah. 112b).3 After
pleading for leniency Agrath is granted freedom on Sabbath and
Wednesday nights. In the context of our study it is to be noted that the
basis of Hanina's preternatural power-authority to order the demon is not
in what he says or does but in his standing in heaven, that is, his
relationship with God.
(ii) Also from the Jewish material, mention can be made of a story
about the fourth generation tannaitic rabbi Simeon ben Yose. A demon,
Ben Temalion, is said to enter the Emperor's daughter. When Rabbi
Simeon arrived he called out to the demon "Ben Temalion, get out! Ben
Temalion, get out!" The story says that as he said this the demon left the
girl (b. Me'il. 17b). The success of this exorcism is thought to depend
entirely on the charismatic force of the exorcist.
(iii) Apollonius of Tyana was a historical charismatic figure, close in
time and type to Jesus, who was also thought to be a successful exorcist
because of his charismatic power. It is worth commenting on him in some
detail because of the time in which he lived and because he exercised a
peripatetic mission like Jesus, though the travels of Apollonius extended
through many countries.
The fame of this wandering Neo-Pythagorean sage, who died cAD
96—98 rests on a biography of him by Flavius Philostratus (cAD 170—
c.245). The Life of Apollonius of Tyana was written about AD 217 at the
suggestion of the Empress Julia Domma, wife of Septimus Severus in
whose circle of philosopher-friends Philostratus moved ( L i f e L3).4

3 Contrast BM. Bokser who says "Sources indicate that some first and second-century
Jews, like their non-Jewish contemporaries, believed that individuals could achieve
special abilities that made them closer to God." "Recent Developments in the Study of
Judaism 70-200 C£." SecCent 3 (1983) 30 (my emphasis). Cf. B M Bokser "Wonder-
Working and the Rabbinic Tradition. The Case of Hanina ben Dosa" JSJ 16 (1985)
42-92, especially 92 Note Acts 3.2 where the apostles are said to disown the idea that
they healed by their own power or piety (eusebeia).
4 On texts, translations and literature: G. Petzke Die Traditionen über Apollonius von
Tyana und das NT (Leiden: Brill, 1970) 239ff. and E L Bowie "Apollonius of Tyana:
Tradition and Reality" ANW II16.2 (1978) 1652-99; RJ. Penella The Utters of
Apollonius of Tyana: A Critical Text With Prolegomena, Translation and Commen-
tary (Leiden: Brill, 1979>, M Dzielska Apollonius of Tyana in Legend and History
(Rome: L'erma, 1986). See also a 5 below.
24 II Exorcism and Exorcists in First Century Palestine

As this Life is about a century removed from its subject there is the
same kind of problem as in the Gospels — the relationship between the
'historical' Apollonius and the stories about him.5 How far then the
Life represents views apparent in Philostratus' time and how far it repre-
sents earlier views is difficult to determine. In relation to our particular
study on exorcism I will note a few points Philostratus makes which may
give us some idea how he handled the exorcism stories of Apollonius.
In Life 7.39 Philostratus says that Apollonius tells Damis of the people
he finds discredited and condemned by nature and law: those who ask vast
sums of money for their feats and those who sell boxes containing bits of
stones, which people wear to gain success. In Life 8.7 Philostratus has the
sage dissociate himself from those who get men to believe that the unreal
is real and to distrust the real as unreal and thereby seek to gain vast
fortunes. Thus, as we would expect, Philostratus portrays Apollonius as a
poor philosopher, neither misleading people, nor asking reward for his
activities.
But, in at least two ways Philostratus opens up the way for portraying
Apollonius as a miracle worker. First, in Life 1.2, Philostratus mentions the
apparently well known story of how Anaxagorus at Olympia, in a time of
severe drought, predicted rain, the fall of a house, and stones being dis-
charged from heaven. Then, Philostratus complains that those who accept
the works of Anaxagorus as the result of his wisdom rather than his

5 This is particularly evident in the interesting points of contact the Life has with the
formation of the Gospels, in that Julia Domma placed in the hands of Philostratus
some memoirs by Damis, a disciple of Apbllonius (Life 13). Philostratus was also able
to use a history of the career of Apollonius at Aegae by Maximus an admirer
(Life 13), as well as many letters of Apollonius that were in circulation and various
treatises of the sage which have not survived. Finally, Philostratus had been able to
travel to cities where Apollonius was honoured - especially to Tyana where there was
a temple specially dedicted to the cult of Apollonius. (F.C. Conyheare Philostratus: The
Life of Apollonius LCL, 2 vols. [Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press and
London: Heinemann, 1948] I, vi.). However, a difficulty for the historian seeking the
historical Apollonius is that Damis, the favourite disciple, may only be an invention
of the author. (The view of e.g. F. Täger Charisma: Studien zur Geschichte des
antiken Herrscherkultes [Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1960] 203-5; EJt Dodds Pagan and
Christian in an Age of Anxiety [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965] 59; J.
Ferguson The Religions of the Roman Empire [Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1965]
180ff; M Hengel The Charismatic Leader and His Followers [Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1981] 27; W. Speyer "Zum Bild des Apollonius von Tyana bei Heiden und
Christen" JAC 17 [1974] 49 and more recently Kee Miracle 256.) For, as Kee points
out, the material allegedly originating from Damis contains historical and geographical
anachronisms. To mention one example; Damis is said to visit Ninevah and Babylon.
However, they had been in ruins since the third and fourth centuries BC
(Miracle 256-7). On the unreliability of Philostratus see the last chapter in WÜ.
Halliday Folklore Studies: Ancient and Modern (Ann Arbor Gryphon Books, 1971) and
further on the debate see Bowie ANRW IL16.2 (1978) 1653-71
 § 3 Exorcism and Exorcists 25

wizardry are the very same people who would wish to discredit Apol-
lonius for the same kind of activities. Second, the method of Philostratus
is to represent Apollonius as somewhat sceptical — so that his miracles
will seem more probable.6 Thus, Apollonius refuses to believe that trees
are older than the earth ( L i f e 6.37; cf. 3.45 and 5.13) and Philostratus voices
his own doubt about Apollonius raising a dead girl ( L i f e 4.45).
What implications do these factors have for Philostratus' handling of
the individual exorcism stories? First, we can agree with Conybeare that
"the evident aim of Philostratus is to rehabilitate the reputation of
Apollonius, and defend him from the charge of having been a charlatan or
wizard addicted to evil and magical practices."7 It also probably means that
Philostratus will at least heighten the simplicity of Apollonius' technique.
Further, if Philostratus wants to align Apollonius with the great
philosopher-miracle-workers of the past then the miracles of Apollonius
may well be presented as spectacular. With these things in mind we turn
to two stories of interest to us in Philostratus' Life.
There is a well-known exorcism story in the Life which concerns a
young lad who interrupts Apollonius while he is speaking in Athens in the
king's portico (4.20). Apollonius looked at the young lad and, as if
possessing some preternatural insight into the boy's life, said: "It is not
yourself that perpetrates this insult, but the demon, who drives you on
without knowing it" At Apollonius' gaze the demon cried out, screamed
and "swore that he would leave the young man alone and never take
possession of any man agaia" But, Apollonius reprimanded him and
ordered him to quit (ajtaXAatieoQai) the youth and to give some definite
proof that he had done so. The devil said that he would throw down a
nearby statue. The statue moved gently and then fell down, the result of
which was a hubbub and a clapping of hands with wonder by the crowd
The lad rubbed his eyes as if he had just woken. The lad is also described
as "coming to himself" {akV ejtavr}X0ev ec, tf|v eautou), a phrase already
shown to be associated with exorcism by Josephus (Ant. 8.49). The story
ends with a report that the young lad fell in love with the austerities of
the philosophers, put on their cloak, took off his old self, and modelled his
life upon that of Apollonius ( L i f e 4.20).
Can we suggest which parts of this story may have come from the
reports of those who saw this incident take place, and which have been
appended? The distress of the demoniac, and the simple technique of

6 R M Grant Miracle and Natural Law in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian

Thought (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1952) 74.
7 Conybeare Philostratus 1, viif. and xii. We can note also that Conybeare suggests that
Damis may have, "Like the so-called aretologi of the age, set himself to embellish
the life of his master, to exaggerate his wisdom and his supernatural powers" (xii).
26 II Exorcism and Exorcists in First Century Palestine

Apollonius are elements of exorcism stories that are found associated with
other exorcists of the period (see below). But, the episode of the toppling
statue is much like that of the destruction of a statue in the apocryphal
Acts of Peter 2.4.11 (see above). So, our only other parallel to this feature
is also late and from material which is quite an unreliable indication of
notions of exorcism in the time of Jesus (cf. above). Thus, we probably
cannot use this element in the Apollonius story to help us understand
exorcism in the first century. Nevertheless, this kind of proof may stem
from the more simple kind of proof of disturbing a bowl of water which
Josephus mentions (Ant. 8.49). The demon saying he would not take
possession of anyone again reflects the view of Mark 925 and Antiquities
8.47, but does not seem dependent on them. Therefore, it probably
represents a widely held view of what took place in an exorcism.
The end of the story — the young man's following the austerity of the
philosopher — is so obviously in line with Philostratus' objective to
portray Apollonius in this way (see above). We cannot be sure, therefore,
that it does not come from Philostratus' own hand.
Another story in the Life deals with a mother who petitions Apollonius
for her 16 year old son who for two years had been possessed by a devil
(3.38). The mother says that the demons drive the boy into deserted places
and that the boy has lost his former voice for another which is deep and
hollow in tone. She says that she has wept and torn her cheeks as well as
reprimanding her son — but to no avail, for the boy does not know her.
The woman says that she is also frightened of the demon and, because of
its threats to her of steep places, precipices and the death of her son, she
has not brought the boy to Apollonius. Finally, Apollonius says: " Take
courage, for he will not slay him when he has read this.' Upon this Apol-
lonius took out a letter from his pocket and gave it to the woman . . ."
The letter, it appears, was addressed to the demon and contained threats
(ajtEiXrj) of an alarming kind. There is no indication of the efficacy of the
letter. All we are told is that on reading the letter the demon would not
kill the boy.
This story is, again, clearly intended to enhance the reputation of
Apollonius, for the incident occurs during a discussion between the sage
and some Indian wise men. Also, the conclusion to the series of stories, of
which this is one, reads: "With such lore as this then they surfeited
themselves, and they were astonished at the many-sided wisdom of the
company, and day after day they asked all sorts of questions, and were
themselves asked many in turn" (3.40).
This story tells us of an exorcism at a distance by a wandering
charismatic, of talking demons and of the use of a written incantation to
rid the boy of the demoa Both of these things would have been widely
 § 3 Exorcism and Exorcists 27

and well known in the ancient world and, apart from its setting, Phil-
ostratus may not have altered this story much. These elements, as well as
the distress of the demoniac and the simple technique of Apollonius, are
probably those which would represent notions of exorcism in first century
Palestine. Finally, although he is writing during and expressing views of
the early third century, it is pertinent to note, in relation to our discussion
of magic in §24 below, that according to his digression in Life 7.39,
Philostratus considers none of the techniques or methods of Apollonius to
be related to magic or wizardry, but to be miracles. For Philostratus,
magic is a commercial enterprise involving the manipulation of forces to
produce feats for a fee, while miracles are performed by someone who
was divine (Geia) and superhuman (icai K p e i i t a w avQgamou) (7.38).8
(iv) Another example of historical charismatic figures, who were in
some cases exorcists, are the wandering philosophers, healers and exor-
cists. Some of the exorcists and healers of the period were probably
attached to pagan temples (see n.32 below), but peripatetic healers were
also common in the New Testament era.
First, writing as far back as the fourth century BC in The Republic,
Plato tells of wandering priests.
"Mendicant priests and soothsayers come to the rich man's door with a story of a
power they possess by the gift of heaven to atone for any offence that he or his
ancestors have committed with incantations and sacrifice, agreeably accompanied by
feasting. If he wishes to injure an enemy, he can, at a trifling expense, do him a hurt
with equal ease, whether he be an honest man or not, by means of certain invocations
and spells which, as they profess, prevail upon the gods to do their bidding . . ."
(364b-365a).9

There is no certainty here that these wandering divines included

exorcism in their repertoire. Nevertheless, Plato's description establishes
the antiquity of travelling priests who were thought to be able to exercise
control over preternatural beings.
Secondly, Origen, quoting Celsus, who is probably to be assigned to the
period AD 177—8010 writes of
" . . . sorcerers who profess to do wonderful miracles, and the accomplishments of those
who are taught by the Egyptians, who for a few obols make known their sacred law in
the middle of the market-place and drive daemons out of men and blow away diseases
and invoke the souls of heroes . . ." (CC 168)'.

8 Cf. Kee Miracle 260-1, 264.

9 Further and for other examples see W. Burkert "Craft Versus Sect: The Problem of
Orphics and Pythagoreans" in BP. Meyer and EP. Sanders (eds.) Jewish and Christian
Self-Definition III (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 4-8.
10 See H. Chadwick Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980)
xxviii.
28 II Exorcism and Exorcists in First Century Palestine

So, with Plato's comments in mind, we have evidence of an ancient and

widespread tradition of wandering religious individuals who included the
control of spiritual beings among their activities. The sorcerers of whom
Origen writes were obviously exorcists. It is said that they "blow away
diseases" so it is possible that blowing on the sufferer was part of their
method of exorcism.
Thirdly, another example of historical charismatic figures who were
wonder-workers are the Cynics.11 There is evidence of a long tradition of
wandering Cynic philosophers in Palestine, at least one of whom we know
had a reputation for wonder-working. Antisthenes of Athens (c.455—c.360
BC), a devoted pupil of Socrates, was considered to be founder of the
Cynics (Diodorus Siculus 15.76; Diogenes Laertius Lives of Eminent Phil-
osophers L15, 19; 6.13, 103—5). Diogenes says that they did away with
logic and physics and devoted their whole attention to ethics (Lives 6.103).
Concentrating on virtue (a petr|) at the expense of an elaborate phil-
osophical system (Lives 6.104—5), what distinguished them was their dress
and habits. Diogenes said: "They also hold that we should live frugally,
eating food for nourishment only and wearing a single garment. Wealth
and fame and high birth they despise. Some at all events are vegetarians
and drink cold water only and are content with any kind of shelter or
tubs . . (Diogenes Lives 6.104).
It is coming to be recognized that Cynicism was an important aspect of
the world of Jesus and the origins of Christianity.12 Dio Chrysostom,
whose travels as a Cynic philosopher included the eastern Mediterranean
country areas and towns, said that Cynics were on every street corner in

II On the Cynics and Cynicisms see D.R. Dudley A History of Cynicism from Diogenes
to the Sixth Century AD. (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1967>, H.W. Attridge First Century
Cynicism in the Epistle of Heraclitus (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976>, E. O'Neil Teles
(The Cynic Teacher) (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977>, AJ. Malherbe Moral Exhortation:
A Greco-Roman Sourcebook (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986) and F.G. Downing Jesus
and the Threat of Freedom (London: SCM, 1987). See also AJ. Malherbe "Self-
Definition among Epicurians and Cynics" in Meyer and Sanders (eds.) Self-Definition
III, 49-50; AJ. Malherbe " 'Gentle as a Nurse'. The Cynic Background to 1 Thess ii"
NovT 12 (1970) 203-17.
12 See, e.g. F.G. Downing "Cynics and Christains" NTS 30 (1984) 584 and n. 2 who
mentions Theissen, Malherbe and Attridge as seeing the relevance of the Cynic's
points of contact with Christianity. Cf. F.G. Downing "The Social Contexts of Jesus
the Teacher Construction or Reconstruction" NTS 33 (1987) 439-51, who says that
"Cynic ideas and the Cynic life-style (in its considerable varieties) could well have
been available for Jesus to adopt and adapt and for his first followers to recognize
and make sense of; and he might well not have been the first Jew from Galilee to
attempt a marriage of these ideas with his own native Judaism" (449). F.G. Downing
"Quite Like Q. A Genre for 'Q': The Lives of Cynic Philosophers" Biblica 69 (1988)
196-225. See also the cautionary note sounded by CM. Tuckett "A Cynic Q?" Bi-
blica 70 (1989) 349-76 and the critical evaluation of Theissen by R_A Horsley
Sociology and the Jesus Movement (New York: Crossroad, 1989) esp. 47, 116-9.
 § 3 Exorcism and Exorcists 29

cities such as Alexandria (Discourse 32.2, 9—11). But, more importantly,

there are striking parallels between Cynicism and the Christian traditions.13
For example, Seneca's saying . . good does not spring from evil, any
more than figs grow from olive trees" (EM LXXXVII.25) calls to mind
the sayings in, for example, Matthew 7.16—17/Luke 6.43—5. Cynics debated
the nature of blessedness; Epictetus saying that it lay in a right relation
with deity (Discourses 3.20.15). And, the way the Gospels portray Jesus and
John the Baptist as speaking sharply to and rebuking people can be
paralleled in the Cynic's style of public speaking.
Of particular interest to us is the fact that Diogenes Laertius includes in
his list of Cynics Menedemus, a third century BC pupil of Echecles from
Asia Minor. He says Menedemus, "had attained such a degree of audacity
in wonder-working (xepateia) that he went about in the guise of a Fury
('EpivúO, saying that he had come from Hades to take cognizance of sins
committed, and was going to return and report them to the powers down
below" (Lives 6.103).14 We have, then, in the Cynic tradition, an example
of a wonder-working philosopher whose activities were said to include
taking cognizance of people's sins (see also Peregrinus below).
In his Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Diogenes Laertius gives evidence
of two Cynics living in the area around Galilee. Menippus of Gadara was
by descent a Phoenician who lived in the first half of the first century
BC.15 Among his writings was one piece on Necromancy (Lives 6.101).
In turn, Menippus influenced Meleager of Gadara (born in c.140 BC),
who grew up and was educated at Tyre (Athenaeus Deipnosophists 4.157b;
11.502c).16 He wrote poetry and popular philosophical essays. He had an
intimate knowledge of Greek epigrams and made a collection of them in
his Garland. He died in old age in c.70 BG
From Lucian of Samosata's The Passing of Peregrinus we learn of
Peregrinus, a Cynic from Mysia (cAD 100—c.165). At one stage he was
suspected of strangling his father. So Lucian says: . . when the affair had
been noised abroad, he condemned himself to exile and roamed about
going to one country after another. It was then that he learned the won-
drous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in
Palestine." He soon became a

13 For other examples see Downing NTS 30 (1984) 584-93. While Seneca was a Stoic, his
creed was similar to the Cynics (Dudley Cynicism 120).
14 Further see PW 15.794-5.
15 Diogenes Laertius Lives 629, 95, 99-101; PW 15.888-93. H.D. Rankin Sophists, Socratics
and Cynics (Beckenham, Kent: Croom Helm, 1983) 229-48.
16 Lucian of Samosata was also influenced by Menippus. See Lucian Menippus or the
Descent into Hades and Icaromenippus or the Sky-Man. Cf. P. Whigham The Poems
of Meleager (London: Anvil, 1975), bibliography.
30 II Exorcism and Exorcists in First Century Palestine

"prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything else, all by himself. He
interpreted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they
revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector,
next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified
in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world* {Peregrinus 10-11).

Although imprisoned for this he was, with the aid of Christians, released
to roam about living off the wealth of the Christians. However, he was
later rejected by the Christians, according to Lucian, because he ate for-
bidden food (Peregrinus 16).
In Peregrinus, we have an example of a wandering Cynic living on the
margins of Palestinian society just a few decades after the time of Jesus.
His and other Cynics' charismatic life-styles were close to the Christian
tradition, and probably, in turn, to that of Jesus in Palestine. This is seen
in the ease with which Peregrinus moved in and out of Christianity.17
The Cynic tradition in Palestine carries through and beyond the time of
Jesus. A number of sources, including Eusebius, testify to a Cynic, Oeno-
maus of Gadara who lived in the second century AD.18 Although the
sources do not say that the wandering Cynics were exorcists, that at least
Menedemus was a wonder-worker means that exorcism might have been
part of their activities. In any case, the Cynics are important to us as
evidence of wandering historical figures involved in wonder-working in
Palestine.
Fourthly, in the New Testament itself we have examples of some
wandering priests who were exorcists; in the story of the sons of Sceva in
Acts 19.13—19.19
It cannot be claimed that we have direct evidence of exorcism in first
century Palestine, for the story is set in Ephesus. However, as the exorcists

17 G. Theissen "Wanderradikalismus" ZTK 7 (1973) 245-71 and "Itinerant Radicialism: The

Tradition of Jesus Sayings from the Perspective of the Sociology of Litera-
ture" Radical Religion 2 (1975) 87. See also his The First Followers of Jesus (London:
SCM, 1978) Part One.
18 PW 17.2249.
19 Literature: E. Haenchen The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971) 564 and 6
and R£. Oster, Jr. A Historical Commentary on the Missionary Success Stories in
Acts 19.11-40 (PhD. Thesis, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1974) bibliography. E.
Delebecque "La mésaventure des fils de Sévas selon ses deux versions (Actes 19,
13-20) Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 66 (1982) 225-232; W.A.
Strange "The Sons of Sceva and the Text of Acts 19:14" JTS 38 (1987) 97-106; S.R.
Garrett The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Luke's Writings (Minnea-
polis: Fortress, 1989). Luke's story of Paul's driving out a spirit of divination from a
slave girl (Acts 1616-18), though an entirely Christian exorcism, is a further example
of a wandering exorcist being successful by using the name of a renowned exorcist as
a power-authority. See further, E.R. Dodds "Supernormal Phenomena in Classical
Antiquity" in his The Ancient Concept of Progress and Other Essays in Greek
Literature and Belief (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973) 195-200; Twelftree Christ 93-4.
 § 3 Exorcism and Exorcists 31

are said to be Jews (19.13), as well as peripatetic, they probably represent

notions on exorcism in the wider world including Palestine. Our discussion
of the Cynics (see above) further confirms this point.
Who were these exorcists in Acts? Our answer depends on the way we
resolve the textual difficulties in 19.14. If we follow the Western text, as
we most probably should, the verse begins ev oTc, Kai — probably
meaning "at this juncture" a second group of exorcists, the sons of Sceva,
were involved in the story. The Western text also says that Sceva was a
priest, not a high priest, and the number of his sons is not mentioned. It is
not said that Sceva was a Jew.20 This means that a travelling troupe of
Gentile exorcists was plying its trade in Ephesus at the time.
On the other hand, in the majority text of Acts 19.14 only one group of
exorcists is assumed to be involved in the story and Luke says they were
sons of Sceva a chief priest. A possible difficulty here is that Josehpus,
who records the names of the chief priests from the first century BC to
the abolition of the office in AD 70, does not mention a Sceva as a high
priest 21 So, it has been suggested, for example, that Sceva may have been
a renegade Jew holding the office of high priest in the imperial cult.22 But,
there is no evidence, or sufficient reason, that this was the case for Sceva.
Further, this would be the only New Testament reference to a pagan
priest Also, Schiirer thought that "high priests" were members of a few
privileged families from which the high priests were takea 23 However,
Schiirer mistranslates the Mishnah passages, and the passages from
Josephus and Acts are unclear in relation to Schiirer's thesis.24 Further,
these "high priests" in Acts 19 cannot even be retired ruling priests
because they do not appear in Josephus' list
Rather, in view of Josephus' calling "high priests" people who had never
been ruling high priest, and a high priest living in Galilee before AD 70,25
as well as the New Testament using agxicQtvc, in the plural 64 times
(even though there was only one high priest at a time), the term would
have meant not ruling priests but prominent or high ranking priests.26
There is no difficulty in accepting the idea that Sceva was a high priest in

20 See further Strange JTS 38 (1987) 97-106.

21 Josephus Ant. 20.224-5L For a list of high priests see Jeremias Jerusalem 377-8 and
Schürer History II, 229-32.
22 B E. Taylor "Acts xix!4" ExpTim 57 (1945-6) 222.
23 E. Schürer A History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ II, 1 (Edin-
burgh: T & T Clark, 1901) 204 on the basis of Josephus War 6114; Acts 4.6; m.
Ketub. 131-2; m. Ohol. 17.5.
24 Jeremias Jerusalem 175-7.
25 See Jeremias Jerusalem 176 and n. 87.
26 Cf. Jeremias Jerusalem 178; B A Mastin "Sceva the Chief Priest" JTS 27 (1976) 405-6.
32 II Exorcism and Exorcists in First Century Palestine

this sense. In turn, this means that the "sons of Sceva" would also have
been high priests.27
That there were seven sons has been seen to be a difficulty not least
because of ¿(icpotepoi ("both" or "two") in verse 16.28 However, it is more
difficult to explain how ejiia ("seven") came to be part of the text than to
assume that it is original Further, a^icpotepoi can mean not only "both"
but "all".29
It is possible that Sceva's seven "sons" were not brothers but members
of a guild of exorcists.30 This view can be supported by noting that in
Matthew 12.27 (Luke 1L19) "the sons" would most naturally refer not to
the physical sons of Jesus' critics but to members of a group. Also, in the
Jerusalem Talmud (j. Seqal. 4.48a) a group of high priests officiating at
the ceremony of the Red Heifer are called "sons of the high priest".31
Regardless of whether Luke wrote of one or two groups of exorcists
here they are described as peripatetic exorcists (19.13). This could be to
distinguish them from the exorcists who would have been attached to the
Ephesian pagan temple32 of Artemis, a goddess associated with, among
many other things, healing.33
These "door to door" exorcists had taken up the name of Jesus into
their incantations. The form in which they used it is interesting: "I adjure
you by Jesus whom Paul preaches." This form, "I adjure you by . . ," is
very common in the magical papyri (e.g. PGM IV.3007—86). However, I
can find no instance of this term in incantations prior to its use in the

27 On geneological descent as the requirement for membership of the priesthood see

Schürer History II, 239-43.
28 See EM. Metzger A Textual Commentary on the Greek NT (London and New York:
United Bible Societies, 1975). On the textual difficulties in this pericope see FJ.
Foakes Jackson and K. Lake (eds.) The Beginnings of Christianity 5 vols. (London:
Macmillan, 1920-33) IV, 241; MM 28; FP. Bruce The Acts of the Apostles (London:
Tyndale, 1952) 359; and Metzger Commentary 470-2.
29 See BAGD and Haenchen Acts 564 a 5.
30 FJ. Foakes Jackson The Acts of the Apostles (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1931)
179 n. L
31 See further Jeremias Jerusalem 177 and n. 90.
32 See C.T. Newton Essays on Art and Archeology (London: Macmillan, 1880) 136-209,
esp. 151 and 163; D.G. Hogarth Excavations at Ephesus (London: British Museum, 1908);
WJ. Woodhouse ERE X, 302ff; EM. Yamauchi The Archeology of NT Cities in
Western Asia Minor (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980) 102-109; Homer Iliad 5.77; 16.234,
605; Pausanias ii.xii.2; Origen mentions exorcists at work in the market place, CC L68;
UL50.
33 Hogarth Ephesus 232, 238. Ephesus was renown for its "magical" tradition. Note par-
ticularly the "Ephesian Grammata"; see C.G McCown "The Ephesian Grammata in
Popular Belief" Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological As-
sociation 54 (1923) 128-40. See further E M Yamauchi "Magic in the Biblical World"
TynBul 34 (1983) 173 n. 14. a . ItE. Oster Bibliography of Ancient Ephesus (Metuchen:
Scarecrow, 1987).
 § 3 Exorcism and Exorcists 33

New Testament: Mark 5.7 and here in Acts. The term is, of course, com-
monly used in other contexts prior to the first century AD. For example, 1
Kings 22.16 (LXX) has ". . . the king said to him, 'How often shall I
adjure you, that you speak to me truth in the name of the Lord? " The
general meaning of opKi^oj is clear, to adjure or implore someone, or
more correctly to cause to swear by someone (cf. Joshua 6.26; §7 below).
Its particular meaning in the context of an exorcist's incantation is made
plain with reference to earlier incantations. In Babylonian exorcisms and
incantations the climax of an exorcism was very often indicated by the
line:
"By Heaven be thou exorcised!
By Earth be thou exorcised"

— by which "it is indicated that the powers of Heaven and earth shall lay
the demon under a tapu,"34 ban, or supernatural restriction. That this is the
way in which opia^co should be approached is made all the more likely by
the fact that in the magical papyri o q k i ^ g o is also placed at the climax of
the incantations, at the point where the supernatural is called upon to act
on behalf of the exorcist.35
If these conjectures are correct then what the exorcists in Acts 19 were
doing in using optci^oo was not imploring36 the demons to leave because of
Jesus, but rather using Jesus' name to put a supernatural restriction on the
demons.
It has been suggested that the formula — "I adjure you by the Jesus
whom Paul preaches" — is of the type in which the exorcist recited the
history of the invoked god in order to impress and terrify the demon.37
This is an important question as it relates to the methods exorcists used in
the New Testament period.
It can readily be documented that exorcists' incantations included, usu-
ally at the beginning, a brief history of the god under whose aegis they
worked. For example, Origen says that Christians get their power to
subdue demons "by the name of Jesus with the recital of the histories
about him" (CC L6).38
But, in Acts 19.13, the phrase "Jesus whom Paul preaches" ( k t i q u o o e i —

34 R.C. Thompson The Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylon 2 vols. (London; Luzac, 1903
and 4) U, XLL
35 See, e.g. HJL Bell (et al.) "Magical Texts from a bilingual Papyrus in the British M u -
seum" Proceedings of the British Academy 17 (1931) 254f. and 266.
36 Contra, e.g. D.E. Nineham Mark (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969) 153; E Schweizer The
Good News According to Mark (London: SPCK, 1971) 114; Loos Miracles 386.
37 W L Knox "Jewish Liturgical Exorcisms" HTR 31 (1938) 195; Oster Acts 5 4 f f .
38 See also CC IIL24; IV34 and PGM I V 3 0 3 4 f f ; LAB 60 (both quoted below); Apostolic
Constitutions VIIL7.
34 II Exorcism and Exorcists in First Century Palestine

present tense) does not easily fit the form of a history. Notably, the
travelling exorcists are not said to mention the past, powerful activities of
their source or power-authority. Rather, what they are doing is identifying
Jesus as he is presently knowa
That we are justified in thinking that this is a formula of identification
rather than glorification can be shown from other places where the name
of Jesus is mentioned along with an identificatory phrase.39 For example,
Justin Martyr says: "So now we who believe on Jesus our Lord who was
crucified under Pontius Pilate exorcise all the demons and evil spirits, and
thus hold them subject to .us" {Dial. 76.6; see also 30.3; 85.2; Apology L6;
Irenaeus Adversus Haereses 2.32.4).
Although parts of these references appear credal or are, in parts,
statements of belief, details appended to the name of Jesus are probably
best understood as identificatory. In each case Pontius Pilate is the ref-
erence. This strengthens the present case, for early Christian writers
assumed that statements they made about Jesus could be checked in the
apocryphal Acts of Pilate.40
So, to conclude this point, it is probable that Acts 19.13 is to be
understood in the light of these identificatory passages rather than, say,
those like LAB 60 which have histories of the power-authority as part of
the incantatioa Thus, "I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches" was
the exorcists' method of unmistakably identifying a (perhaps) previously
obscure, now recently known powerful name as a power-authority for use
in exorcism. And, this understanding is further confirmed by verse 15, the
demons' successful defence: "But the evil spirit answered them, 'Jesus I
know, and Paul I know, but who are you? "41
In short, Acts 1913—19 tells us that the exorcists were using incantations,
unaided by cultic performances, to put a supernatural restriction on de-
mons. Their source of power-authority was the name of a renowned
exorcist whose aid was sought through a careful identificatory formula.
And, finally, the demons made a successful self-defence. We turn, now,
from looking at historical charismatic figures, to those which were literary
creations.

39 Cf. RH. Conolly " The Meaning of eniicXiiau;': A Reply" JTS 25 (1924) esp. 346-51.
40 Cf. F. Scheidweiler in Hennecke I, 444f_ See also Justin Apology 135; cf. L48;
Eusebius History of the Church 1.93; Tacitus Annals 15.44. See also Acts 4J0 which
seems to contain both elements of "identification" and "glorification".
41 Our case is not, I think, substantially altered if Luke is responsible for ov ITauXoc;
KT)puooei as we would still be dealing with notions about exorcism in the first
century. On demons attacking holy men see P. Brown "The Rise and Function of the
Holy Man in Late Antiquity" JRS 61 (1971) 88.
 § 3 Exorcism and Exorcists 35

(b) Legendary or non 'historical' charismatic figures

Some of the 'exorcists' known to us from the New Testament era are
legendary figures in the literature. Thus, not only from the various his-
torical figures but also from the legendary accretions around these figures
we can learn something of views on exorcism and exorcists in first
century Palestine. Solomon and David are the two most important figures
in this category.42
(i) Solomon.** It is in the Testament of Solomon that the legend of Solo-
mon is most developed, portraying him not so much as an exorcist, but as
a controller of demons.
Keeping in mind what we concluded in §2 above about the difficulty of
using the Testament of Solomon to provide background material against
which to view the historical Jesus the exorcist, we can ask: What does the
Testament of Solomon tell us about exorcism in Palestine in the first
century through its treatment of Solomon?
First, in the Greek title, Solomon is described as the one who "subdued
all the spirits of the air, of the earth, and under the earth." The origin of
this power-authority is described early in the Testament, just after Solo-
mon discovered that Ornias the demon had stolen wages and provisions of
the men building the Temple.
"When I Solomon, heard these things, I went into the Temple of God and, praising
him day and night, begged with all my soul that the demon might be delivered into
my hands and that I might have authority over him. Then it happened that while I
was praying to the God of heaven and earth, there was granted me from the Lord
Sabaoth through the archangel Michael a ring which had a seal engraved on precious
stone. He said to me, 'Solomon, Son of David, take the gift which the Lord God, the
highest Sabaoth, has sent to you; (with it) you shall imprison all the demons, both
female and male, and with their help you shall build Jerusalem when you bear this
seal of God'' " (15-7).

42 Other names, e.g. Moses, Daniel, Jonah, Abraham and Jacob, were all names taken up
into incantations, See J. Gager Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism (Nashville: Abingdon,
1972); C. Bonner Studies in Magical Amulets Chiefly Graeco-Egyptian (Ann Arbor
University of Michigan Press, 1950) 171, 272f; ER. Goodenough Jewish Symbols in the
Greco-Roman Period 13 vols. (New York: Pantheon Books for the Bollingen Foun-
dation, 153-68) II, 223f„ 226; C. Bonner "The Story of Jonah on a Magical Amulet"
HTR 41 (1948) 31-7.
43 For literature on the legendary status of Solomon's magical wisdom in late antiquity
see Schürer History Mi, 375-9. Compare, Nag Hammadi Codex 1X3.70 ". . . the one
who built Jerusalem by means of the demons . . . " (JAt Robinson [ed.] Nag
Hammadi Library in English [San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988] 458); S. Giversen
"Solomon und die Dämonen" in M Krause (ed.) Essays on the Nag Hammadi Texts
in Honour of Alexander Böhlig (Leiden: Brill, 1972) 16-21; D.C. Duling T h e Eleazar
Miracle and Solomon's Magical Wisdom in Flavius Josephus's Antiquitates Judai-
cae 8.42-49" HTR 78 (1985) 1-25; Mills Human Angents chap. 4. J. Bowman "Solomon
and Jesus" Abr-Nahrain 23 (1984-5) 1-13, depends heavily on late material for his
sketch of the legendary Solomon, and therefore does not produce a reliable sketch
against which to view Jesus and his dealing with the demons.
36 II Exorcism and Exorcists in First Century Palestine

Like Hanina ben Dosa's, the legendary Solomon's ability to control

demons is seen to be a gift from God, or at least arising out of his
positive relationship with God.
Secondly, the Testament is carried forward by a series of conversations
between Solomon and various demons. This confirms what we see from
other literature that it was believed that demons and exorcists engaged in
conversations (see, e.g. Philostratus Life 420, b. Pesah. 112b), and the
conversations in the Testament of Solomon do not seem to be modelled
directly on those in the New Testament.
The Testament of Solomon is, as we noted above in §2, an important
witness, primarily to exorcism in a part of the post-Apostolic Church.
Nevertheless, it does yield some information that is of help to us in the
first century Palestine. The success of exorcism was thought to depend on
the exorcist — on what he says and does. We see from the Testament that
conversations between demons and exorcists, amulets, the key importance
of knowledge of the demon's name, the use of potions and appropriate
strong names in the exorcists' incantations persisted through the New
Testament era into the period represented by this present document
Josephus also venerates Solomon as a skilled exorcist In the story of
Eleazar the Jewish exorcist freeing a man possessed by demons, it is said
that a ring which had under its seal one of the roots prescribed by Solo-
mon was used. As the man smelled it the demon was drawn out through
the man's nostrils. When the man fell down Eleazar adjured (opKi^co) the
demon not to come back, speaking Solomon's name and reciting in-
cantations composed by Solomon (Ant. 8.46—9).
Two views of exorcism are entwined in this story. At one level there is
the story and the notions of exorcism revolving around the exorcism
performed by Eleazar. We shall deal with these in a moment when
discussing exorcisms which were successful because of what was said and
done rather than who performed the exorcism. The other level is the use
to which Josephus puts the story: his reflections on Eleazar's exorcism.
Josephus says that this event revealed the understanding, wisdom and
"greatness of nature" of Solomon and how God favoured (BeocpiXeia) him
(Ant. 8.49). A little earlier Josephus says: "And God granted him knowledge
of the art used against demons" (8.45). Thus, Josephus understood Solomon
to have been successful as an exorcist because God favoured him and had
given him knowledge of how to control evil spirits. In other words,
Josephus believed it was Solomon's charismatic force, based on his
standing with God that enabled him to control demons (cf. Ant. 8.182, 190).44

44 Cf. Duling HTR 78 (1985) 13-14. See further and for literature S.V. McCasland "Portents
in Josephus and in the Gospels" JBL 51 (1932) 323-35; G. Delling "Josephus und das
 § 3 Exorcism and Exorcists 37

(ii) David. Josephus also venerated David as an exorcist In Anti-

quities 6166—9, Josephus retells the story in 1 Samuel 16 as an exorcism.
He says Saul was beset by strange disorders and evil spirits which caused
him suffocation and strangling which physicians could not heal (6166).
David is found and, by singing his songs and playing his harp, drives out
(e^epaXev, 6.211) the evil spirits and demons so that Saul is restored to
himself (KCU JIOUOV eauiou viveoOai xov EaouXov, 6168).
Josephus does not explicitly tell the reader why David is successful as
an exorcist However, by implication, David is described when Samuel
says that God is looking for a king: "one who in full measure is dis-
tinguished by this (virtue of soul), one adorned with piety, justice,
fortitude and obedience, qualities whereof beauty of soul consists" (6.160).
Then, a little later, Samuel exhorts David to be righteous and obedient to
God's commandments for in this way he would be a successful king (6.165).
Josephus says that the Deity (to GeTov) abandoned Saul and passed over
to David, who, when the divine Spirit (0eiou JiveC(iato<0 entered (etc,)
him, began to prophesy (6.166). Then Saul is said to find the sight and
presence of David a pleasure (6.169). And, the songs David sang to restore
Saul are said to be his own (6.168). Probably, then, Josephus understood
David's success as an exorcist to arise out of his character, obedience to
God and having the divine spirit
An incomplete Psalms Scroll (llQPs") confirms that the Qumran com-
munity also venerated David as being given the ability to control demons:
"David son of Jesse was wise and brilliant like the light of the sun; . . . YHWH gave
him an intelligent and brilliant spirit, and he wrote 3,600 psalms and . . . 4 songs to
make music on behalf of those stricken (by evil spirits) . . (272, 3, 4, 10).45

Wunderbare" NovT 2 (1958) 291-309; O. Betz "Das Problem des Wunders bei Flavius
Josephus im Vergleich zum Wunder problem bei den Rabbinen und im Johannes-
evangelium" in O. Betz, K. Haacker and M Hengel (eds.) Josephus-Studien (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974) 23-44; O. Betz "Miracles in the Writings of Flavius
Josephus" in L H Feldman and G. Hata (eds.) Josephus, Judaism and Christian-
ity (Leiden: Brill, 1987) 212-35.
45 For the literature and texts see J A Sanders Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of
Jordan IV (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965); M R Goshen-Gottstein "The Psalms Scroll
(llQPs"): A Problem of Canon and Text" Textus 5 (1966) 22-33; SB. Gurewicz "Hebrew
Apocryphal Psalms from Qumran" ADR 15 (1967) 13-20, JA. Sanders The Dead Sea
Psalms Scrolls (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967); J A Sanders "The Qumran
Psalms Scroll (llQPs1) Reviewed" in M Block and W A Smalley (eds.) On Language,
Culture, and Religion (The Hague: Mouton, 1974) 79-99; FJvi. Cross "David, Orpheus,
and Psalm 1513-4" BASOR 231 (1978) 69-71; P.W. Skehan "Qumran and Old Testament
Criticism" in M. Delcor (ed.) Qumran: sa piété, sa théologie et son milieu (Gembloux:
Duculot, 1978) 163-82; J. Starky "Le psaume 151 des Septante retrouvé i Qumrân" Le
Monde de la Bible 6 (1979) 8-10; M Smith "Psalm 151, David, Jesus, and Orpheus"
ZAW 93 (1981) 247-53; J. Baumgarten "Concerning the Qumran Psalms Against Evil
Spirits" Tarbiz 55 (1985-6) 442-6 (in Hebrew); GJL Wilson "The Qumran Scrolls
Reconsidered: Analysis of the Debate" CBQ 47 (1985) 624-42; S. Talmon "Extra-
38 II Exorcism and Exorcists in First Century Palestine

In llQPsAp" we probably have examples of these apocryphal songs by

David for those stricken by Satan and his demons (cf. llQPsAp* 12; 4.4).46
Notably, David is said to invoke the tetragrammon in the incantations
against Belial and the demons (1.4, 6; 4.4).
So far, we have been dealing with historical as well as legendary figures
whose success as exorcists was thought to arise out of their personal
charismatic force — out of who they were — rather than out of what they
did. We will now take another sounding at the other extreme within the
range of options for the first century exorcists.
2. Some exorcisms were thought to be successful not because of who
performed them but because of what was said or done in the ritual or
form of application of the power-authority against the offending spiritual
being.
(a) The best example of this view of exorcism and exorcists is found in
the magical papyri which represent the spoken element as well as the
directions for the act of an exorcism.47 Although there is a great variety
and age of texts it is possible to detect and reconstruct a picture of
exorcists and exorcism in the papyri.
First, the exorcist, following an incantation closely, began by invoking a
power-authority. Thus, the incantation PGM V.99—171 begins, "I call you
the headless one . . . hear me and drive away this spirit" (cf. P. Warren
25f.; P. Leiden L348 [22]).
Secondly, descriptive histories to identify the god invoked were used to
gain the support of an uncooperative power-authority. Or, sometimes,
threats were used for the same purpose. For example, PGM V.247—304
says that if the god does not tell the enquirer what he wants his belly will
be eaten by fish!
Thirdly, the exorcist either used the god to expel the demon with a
command or called on the god to perform the expulsion (e.g. PGM
IV.3033; V.122—33). To do this, it was important to know the name of the
demoa In the Testament of Solomon 1L5, for example, Solomon asks a
demon its name and he answers: "If I tell you his name, I place not only

Canonical Hebrew Psalms from Qumran - Psalm 151" in his The World of Qumran
from Within (Jerusalem: Magnes and Leiden: Brill, 1989) 244-7Z
46 For literature and texts see J.P.M. van der Ploeg "Le Psaume XCI dans une recen-
sion de Qumran" RB 72 (1965) 210-17; J.P.M. van der Ploeg "Un petit rouleau de
psaumes apocryphes (llQPsAp")" in G. Jeremias (et al.) (eds.) Tradition und Glaube:
Das Frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971)
128-39; E. Puech "HQPsAp": Un rituel d'exorcismes. Essai de recontruction" RevQ 14
(1990) 377-408.
47 See further and for literature Twelftree Christ 39-43; HD. Betz "The Formation of
Authoritative Tradition in the Greek Magical Papyri" in Meyer and Sanders (ed.)
Self-Definition III, 161-70; KD. Betz "Introduction to the Greek Magical Papyri" in
HX>. Betz (ed.) The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation xli-liii. Cf. 4QTherapeia.
 § 3 Exorcism and Exorcists 39

myself in chains, but also the legion of demons under me." Although there
is the probability of dependence on Mark 5.9, it does confirm and clarify
the notion contained there that knowing a demon's name gives the exor-
cist power over the demon (see §7 below).
Solomon's response to the demon is probably also dependent on the
New Testament Nevertheless, again it does show the persistence of the
idea of the use of a strong name. Solomon says: "I adjure you by the name
of the God Most High: By what name are you and your demons
thwarted?" (116). Many of the conversations between Solomon and the
demons are designed to set out the "angels" or strong names that can be
used to overpower the demons. We have already cited (see §2 above) the
stated purpose of the Testament Hence, in 16.6 for example, Solomon says
to a demon: " Tell me by what angel you are thwarted.' He replied 'By
Iameth' " (note 18.6-37).
Finally, in our reconstruction of exorcism and exorcists in the magical
papyri, we see that having used a power-authority to expel the demon, the
exorcist sought to protect the sufferer from the demon's return by sending
the demons away or by the use of amulets (cf. PGM IV.1248).
In addition to this fourfold pattern of invocation, identification of the
power-authority, command and protection we may note that sometimes,
physical aids or cultic performances were used For example, a potion
applied to a sufferer, or special sounds or words, like the vowel sounds or
the word "Abrasax", are found described in the texts. In the Testament of
Solomon L6 and 2.9 the wearing of a ring as an amulet is used to control
demons (cf. 1816, [231 25, etc.). We can be confident of the antiquity of
this technique, for the use of amulets was both ancient and widespread.48
The dependence of the Testament of Solomon on Tobit in 5.7 and 5.9, 10
indicates the persistent belief, throughout the New Testament period, in
the efficacy of the incense of fish liver and gall. Finally, we may note that
in the magical papyri the exorcist was of little significance compared with
what he said or did.
(b) In the story of Josephus we have already mentioned concerning
Solomon, where Eleazar is the exorcist we have another example of an
exorcist being of little importance in the success of a cure {Ant. 8.46—9,
see above). It is what he does and says, and particularly the use of Solo-
mon's name, that is seen to effect the healing.
(c) In this same category of "anonymous" exorcists — successful because
of the power-authority they used rather than their own charismatic force
— are the Jewish exorcists of Matthew 12.27/Luke 1119. This verse is one

48 See Twelftree Christ chap. 2 and see further on amulets Yamauchi TynBul 34 (1983)
195-9 and notes.
40 II Exorcism and Exorcists in First Century Palestine

of Jesus' responses to the Pharisees (Luke does not specify the critics)
accusing him of casting out demons by Beelzebul: " . . . If I by Beelzebul
cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?" If, as will be
argued later (§10 below), this saying probably goes back to the historical
Jesus it means that we probably have evidence here of exorcists in first
century Palestine who were contemporaries of Jesus.
Exactly who "your sons" were has been a matter of debate. Some com-
mentators think that the term is meant in the general sense of "your
people".49 But, others consider "your sons" to be more specific and refer to
the disciples or pupils of the Pharisees.50 However, the reference to the
Pharisees in Matthew 12.24 is probably redactional (see §10 below) so that
the more general sense of "your people" is to be preferred.
The methods of these Jewish exorcists are not specified beyond the hint
that they exorcise by (ev/a) someone or something. So, these Palestinian
exorcists may have had a simple technique that centred around calling
upon, or at least relying upon some power-authority, by which to cast out
demons. The context of this verse limits the source of the power-authority
to either God or Beelzebul (see §10 below). As the latter is excluded by
the context, Jesus is said to assume that God is their source of power-
authority. In any case, their technique could not have been entirely unlike
that of Jesus for the comparison to have been made. Therefore, we have
evidence of first century Jewish exorcists, probably similar to Jesus in
their technique, perhaps using the name of God as a source of power-
authority for their exorcisms.
(d) The Strange Exorcist is also successful because of what he says
rather than because of who he is (Mark 9.38—9/Luke 9.49—5051). John is
said to report to Jesus: "Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in
your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us." Not a
few scholars propose that this story of the so-called Strange Exorcist arose

49 E.g. P. Gaechter Das Mätthaus Evangelium (Innsbruck-Wien-München: Tyrolia, 1963)

401 and E. Klostermann Matthäusevangelium (Tübingen: Mohr, 1971) 109.
50 E.g. P. Bonnard L'Evangile selon Saint Matthieu (Paris: Delachaux et Niestle, 1970) 181;
F.V. Filson The Gospel According to Saint Matthew (London: Black, 1971) 149f; AJt.C.
Leaney The Gospel According to Saint Luke (London: Black, 1971) 189; E Schweizer
TDNT Vili, 365 n. 215.
51 Literature: R. Pesch Das Markusevangelium 2 vols. (Freiburg: Herder, 1976 and 1977)
II, 112; J. Schlosser "L'exorciste étranger (Me, 938-39)" RSR 56 (1982) 229-39; H.
Baltersweiler " 'Wer nicht uns (euch) ist, ist Für uns (euch)T Bemerkungen zu Mk
9,40 und Lk 9,50" TZ 40 (1984) 130-6; E A Russell "A Plea for Tolerance (Mk 938-
40)" IBS 8 (1986) 154-60. The story is not in Matthew probably because he cannot
conceive of a true charismatic working outside Jesus' circle, see E. Schweizer The
Good News According to Matthew (London: SPCK, 1976) 364. On textual difficulties
in Mark 938 see J.M. Ross "Some Unnoticed Points in the Text of the NT" NovT 25
(1983) 63-4.
 § 3 Exorcism and Exorcists 41
in the early Church.52 This is an important matter for, if the story arose in
the early Church, we may not have evidence of exorcists in Palestine but
in another part of the ancient world; the milieu of the Christian(s) re-
sponsible for this element of the story.
The case for the early Church origin of this story centres on the
vocabulary,53 supported by the notion that the pericope is assembled
around the catch-phrase "in my name".54 While the pericope may indeed
have coalesced around a catch-phrase, it still has to be shown where the
source had its origin. The vocabulary which is of particular interest in 9.38
is "in your name" and "he did not follow us". And, the question is whether
or not this vocabulary was more likely to have arisen in the post-
resurrection community or whether it is quite plausible that such terms
would have been used in the pre-Easter Palestinian situatioa
(i) The phrase ev ovofiatv,55 denoting "that which characterizes or ac-
companies the act, the sphere (according to the Greek manner of thinking)
in which it is performed"54 — has not been found in secular Greek.57
However, this does not mean that this notion of ev ovofjiati was a
Christian innovation. Consider two points. First, this study will show that,
independently of the New Testament, the name of someone, usually a god,
was efficacious in healing (cf. e.g. UQPsAp" 4.4; Josephus Ant. 8.46f. and
PGM IV.3019). Second, Deissmann came across the phrase, without ev but
with the dative alone — e0uoav tco try; jioX£ox; ovqacm.58 In the light of
this, Deissmann rightly rejects Cremer's hypothesis that "it was Christianity
which first introduced the use of the phrase 'in the name of, etc.,' into
occidental languages."59
Bultmann says "the use of ovo^a Jesus in the exorcism of demons
could hardly have antedated its use in the Church."60 The force of this
argument is difficult to see. For if Jesus was the successful exorcist the
Gospels and later extra-canonical material would have the reader believe
he was, it would not be at all surprising if Jesus' contemporaries quickly

52 E.g. Bultmann History 25 and E. Haenchen Der Weg Jesu (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1966) 327.
53 Bultmann History 25; V. Taylor The Gospel According to St. Mark (London:
Macmillan, 1952) 407; R C Kee Community of the New Age (London: SCM, 1977) 43.
54 W. Grundmann Das Evangelium nach Markus (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1965)
194.
55 For its use in the NT see BAGD. On the subject of the use of names in magic see
D.E. Aune "Magic in Early Christianity" ANRW 11232 (1980) 1546 n. 164.
56 R Cremer Biblio-Theological Lexicon of NT Greek (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1895)
457.
57 BAGD and MM.
58 A. Deissmann Bible Studies (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1901) 197f_ See other possible
similar uses of the dative in MM
59 Deissmann Studies 198 quoting Cremer Lexicon.
60 Bultmann History 25.
42 II Exorcism and Exorcists in First Century Palestine

took up the use of his name in their exorcisms. We see an example of

this in Acts 1913 where the sons of Sceva are said to be very quick to
pick up the name of Paul as a possible source of power-authority (see
above). And, in Acts 8.18—19, Simon the sorcerer is said to be very quick
in recognizing a potentially useful source of power-authority.
The most reasonable conclusion regarding "in your name" is that the
ideas involved in the phrase were not at all new in the early Church but
had a history outside it. Of course, the early Church adopted the phrase.
Although it came to have special significance for the Church, the phrase
would have been a quite natural way of expressing the thoughts of Mark
9.38.
(ii) The other phrase that could indicate a post-Easter origin of this
story is "he did not follow usA look at a concordance makes it very
clear how "to follow" was used by the early Church. It is worth quoting
Kittel at some length, for he summarizes well its use:
". . . the connection of the word with the concrete processes of the history of Jesus is
so strongly felt and retained that no noun ever came into use corresponding to the
concept of discipleship. The NT simply has the active term, because what it was
seeking to express is an action and not a concept. On this basis it is no accident that
the word oucoXouGetv is used only in the Gospels,61 that there is agreement as to its
uses in all four Gospels, and that they restrict the relationship signified by it to the
historical Jesus. In the Epistles other expressions are used (quv, ev) in which the
emphasis falls on relationship to the exalted Kupioc; and His-nvei3|.ia."62

However, Wellhausen has noted that: "The subject of v. 38 is not

following Jesus but association with the Apostles."63 Bultmann takes this as
testimony to a post-Easter origin of the saying.64 But, with overwhelming
evidence in favour of "to follow" being used in the sense of following the
historical Jesus, in this instance at least, it seems most reasonable to equate
"being one of the disciples" with following the earthly Jesus, rather than as
being part of the post-Easter community.
(iii) What we have said so far is leading to the conclusion that the
origin of this pericope is to be located in the ministry of the historical
Jesus. Two further small points help strengthen this conclusion. First, verse
39, which is inseparable from verse 38, most probably goes back to the
historical Jesus because of the Semitic manner of the expression.65 Sec-
ondly, in his attempt to apply this pericope to his post -Easter situation,

61 G. Kittel (TDNT I) later on the same page (214) notes Rev. 14.4 as an exception to
this. John 1L31 is the only instance in the Gospels of aKoXouöeiv being used without
Jesus as its object.
62 Kittel TDNT I 214.
63 Quoted by Bultmann History 25.
64 Bultmann History 25.
65 See further Schlosser RSR 56 (1982) 229-39. Note M. Black An Aramaic Approach to
the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967) 71, 169ff. who argues for an Aramaic
 § 3 Exorcism and Exorcists 43

Luke altered Mark's "us" to "you" (Mark 9.40/Luke 9.50). Thus, Mark's
form of Jesus' answer was not seen by Luke as directly applicable to the
Church after Easter and so perhaps did not have its origin there.66
If this is right, then, this small pericope is further evidence of exorcism
in first century Palestine by a contemporary of Jesus. But, all that the
brief story tells us is that the exorcist, though not a follower of Jesus, was
using the name of Jesus, who, as another (more powerful) exorcist, was a
source of power-authority for healings.67
(e) The rabbinic material also provides evidence of the view that exor-
cism depended on what was said and done. For example, there is a story
attributed to the first generation tannaitic rabbi, Johanan ben Zakkai. Zak-
kai says to a heathen:
" 'Have you ever seen a man into whom that demon had entered?' He said, 'Yes.' 'What
do they do to him?' He replied, 'They take roots, and make a smoke underneath the
man, and sprinkle the water on him, and the demon flies away from him' " ' (Num. Rab.
19.8).
In this second section we have been examining examples of exorcisms
which were thought to be successful not because of who performed them
but because of what was said and done. In the first section we saw that
some exorcisms were thought to be successful because of the exorcist who
performed the cure. There is one more point to make before summar-
izing our findings.
3. In rewriting the story of Abraham in Genesis 12—15, the Genesis
Apocryphon (lQapGen) from the Dead Sea Scrolls gives us an example of
an exorcism which comes within the range of options for first century
Palestinian exorcists and exorcisms. The exorcism is thought to be suc-
cessful because of what is said as well as because of the personal force of
the exorcist. In particular, column 20 recounts the courtiers' description of
Sarah to Pharaoh, and his taking of Sarah as his wife. Abraham then prays
for Sarah's protection. Then:
. . during that night the Most High God sent a spirit to scourge him (Pharaoh), an
evil spirit to all his household; and it scourged him and all his household. And he was
unable to approach her, and although he was with her for two years he knew her
not."68

source behind this small pericope. M. Reiser Syntax und Stil des Markusevangeliums
im Licht der hellenistischen Volksliteratur (Tübingen: Mohr, 1984) who argues that
Semitisms in Mark are restricted to vocabulary and phraseology rather than syntax
and style which are largely free from them
66 Further see Twelftree Christ 114-5.
67 On the incredible suggestion of J. Weiss that the Strange Exorcist is Paul see E.
Best Following Jesus (Sheffield: JSOT, 1981) 84.
68 This, and other quotations from the Dead Sea Scrolls are from Vermes English (1987)
255. On texts, translations and literature see §2 n. 14 above.
44 Il Exorcism and Exorcists in First Century Palestine

Eventually, the illness reaches a point where Pharaoh finds it necessary

to call all the sages and magicians who, as it turns out, are unable to help
him. Finally, when Pharaoh hears that Sarah is not Abraham's sister, as he
had been led to believe, but his wife, Abraham is summoned. He is told:
"'. . . depart and go hence from all the land of Egypt! And now pray for me and my
house that this evil spirit may be expelled from it.'
So I prayed [for him] . . . and I laid my hands on his head; and the scourge departed
from him and the evil [spirit] was expelled [from him], and he lived."

This is an important and interesting story because, apart from the much
earlier story of David in 1 Samuel 16, this is the earliest extant story in
our period which relates an individual's ability to control and expel de-
mons in the way we find in the New Testament.
It is also to be noted that the source of power-authority is not to be
found in cultic traditions, amulets, incantations, special words or cere-
monies. The success of the exorcist is believed to lie in his own prayers.
But, along with the prayer went the laying on of hands. This is
probably the first instance of healing through the laying on of hands
found in Jewish material.69
With the Old Testament rite of blessing through the laying on of hands,
the Qumran equation of blessing and health (1QS 4.6), and the notion of
the hand being a symbol of power and blessing (Genesis 3211; Exodus
19.13; Deuteronomy 28.12; 31.29; Judges 2.14; Psalm 90.17; Jeremiah 27.6f.), it
is reasonable to see the use of the laying on of hands in healing as a
development of Old Testament thinking, rather than as a practice origi-
nating from the East.70
In the Genesis Apocryphon the exorcism is described as follows: "and
the evil spirit was expelled Primarily on the basis of the use of "W
in 1QM 14, where God "expels" Satan's spirits from the elect, H.C. Kee
says that: "1JJJ is a technical term for the commanding word, uttered by
God or by his spokesman, by which evil powers are brought into sub-

69 D. Flusser "Healing Through the Laying-on of Hands in a Dead Sea Scroll" IE] 7
(1957) 107f_ See also J. Behm Die Handauflegung im Urchristentum (Leipzig: A.
Deichen, 1911); K. Grayston T h e Significance of the Word Hand in the NT" in A.
Descamps et R.P.A. de Halleux (eds.) Melanges Bibliques en hommage au R.P. Beda
Rigaux (Gembloux: Duculot, 1970) 479-87; W. Heitmüller Im Namen Jesu (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903>, S. Morenz, H.-D. Wendland, W. Jannasch "Hand-
auflegung" RGG HI, 52-5.
70 The suggestion of Dupont-Sommer VTSup 7 (1959) 252 n. L L.W. King's collection of
a group of Babylonian tablets bear the title "Prayers of the Lifting of the Hand".
However, this relates not to the "laying on of hands" but is the universally regarded
symbol of invocation of a deity. See L.W. King Babylonian Magic and Sorcery (Lon-
don: Luzac, 1898) xi.
 § 3 Exorcism and Exorcists 45

mission, and the way is thereby prepared for the establishment of God's
righteous rule in the world."71 But, Kee is probably introducing too much
into the significance of in the exorcism story.
First, it is not clear in the War Scroll that the driving away of Satan's
evil spirits results in God's being able to establish his righteous rule in the
world. The passage from the War Scroll reads:
"Blessed be the God of Israel
who keeps mercy towards His Covenant,
and the appointed times of salvation
with the people He has delivered!

we are the remnant [of Thy people.]

[Blessed be] Thy Name, O God of mercies,
who has kept the Covenant with our fathers.
In all our generations Thou hast bestowed
Thy wonderful favours on the remnant [of Thy people]
under the dominion of Satan.
During all the mysteries of his Malevolence
he has not made [us] stray from Thy Covenant;
Thou hast driven his spirits [of destruction]
far from [us]" (1QM 14.5ff.).

This passage does not portray the triumph of the redemptive plan of
God, culminating in the overcoming of Belial and the evil spirits.72 Rather,
the driving out or destruction of Satan is simply one of the things for
which the people of God praise his name. How Belial is driven out is not
made clear.
Secondly, what Kee's interpretation does is to equate exorcism with the
defeat of Satan in the Qumran material. However, this is a connection that
the Dead Sea Scrolls do not seem to have made. In this passage in the
Genesis Apocryphon — apart from Kee's interpretation of ~\Vi — there is
no hint of any wider significance of exorcism. And, in the passage from
the War Scroll, which we have just quoted, there is no indication that it is
through exorcism that God drives the spirits of destruction from the elect.
Thirdly, 1J?J has a range of meanings73 that extend beyond Kee's
alternatives of "rebuke", and "to overcome the enemies of God". On the
basis of 1QH 9.11 and Fragment 4, Kee rightly rejects the simple trans-
lation "rebuke". But, in the last two pargraphs we have, in effect, also cast
doubt on Kee's interpretation of i p : as, "to overcome the enemies of
God". As others, as well as Kee, have noted, npa is the Semitic equivalent

71 H.C. Kee "The Terminology of Mark's Exorcism Stories" NTS 14 (1967-8) 235; followed
by Pesch Markus. I, 123; R A Guelich Mark 1-8:26 (Dallas: Word, 1989) I, 57. See also
J M Kennedy T h e Root G'R in the Light of Semantic Analysis" JBL 106 (1987) 47-64.
72 As in Kee NTS 14 (1967-8) 234.
73 See n. 71 above.
46 II Exorcism and Exorcists in First Century Palestine

of eintin^v. 7 4 Thus, we need to take into account some sense of "to

exorcise".75
If we take note of the lines previous to line 29 in the Genesis Apro-
cryphon we come to a clearer understanding of exorcism at Qumran and
how "1W should be translated. The reading of 20.26 has been considerably
debated. However, following Fitzmyer, it should probably be translated —
"the plague will depart from you."76 This is what is expected to happen in
the exorcism. Thus, what is said to have happened in line 29 is probably
that the evil spirit left or "departed". One of the possible translations of
would be to "expel".77 As this suits the element of "rebuke" in the
word,78 as well as describing the expulsion of the evil spirit, we suggest
"rebuking in order to expel" as the best understanding of what the
Qumran people thought was happening in exorcism.
Excluding the Prayer of Nabonidus (see §2 above), the Qumran material
has one story from which we can draw conclusions about exorcism in first
century Palestine. The healing is related to a particular individual and it is
told to enhance the reputation of Abraham. As a result of the healing, the
King is said to have given many gifts to Abraham (and Sarah) as well as
an escort out of Eygpt However, even though his identity may be less
important for the success of the healing than the techniques used — and
though Abraham is reported to have used no mechanical or physical aids
in his exorcism — he does pray and lay his hands on the sufferer. The
Qumran people understood exorcism as expelling an evil spirit. In view of
our discussion on exorcism and eschatology in §29, we can note here that
the scroll sees no significance in the exorcism outside the particular heal-
ing or relief of the sufferer.
4. In summary, in this section (§3), we have noted that (a) Apollonius of
Tyana, Rabbi Simeon and Hanina ben Dosa attained legendary status in
the literature about them, and stories of them contain legendary details.
Nevertheless, they are historical figures in that they were probably
exorcists in the New Testament period. They were thought to conduct
successful exorcisms because of who they were. More particularly,
Apollonius' success was seen to arise out of his charismatic presence which
involved special ability to discern the presence of a demon. The rabbis we
have mentioned were thought to be successful also because of their char-

74 Kee NTS 14 (1967-8) 232 and n. 2; cf. JA. Fitzmyer The Genesis Apocryphon of
Qumran Cave I (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1971) 138.
75 Fitzmyer Genesis Apocryphon 138.
76 Fitzmyer Genesis Apocryphon 138.
77 Cf. G.R. Driver "The Resurrection of Marine and Terrestrial Creatures" JJS 7 (1962)
15 and A. Caquot TDOT III, 50f.
78 AA. Macintosh "A Consideration of Hebrew I M " VT 19 (1969) 475-9.
 § 3 Exorcism and Exorcists 41

ismatic presence. This was seen to arise out of a special standing or

relationship with God.79
(b) In the magical papyri, the Testament of Solomon, Josephus' story of
Eleazar, the Jewish exorcists of Matthew 12.27/Luke 11.19, the Strange
Exorcist, the sons of Sceva and rabbinic material, we have stories of
exorcisms thought to be successful because of what was said and done by
the exorcist.
(c) In the Qumran Scroll story of Abraham we have a story that shows
that an exorcism could be thought to be successful because of the personal
force of the healer as well as what he said or did.
(d) We can also see that, in Plato's mendicant priests and soothsayers,
the sons of Sceva, the sorcerers known to Celsus, Apollonius of Tyana, and
particularly the Cynics, the peripatetic life-style of a philosopher-wonder-
worker would have been familiar to Jesus' audience and observers.

79 We can agree with J.Z. Smith T h e Temple and the Magician" in J. Jervell and W A
Meeks (eds.) God's Christ and his People (Oslo: Universitetsforlogets, 1977) 238, that
the sociological niche that the holy man, in Brown's sense of the term (The World of
Late Antiquity [London: Thames and Hudson, 1971] 102-3 and JRS 61 [1971] 80-101)
would later fill, was already being occupied by entrepreneurial figures as early as the
second century BG Cf. G. Theissen Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tra-
dition (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1983) 266-7.
 § 4 Conclusions

In this chapter we have been asking and trying to answer the question —
What would have been believed about exorcism and exorcists in first
century Palestine?
In our analysis of the material, which was potentially of help in
answering this question, we have had virtually to exclude the Testament
of Solomon and the New Testament Apocrypha because of their manifest
dependence on the New Testament. All these pieces of literature have
been able to do for this study is confirm the continued existence of a
number of older notions and practices.
1. One of the impressions left by such books as Bultmann's History of
the Synoptic Tradition and Hull's Hellenistic Magic in the Synoptic Tra-
dition is that there is a great deal of material upon which to draw parallels
to the Synoptic traditions about Jesus and exorcism.
Indeed, before each of these writers, Paul Fiebig had concluded in his
study on Jewish miracle stories in New Testament times that
"L dies Material zeigt, dass auch in Palästina . . . in der Zeit Jesu . . . Wun-
dergeschichten etwas Geläufiges waren, dass die Juden jener Gegenden und jener Zeit
Wunder von ihren Lehrern erzählten . . . dass also das Milieu, in dem Jesus lebte,
derartig war . . . 2. dass es falsch ist, die Wunder Jesu allein oder vorzugsweise aus
seiner Messianität abzuleiten. Gewiss erwarteten die Juden der Zeit Jesu vom Messias
Wunder, aber sie sagten sie doch auch von ihren Rabbinen aus, ohne dabei an
Messianisches zu denken."1

However, one of our conclusions from surveying the Jewish material

must be that there are extremely few stories of, or traditions about,
individual historical exorcists available to help provide a background to
examining the Jesus tradition in relation to exorcism.
From the Jewish material we could only find the brief reference to
rabbi Simeon giving the simple and direct command to a demon: "Ben
Temalion, get out! Ben Temalion, get out!" (b. Me'il. 17b).
From other material, only the stories of Apollonius are sufficiently
comparable to be of direct value to us. Thus, we can agree with A.E
Harvey when he says: "If we take the period of four hundred years

1 Fiebig Jüdische Wundergeschickten 72.

 § 4 Conclusions 49

stretching from two hundred years before to two hundred years after the
birth of Christ, the number of miracles recorded which are remotely
comparable with those of Jesus is astonishingly small."2 He goes on to say
that it is then significant that later Christian fathers compared and con-
trasted Jesus with almost legendary figures such as Pythagoras or Empe-
docles.3
However, we have seen that an understanding of exorcism and exorcists
in the first century was not limited to what we can discover from stories
roughly parallel to the Jesus stories.
2. One of the things Wesley Carr does in Angels and Principalities is
set out the background to Paul's thought on a i ap%aí KCU A I e^ou-
o i a t ("principalities and powers"). He examines Daniel, 1 Enoch and
Jubilees and concludes that "the concept of mighty forces that are hostile
to man from which he sought relief was not prevalent in the thought
world of first century AD."4 But, in the light of our study so far, can this
conclusion be correct?
If we include in our survey of material Tobit, the Qumran
Scrolls,5 Josephus, Philo and Pseudo-Philo's LAB it is clear that this
conclusion needs some correction. For example, in the Qumran community
it was believed that everyone was ruled by one of two spirits. At one
point the Community Rule or Manual of Discipline scroll says: T h o s e born
of truth spring from a fountain of light, but those born of falsehood spring
from a source of darkenss" (1QS 3.9). And, in the eschatological battle, it
was expected that the evil spiritual beings would be destroyed.

2 Harvey Constraints 103. See M Smith (Tannaiiic Parallels to the Gospels [Philadel-
phia: SBL, 1968] 81) who says, having cited Fiebig (see n. 1 above) " . . . as a matter of
fact Tannaitic literature contains almost no stories of miracles performed by
Tannaim." WJS. Green ("Palestinian Holy Men: Charismatic Leadership and Rabbinic
Tradition" ANRW 11192 [1979] 624) who also quotes Smith, says "Neusner's compre-
hensive studies of the Pharisees before 70 and his biographical studies of Yohanan b.
Zakkai and Eliezer b. Hyrcanus reveal a virtual total absence of such stories . . (See
J. Neusner The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 3 vols. [Leiden:
Brill, 1971] and Development of a Legend [Leiden: Brill, 1973]). Green goes on to say:
"Indeed, with the sole exception of the Honi-tradition, no miracle stories about
Tannaim appear in Mishnah, and of the few such stones which do exist, most occur
first in the gemera-stratum of the two Talmuds" (625). See also A. Vogtle "The Mir-
acles of Jesus against their Contemporary Background" in HJ. Schultz (ed.) Jesus in
His Time (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 96-105; L. Sabourtn "Hellenistic and Rabbinic
'Miracles' " BTB 2 (1972) 305; Kee Medicine 80 and Miracle 70.
3 Harvey Constraints 103.
4 Wesley Carr Angels and Principalities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981)
43. On page 174 Carr says "the pagan world to which Paul went lacked any sense of
mighty, hostile forces that stood over against man as he struggled for survival."
5 Cf. L. Houldens review of Carr Angels in JSNT 20 (1984) 120-L
50 II Exorcism and Exorcists in First Century Palestine

"[Be brave and] strong for the battle of God! For this day is [the time of the battle of]
God against all the host of Satan, [and of the judgement of] all flesh. The God of Israel
lifts His hand and His marvellous [might] against all the spirits of wickedness" (1QM
15.end).

Philo can serve us as another example of the first century belief in

preternatural forces hostile to man. In a discussion on Genesis 6.1—4, Philo
deals with souls, demons and angels. How prevalent they were thought to
be is shown when he argues that:
. . the universe must needs be filled through and through with life . . . The earth
has the creatures of the land, the sea and the rivers those that live in water . . .
And so the other element, the air, must needs be filled with living beings, though
indeed they are invisible to us . . (De Giganiibus 7-8).

That people were afraid of the air being filled with unseen beings is
shown by Philo saying that: " . . . if you realize that souls and demons and
angels are but different names for the same one underlying object, you
will cast from you that most grievous burden, the fear of demons or
superstition" (De Gigantibus 16).
Clearly, Carr's conclusion is not correct for all writers of the milieu of
Paul and the Gospel traditions. Rather, it was widely believed that the
world was infested with beings hostile to man, against which protection or
relief was sought.6
3. Another impression left by the material surveyed in this chapter is
that there was a variety of forms of exorcism that would have been
known and used in Palestine in Jesus' time. But, as we have tried to show,
there may be a pattern which can be deduced in all this evidence.
Some of the texts we surveyed showed that there were, on the one
hand, exorcists who were successful because of the particular things they
said and/or did. The best example of this is Eleazar (Ant. 8.46—9), but we
see it represented in the rabbinic material (Pesiq. R. 40b) and especially in
the magical papyri. Although these examples are all relatively late, the
very earliest material — Babylonian and Egyptian — exhibit this same
notion of exorcism.7 That such exorcists were common in our period and

6 Cf. D.S. Russell The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (London; SCM, 1964)
chap. IX; Twelftree Christ chap. II and D.S. Russell From Early Judaism to Early
Church (London: SCM, 1986) chap. VIL On others critical of Carr see e.g. P.W. Barrett,
review JRH 12 (1982) 206-7; Wink Naming the Powers; Wink's review of Carr
Angels in USQR 39 (1984) 146-50; P.T. O'Brien "Principalities and Powers: Opponents
of the Church" in D A Carson (ed.) Biblical Interpretation and the Church: Text and
Context (Exeter Paternoster, 1984) 110-50; RJV. Wild "The Warrior and the Prisoner
Some Reflections on Ephesians 610-20" CBQ 46 (1984) 284-5; GE. Arnold "The 'Ex-
orcism' of Ephesians 612 in Recent Research: A Critique of Wesley Carr's View of
the Role of Evil Powers in First-Century AD Belief" JSNT 30 (1987) 71-87.
7 See Twelftree Christ 21-2; Yamauchi in Wenham and Blomberg (eds.) Gospel Per-
spectives 6, 99-103.
 §4 Conclusions 51

that they were often charged with being magicians or sorcerers is indi-
cated by the great number of times sorcery is referred to in Jewish
traditions.
Of paramount importance in these exorcisms was the exorcist's knowl-
edge of both the demon he sought to combat and the god or power-
authority on whose aid he could rely. In order to impress the demon or
the god, the exorcist used prescribed descriptions and histories of the
demon and god. Sometimes the exorcist went so far as to identify himself
with some other powerful individual — for example Hermes or Moses or
even the invoked god as in the magical papyri. Most of these kinds of
exorcism involved using the god or power-authority to put a "supernatural
restriction" on the demon. In addition, the speaking of special words and
sounds was employed so that the demon could be persuaded to leave the
person. Sometimes the demon would speak in its defence and plead for
leniency (Jubilees 10.8; Acts 19.15 and b. Pesah. 112b). Usually, the words of
exorcists were accompanied by some kind of activity, like burning incense
or boiling a special brew. The activities prescribed by some texts were
designed not merely to represent what was expected to happen in the
exorcism, but to enable the exorcist to transfer the demon from the
person to, say, a bowl of water which was then poured away (see further
§§7 and 17.7 below). Where the exorcist depended on diagrams or par-
ticular words an amulet was sometimes employed.
On the other hand, there seem to have been exorcisms that were suc-
cessful not because of what was said and/or done but because of who
performed them. The earliest evidence of this kind of exorcism is perhaps
in 1 Samuel 16 and then in Jubilees 10. But, it is in the Genesis Apocry-
phon that we have the earliest extant story in the New Testament period
that relates the ability to control and expel demons not to particular words
or prayers but to a particular individual's personal force.
At least at the level of story, Tiede8 has argued for the glorification, in
specifically Greek stories, of the combination of the ability to work
miracles and wisdom or holiness. But, in Jubilees 10 the righteous man,
Noah is glorified by relating his ability to control demons (10.5, 17). And,
in the Genesis Apocryphon, the wise and godly Abraham is credited with
healing the king (cols. 19 and 20). Thus, we have the combination of
healer and holy individual acclaimed in stories known in Palestine.
The individual who is most often represented in these stories as
combining the attributes of wisdom and miracle-working is Solomon. The
locus classicus of the tradition that associated the wise Solomon with

8 D i . Tiede The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972).
52 II Exorcism and Exorcists in First Century Palestine

miracle-working and especially with exorcism, is Antiquities 8.46—9 (cf.

the later T. Sol). But, in Palestine in LAB 60 and in the Qumran com-
munity, as well as in the magical papyri, the wise Solomon was directly
linked with exorcism and the ability to control demons.9
The shift in the stories from focusing on the technique, as in Tobit, to
the individual charismatic healer, as in the Solomon of the Testament of
Solomon and Josephus is, most importantly, not confined to these mythical
or literary figures. A little later in the first century AD it is reflected in
"historical" individuals, as represented by Lucian's Palestinian exorcist,
Apollonius, as well as, notably for Palestine, some of the Cynics and rabbis.
The methods of these individual healers in literature and history seem
to vary from the mere . . Get out!" used by a rabbi, to simple prayer
and laying on of hands in the Genesis Apocryphon, to the more involved
prayers and incantations of Jubilees 10 and LAB 60. And, finally the
success, in the literature (Solomon) or in actual terms (Jesus), of these
particular individual healers is reflected in their names being used in
"incantational" exorcisms (cf. Ant. 8.46—9; Mark 9.38/Luke 9.49 and Acts
(16.17), 1913).
Our next task is to examine the Gospels in the light of this background
in order to recover data that will help provide material to sketch a picture
-of the historical Jesus the exorcist.

9 See Twelftree Christ chap. IL

 III
Jesus the Exorcist: The New Testament Data

§ 5 Gospel Research

So far we have been able to build a picture of one small aspect of the
world into which Jesus came. This will provide a basis and background for
our investigation of the Gospel data. In this and the next chapter we will
examine the Gospel material relating to Jesus and exorcism so that, as far
as possible, we can ascertain which elements of this Gospel material might,
with reasonable confidence, be traced back to the reports of those who
witnessed Jesus as an exorcist.
The questions of historicity and of redaction of Gospel traditions are
interrelated. However, for the sake of convenience and clarity, we will
deal with them as separately as practicable. Of course, when discussing
Christian contributions to a passage we will often find ourselves needing
to stray into the problem of historicity — and vice versa.
In this chapter we will examine the Gospel data with a view to
identifying Christian modifications to the reports of Jesus' activities as an
exorcist. Setting aside this redaction is part of the task in recovering the
earliest reliable traditions about Jesus the exorcist.
In the next chapter we will examine these traditions to see what
reliable material remains available as data to sketch a picture of the
historical Jesus the exorcist.
In chapter V we will try to discover what responses Jesus evoked
during his lifetime, as this will further contribute to filling out our picture
of the historical Jesus the exorcist
A preliminary matter which has important implications for any Gospel
research is the solution to the Synoptic Problem.1 In this study we will
accept the traditional solution. That is, in the first place, we accept the
priority of Mark. In the second place, assuming Mark was written first,
there seems at present no other viable alternative in explaining the origin

1 The problem and its history is well set out and discussed by W.G. Kümmel
Introduction to the NT (London: SCM, 1975) 38-80. See also Arthur J. Bellinzoni, Jr.
(ed.) The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Appraisal (Macon: Mercer University
Press, 1985) and F.G. Downing "Compositional Conventions and the Synoptic Problem"
JBL 107 (1988) 69-85.
54 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

of the material found to be common to Matthew and Luke, but not in

Mark, than to suppose that there is a common source of tradition, Q,
being used by Matthew and Luke. 2 The material which Matthew and Luke
have in common can hardly be the limit of the extent of Q: if the
treatment of Mark by Matthew and Luke is any indicator then we can be
fairly certain of this. Finally, here, we do not assume that there is a
literary relationship between Q and Mark, nor a direct literary relationship
between Matthew and Luke.
If we accept the traditional solution to the Synoptic Problem then we
are faced with the long-standing problem of the redaction and tradition-
history of Mark. In recent years much has been done in trying to discover
Mark's contribution to, and use of traditional material. 3 The point at which
we know so little and where certainty is least assured is in determing what
is to be taken as a word or stylistic feature of the last stage(s) of redaction
and what is to be taken as being from earlier tradition(s). Up until
4
recently the works of Sir John Hawkins and C H. Turner have been
heavily utilized But, these studies rely on the simple frequency of
occurrence of a linguistic characteristic and do not allow for the possibility
that the prominence of a feature may be due to Mark's tradition rather
than redaction. Even Lloyd Gaston's useful work (HSE) which is a
considerable advance on Hawkins, particularly with regard to Matthew,

2 On the nature and extent of Q, see, e.g. CK. Barrett "Q: A Re-examination"
ExpTim 54 (1942-3) 320 and notes; P. Vassiliadis "The Nature and Extent of the Q
Document" NovT .20 (1978) 50-60 and notes; Kümmel Introduction 67 and notes; J.
Delobel (ed.) Logia: Les Paroles de Jesus - The Sayings of Jesus (Leuven: Leuven
University Press, 1982).
3 See N. Perrin What is Redaction Criticism? (London: SPCK, 1970); R A Stein T h e
'Redaktionsgeschichtlich; Investigation of a Markan Seam (Mc 1 21f.)" ZNW 61 (1970)
70-94; and T h e Proper Methodology for Ascertaining a Markan Redaction History"
NovT 13 (1971) 181-98; EJ. Pryke Redactionai Style in the Marcan Gospel: A Study of
Syntax and Vocabulary as Guides to Redaction in Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1978). See the review of Pryke's work by PJ. Achtemeier in CBQ 41
(1979) 655-7. Notable is the work of F. Neirynck T h e Redactionai Text of Mark"
ETL 57 (1981) 144-62; P. Dschulnigg Sprache, Redaktion und Intention des
Markus-Evangeliums (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1984); J. Schreiber Der Kreu-
zigungsbericht des Markusevangeliums Mk 1520b-41 (Berlin and New York: de Gruy-
ter, 1986) 395-433, Exkurz V, Tabellen zur Markinischen Vorzugsvokabeln"; D.B.
Peabody Mark as Compsoer (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987>, F. Neirynck
"Words Characteristic of Mark: A New List" ETL 63 (1987) 367-74; C.C. Black T h e
Quest of Mark the Redactor Why has it been Pursued, and What has it Taught Us?"
JSNT 33 (1988) 19-39; C.C. Black The Disciples According to Mark: Markan Redaction
in Current Debate (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989).
4 J. Hawkins Horae Synopticae (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1909); C K Turner
"Markan Usage. Notes, Critical and Exegetical, on the the Second Gospel" JTS 25
(1924) 377-85; 26 (1925) 12-20, 145-56, 225-40, 337-46.
 § 5 Gospel Research 55

Luke and Q, still does not offer any way of distinguishing between Mark's
redaction and tradition, for he also uses simple frequency as an indication
of the origin of a feature.5 The implication of this for our present study is
that, in assigning a feature of style, including vocabulary, to a particular
level of tradition we should be extremely cautious and avoid depending
entirely on mere frequency of occurrence.
In any case, the earliest recoverable traditions are not obtained merely
by taking into account the redaction of the Gospel writers. The form
critics have established that the Gospel traditions had an oral and
probably, in many cases, a written tradition-history before they were
known to the Gospel writers. Therefore, we need to take into account not
only possible modifications by the Gospel writers but also earlier Christian
redaction as we seek to reconstruct the earliest possible reports of Jesus as
an exorcist.
We shall now proceed to examine the principal Synoptic pericopes that
have to do with Jesus and exorcism, dealing first with those which occur
in Mark (1.21—8; 5.1—20; 724—30; 9.14—29) and then those in Q (Matthew
12.22—30/Luke 11.14-23 [/Mark 3.22-7]). We shall examine the Temp-
tation narratives (Matthew 4.1—11/Luke 41—13 and Mark L12—13) because
of the suggested connection between this story and the defeat of Sataa
We shall examine Jesus' answer to John the Baptist (Matthew 112—6/Luke
718—23) because, in Luke, it refers to Jesus performng exorcisms, and it
may also illuminate Jesus' self-understanding. Finally, we will look at the
Disciples' Missions) (Mark 6.7-12, 30/Matthew 101—15/Luke 9 1 - 6 ; 10.1—
11, 17—20) because it may also be important in assessing Jesus' under-
standing of his exorcisms.
Here we must make note of Luke 1310—17, the story of the healing of
the crippled woman, which is unique to Luke.6 The woman is described as
having a spirit of infirmity (itveujjia e%ouaa aoQeveiat,, 1311) and having
been bound by Satan for eighteen years (1316). However, in the healing,
Jesus does not address Satan or the spirit but the woman herself, as in a
healing story (13.12). What is effectively a blurring of the distinction
between healing and exorcism is most probably to be attributed to Luke.
For, in the case of the story of Simon's mother-in-law, a story which Mark

5 Gaston HSE 12ff. New ground is being broken by some scholars. See particularly
W.O. Walker "A Method for Identifying Redactional Passages in Matthew on Func-
tional and Linguistic Grounds" CBQ 39 (1977) 76-93 and Black Disciples.
6 Bultmann (History 12-13) regarded the story as a variant of Mark 3.1-4 To the con-
trary, see LH. Marshall The Gospel of Luke (Exeter: Paternoster, 1978) 556-7.
56 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

has told as a healing, Luke has treated as an exorcism in that an enemy is

subdued and caused to flee (Mark 129—31/Luke 4.38—9). In the light of
this, Luke 13.10—17 will be excluded from our discussion.7

7 Further, see Twelftree Christ 103-4. Cf. J. Wilkinson T h e Case of the Bent Woman
in Luke 1310-17' EvQ 49 (1977) 195-205; L. Milot "Guérison d'une femme infirme un
jour de sabbat (Le 1310-17)" Sémiotique et Bible 39 (1985) 23-33; JDJvL Derrett "Pos-
itive Perspectives on Two Lucan Miracles" Downside Review 104 (1986) 272-87; M.D.
Hamm T h e Freeing of the Bent Woman and the Restoration of Israel: Luke 1310-17
as Narrative Theology" JSNT 31 (1987) 23-44; Latourelle Miracles 194-6; JU. Green
"Jesus and the Daughter of Abraham (Luke 1310-17): Test Case for a Lucan Per-
spective on Jesus' Miracles" CBQ 51 (1989) 643-54.
Because of its late origin Mark 1617 ("And these signs will accompany those who
believe: in my name they will cast out demons; . . .") will not be dealt with in this
study. For literature see Pesch Markus. IL 544-56; J. Gnilka Das Evangelium nach
Markus 2 vols. (Zürich: Benziger and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1978
and 1979) II, 352-8; GS. Mann Mark (Garden City: Doubleday, 1986) 672-6.
 § 6 The Demoniac in the Synagogue1
Mark 1.21-8 (/Luke 431-7)

Our purpose in examining this and subsequent stories is to identify and set
aside the Christian redaction in order to help recover the probable earliest
reports of Jesus as an exorcist
We can probably say that this narrative, embracing as it does so many
of Mark's themes and being placed first in the public ministry of Jesus, is
paradigmatic and programmatic for his story of Jesus.2 The story reads as
follows.
(21) And they went into Capernaum; and immediately on the sabbath entering the
synagogue he taught (22) And they were astonished at his teaching; for he was
teaching them as one having authority and not as the scribes.

1 Literature: Pesch Markus. L 128; cf. H. Schürmann Das Lukasevangelium: Erster Teil:
Kommentar zu Kap. 1, 1-9, 50 (Freiburg: Herder, 1969) 245; Gnilka Markus I, 199; P.
Guillemette "Un enseignement nouveau, plein d'autorité" NovT 22 (1980) 222-47; G.E.
Rice "Luke 431-44; Release for the Captives" Andrews University Seminary Stud-
ies 20 (1982) 23-8; JP. Strange and R Shanks "Synagogue Where Jesus Preached Found
at Capernaum" 'BARev 9 (6, 1983) 24-31; A Suhl "Überlegungen zur Hermeneutik an
Hand von Mk 1,21-28" Kairos 26 (1984) 28-38; S. Becker-Wirth "Jesus treibt Dämonen
aus (Mk 1, 21-28)" Religionsunterricht an höheren Schulen 28 (1985) 181-6. On miracles
in Mark see, e.g. K. Tagawa Miracle et évangile. La pensée personelle de l'évangeliste
Marc (Paris: Universitaires de France, 1966); K. Kertelge Die Wunder Jesu im Markus-
evangelium (München: Kasel, 1970); L. Schenke Die Wundererzählungen des Markus-
evangeliums (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1970); D.-A. .Koch Die Bedeutung der
Wundererzählungen für die Christologie des Markusevangeliums (Berlin and New
York: de Gruyter, 1975); P. Lamarche "Les miracles de Jésus selon Marc" in X.
Léon-Dufour (ed.) Les Miracles de Jesus selon le Nouveau Testament (Paris: Seuil,
1977) 213-226; Mack Innocence 208-19; BD. Chilton "Exorcism and History: Mark
1:21-28" in Wenham and Blomberg (eds.) Gospel Perspectives 6, 253-71; R Hendrickx
The Miracle Stories (London: Geoffrey Chapman and San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1987) 34-62; E. Drewermann Das Markusevangelium 2 vols. (Ölten und Freiburg: Wal-
ter, 1987 and 1988) I, 171-202; A Stock The Method and Message of Mark (Wil-
mington: Glazier, 1989) 71-7; R Giesen "Dämonenaustreibungen - Erweis der Nähe der
Herrschaft Gottes. Zu Mk 1,21-28" Theologie der Gegenwart 32 (1989) 24-37; Guelich
Mark I, 53-4.
2 Cf. Eitrem Notes 8. Kee Miracle 161; Gnilka Markus L 86. Also see, AM. Ambrozic
"New Teaching with Power (Mk. 1:27)" in J. Plevnik (ed.) Word and Spirit: Essays in
Honour of David Michael Stanley (Willowdale Ontario: Regis College, 1975) 114;
though I am not sure that he is right in saying that the amazement aroused in the
witnesses of Jesus' teaching and mighty works is a theme "dear to Mark's heart".
58 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

(23) And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit
(24) and he cried out saying; "What have we to do with you, Jesus of Nazareth? Have
you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God." (25) And Jesus
rebuked him saying; "Be muzzled and come out of him." (26) And the unclean spirit
convulsed him and crying with a loud voice came out of him. (27) And they were all
amazed so that they questioned among themselves saying; "What is this? New teaching
with authority! And the unclean spirits he commands and they obey him." (28) And the
report of him went out immediately everywhere to the whole of the region of Galilee.

The introduction to this story (1.21—2) gives a Sabbath in Capernaum as

its setting as well as saying that Jesus did not teach like the scribes. The
phrase, "And immediately" (KCU euOuO joins this introduction to the story
proper and gives it a fresh beginning.3 Using this phrase to join stories and
pericopes is not uncommon in Mark (1.12, 23, 29; 6.45; 7.25[?i 14.43; 15.1)
but it is not used to join stories in the two larger passages generally
recognized to be pre-Markan complexes (2.1—3.6 and 4.35—5.43)." Thus, it
is probable that Mark appended the introduction (121—2) to the exorcism
story.5 This conclusion does not mean that we should consider the intro-
duction, including the astonishment at one who had an authority unlike
the scribes, as unhistorical.6 In fact, since there is no hint of Jesus ever
receiving formal training and since he teaches without formally justifying
his utterances, the historicity of verse 22 may be assumed. But, we must
set aside the introduction (L21—2) in our search for the earliest form of
the exorcism story.
The end of the pericope (L27—8) may also contain some redaction we
can set aside, for it is in the beginning and end of pericopes that redactors
seems to have been most active.7
On witnessing the healing the crowd is said to be "astounded" or
"amazed" (1.27). Only Mark uses 9a(j.peo(iai 0.27]; 10.24, 32), but in neither
of the other cases does it seem that Mark is responsible for the idea.8 But,
has Mark added the concept here? Jesus' teaching9 and even his mere

3 K.L. Schmidt Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch-
gesellschaft, 1964) 50, Taylor Mark 175 (though on 171 Taylor is confident that all of
this pericope was in Mark's tradition). Cf. K. Kertelge Die Wunder Jesu im Markus-
evangelium; Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (München; Kasel, 1970) 150f.
and n. 58.
4 Taylor Mark 91; PJ. Achtemeier "Towards the Isolation of Pre-markan Miracle Cat-
enae" JBL 89 (1970) 265-91; Stein ZNW 61 (1970) 81 n. 38.
5 Cf. e.g. Schweizer Mark 50, H. Anderson The Gospel of Mark (London: Marshall,
Morgan and Scott, 1976) 89; Pesch Markus. I, 119; Guelich Mark I, 55.
6 That they are from Mark's hand see, e.g. Kertelge Wunder 50.
7 See K. Grobel "Idiosyncracies of the Synoptists in their Pericope-Introductions"
JBL 59 (1940) 405-10; E. Best Temptation and Passion (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1965) 63; Stein ZNW 61 (1970) 70f.; Guelich Mark I, 55.
8 See Pesch Markus. II, 143 and 150-2.
9 Mark 122/Luke 432; Mark 6.2/Matt 1354/Luke 4.22; Mark 10.26/Matt 19.25; Mark
UJ8/Luke 19.48; Matt 708f; 2233; (Mark 1234/Matt 2Z46/Luke 20.40). Cf. Bornkamm
 § 6 The Demniac in the Synagogue 59
presence may have had a great impact on his hearers and those around
him so that they are said to be afraid, or amazed.10 At a number of places
the crowd is said to be amazed (or afraid) as the result of a miracle of
Jesus.11 This is generally thought to be a stereotyped closing motif in the
miracle stories, probably taken over from Greek story telling.12 However,
the Jesus tradition shows no consistency in the occurrence of this motif.
Matthew (15.31; cf. Mark 7.37) and Luke (9.43a; cf. Mark 9.23/Matthew
17.18) only once each add the motif to their tradition. Mark never adds it
to the summary statements;13 it is present in the exorcism stories at 1.27,
and 5.(14), 15 and (17?), but absent at 7.30 and 9.28, perhaps where we (and
Luke [9.43aJ would most expect it Therefore, Mark does not seem par-
ticularly interested in adding this motif to the miracle stories in general
,nor to the exorcism stories in particular.14 So, to conclude this point, it
seems quite probable that at least the mention of the crowd's amazement
was part of Mark's tradition at 1.27.15
However, the remainder of the conclusion (1.27b—8) about Jesus' new
teaching, his authority over demons and his consequent fame, is most
probably from Mark's hand. The vocabulary and grammar suggest this.16
Consequently we must credit Mark, at least at this point, with associating
Jesus the exorcist with Jesus the teacher, possibly after the pattern of the
wandering Cynics and rabbis, a connection perhaps suggested by the men-
tion of the synagogue in Mark's tradition.

Jesus 144; Loos Miracles 129; JD.G. Dunn Jesus and the Spirit (London: SCM, 1975)
381 n. 42.
10 Cf. Dunn Jesus 76f„
11 (Mark 1.27/Luke 4.36); Mark 212/Matt 9.8/Luke 5.26; 716; Mark 4.41/Matt 8.27/Luke
825 (Mark 514, 17/Matt 833, 34)/Luke 834, 35, 37; Matt 9.8; Mark 520, 43/Matt
9.26/Luke 8.56; Mark 6.51; 737/Matt 1531; 933; 12.23/Luke 1114; Luke 5.9; 716.
12 E. Peterson Eîç ©eôç (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926) 183-222; Pesch
Markus. I, 124; Theissen Miracle 69-70.
13 Mark L32-4; 3.7-12; 6.53-6. On the Sammelberichte see H. Sawyer T h e Markan Frame-
work" SJT 14 (1961) 279-94 and §13 below.
14 Contrast Stein NovT 13 (1971) 197 who considers it a Markan term.
15 See R. Pesch "Ein Tag vollmächtigen Wirkens Jesu in Kapharnahum (Mk L21-34,
35-39)" BL 9 (1968) 118; also Kertelge Wunder 51 and 56.
16 £ u Ç t | t ê g j (Hawkins Horae Synoptiçae 13; HSE 21); ó i ó a x ' H (Hawkins Horae Synopticae
12; E. Schweizer "Anmerkungen zur Theologie des Markus" in Neotestamentica et
Patristica. Eine Freundesgabe Herrn Professor Dr. Oscar Cullman NovTSup 6 (Lei-
den: Brill, 1962) 37f.; Best Temptation 71f; Stein '¿NW 61 [1970] 73; NovT 13 [1971] 197;
HSE 18; Pryke Style 136>, TaXiXaia (E. Lohmeyer Galiläa und Jerusalem [Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1936] 26; R A Lightfoot Locality and Doctrine in the
Gospels [London: Hodder and Stpughton, 1938] 112; W. Marxsen Mark the Evangelist
[Nashville: Abingdon, 1969] 4f.). fiaxe with an infinitive; Pryke Style 115ff. See also J.
Brière "Le cri et le secret. Signification d'un exorcisme. Me 121-28" Assemblées du
Seigneur 35 (1973) 34-46; W. Weiss "Ein neue Lehre in Vollmacht." Die Streit- und
Schulgespräche des Markus-Evangeliums (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1989).
60 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

We will now examine the core of this pericope (1.23—7a) in an attempt

to peel away later accretions in order to identify early elements of the
story.
The first element of the story is the presence of the demoniac in the
synagogue. Some have seen this as an addition to the original report,
doubting that a man with an "unclean" spirit should find his way into a
synagogue.17 However, the chaotic and unpredictable character of demon-
possession could well mean that, at times, the man showed no adverse
symptoms of his condition.18 Or, perhaps, not until confronted by Jesus
was it evident that he was a demonic (cf. Philostratus Life 4.20). There is,
then, no ground for attributing this element to Christian redaction.
That the man is said to have an unclean spirit, rather than a demon,
could be an indication of the Semitic origin of this story.19 However, the
phrase is so characteristic of Mark (he has 7 of the 11 occurrences in the
Gospels) that it could equally be his. Either way, the story requires that
the tradition contains something of the demonic nature of the sickness,
however it was expressed.
The man is said "to cry out" (avaKpa^eiv). AvaKpaCeiv is not a
synonym for KctXeiv ("to call out"). Apart from its use here and in Luke
8.28, the New Testament uses it in relation to the heightened excitement
or anxiety, of an aroused crowd (Luke 2318), and of terrified men who
think they have seen a ghost (Mark 6.49).20 It is a cry of extreme con-
sternation. There are a number of reasons for thinking that the early
Church probably did not need to introduce this element of consternation
into the stories of Jesus.
First, Matthew, who is decidedly reticent about the exorcism stories of
Jesus,21 prunes the Markan accounts.22 Yet, he does hot obliterate the con-
sternation of the demoniacs; though in 17.17—18 he removes Mark 9.20, the
most grotesque instance. Also, in Mark 5.7 the demoniac Kpa^at; cpcovri

17 See GA. Chadwick "Some Cases of Possession" The Expositor 6 (1892) 275. Cf. P.
Pimental "The 'unclean spirits' of St Mark's Gospel" ExpTim 99 (1988) 173-5.
18 E.g. 1 Sam 1616, 23; 1810; Mark 922. For a fuller discussion of the chaotic nature of
evil see Twelftree Christ chap. V. Philo, Flaccum 36, makes a distinction between a
certain mad man (xi<; nE^vix^ who was easy-going and gentle and those of the
fierce and savage kind.
19 See F. Hauck TDNT III, 428; cf. E Klostermann Das Markusevangelium (Tübingen:
Mohr, 1950) 14; Pimental ExpTim 99 (1988) 173-5.
20 See BAGD, LSJ, MM and W. Grundmann TDNT III, 898.
21 Matthew is not simply reticent about the exorcism stories because they are
exorcism stories (as Hull thinks. Magic 128-41) but Matthew is so dominated by his
Christological objectives that he alters Mark to enhance the reputation of Jesus. See
Twelftree Christ 123-3L
22 Hull Magic 128ff; H.J. Held in G. Bornkamm, G. Barth and HJ. Held Tradition and
Interpretation in Matthew (London: SCM, 2nd. ed„ 1982) 172-5.
 § 6 The Demoniac in the Synagogue 61

jieyaXr]; but in Matthew 8.29 this is toned right down to eicpa^av, so that
the consternation is only barely evident.23 Therefore, Matthew recognized
the consternation of the demoniac as an essential element to an exorcism
story.
Secondly, Mark shows no consistent use of this element in his stories.
Thus, in L23, he has koi aveKpa^ev as the expression of this con-
sternation; in 311 he has Jtpooenuiiov (cf. 5.33) . . . Kcti evcpa^ov; in 5.6
itpoacKuvriaev and in 9.20 ouveojtapa^ev . . . jteaaw. This variety of
expression shows, at least, no desire on the part of Mark to portray the
demons worshipping Jeuss.24 So, also, Luke pays no particular attention to
this element in the exorcism stories (4.33, 41; 8.28; 9.42).
There is a third indicator that the early Church lacked interest in this
part of the form of an exorcism story — viz. the lack of consistency in
dealing with the consternation of the demoniacs indicates not only that the
early Church did not seek to co-opt it into their theological enterprise, but
that it did not even seek to draw attention to this factor.
Therefore, we can conclude here that, in so far as the first three Evan-
gelists represent the interests of the early Church, it is quite unlikely that
the early Church introduced the consternation of the demoniacs into the
form of the stories of Jesus. We will take up the issue of historicity in the
next chapter.
In L24 the distress of the demoniac is verbalized as "What have you to
do with us?" which corresponds to (see below).25
Fridrichsen maintained that, in these exclamations of the demons, "we
have to see a confession attributed to the demon and intended to defend
Jesus from the accusation of being in alliance with Beelzebul."26 But,
Fridrichsen's theory can easily be dismantled First, he says that in Mark
1.24 the name of the exorcist is an additional component.27 Here Frid-
richsen has confused form and content History of religions parallels make
it obvious that the name was part of the form of the prescription used in

23 See Grundmann TDNT HI. 898f; Str-B II, 40L

24 It is possible that, for Mark, the shouting (lcpaCeiv) of the demons is evidence for his
case for Jesus' identity. See A.E. Harvey Jesus on Trial (London: SPCK, 1976) 23 n. 7.
25 Cf. Josh 22.24; Judg 1L12; 1 Kgs 1718; Acts Thorn. 5.45; Taylor Mark 174; CK. Barrett
The Gospel According to St John (London: SPCK, 1979) 191; BAGD "eya". While
nothing stands in the way of Ebstein's suggestion that the plural used by the demon
refers to those around Jesus at the time (E. Ebstein Die Medizin im NT und im
talmud [Stuttgart: Enke, 1903] 60) neither is there anything to support his notion. In
fact, in view of the context - Jesus confronting the demoniac - there is no need to
see the demon's words referring to anything other than this confrontation.
26 A. Fridrichsen "The Conflict of Jesus with the Unclean Spirits" Theology 22 (1931)
125, my emphasis.
27 Fridrichsen Miracle 112
62 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

preternatural control.28 Secondly, the name "Jesus" does not in any way
seem to be an intrusion. Not only does it also appear in 5.7 but, as we will
see, it is not a name of any particular messianic or christological sig-
nificance that would be expected to be deliberately added to the tradition.
Thirdly, Fridrichsen says that the demon's discourse (1.24) is only long and
prolix because it serves an apologetic end.29 Burkill provides a sufficient
reply to this.
"The address includes but three concise clauses, and if these are read as though they
were meant to have apotropaic significance, the two affirmations which folow on the
opening question are seen to increase the effectiveness of the utterance of a defensive
weapon. Neither assertion is superfluous."30

Fourthly, it is unlikely that 1.24 was framed to counter the Beelzebul

Charge, as Fridrichsen suggests, for nowhere in Mark is a connection
made between the demonic confessions and the Beelzebul Charge.31 We
conclude that the case that the demon's exclamation was attributed to the
story to defend Jesus from the Beelzebul Charge cannot stand.
Some years previous to Fridrichsen, William Wrede assumed that the
demons were declaring Jesus' messiahship and so brought the demoniacs'
utterances into his scheme of the "messianic secret", deleting them from
the real history of Jesus.32 Similarly, others have thought that the demons
had supernatural knowledge of Jesus' (true) identity and were declaring
this and their defeat to the world.33 It is true, especially in relation to 311,
that Mark understood and used the demons' words as messianic con-
fessions. But, why should those responsible for transmitting the Gospel
traditions, particularly Mark, choose demons to play such an important
part in declaring Jesus' messiahship when they "might have called on kings
or other great persons such as philosophers, or angels, or inspired persons,
or infants or persons raised from the deal"?34 In any case, as S.V. Mc-
Casland agrees, this "theory is weak because it shows no motive why
demons should be anxious to bear testimony to one whom they recognize
to be their enemy."35

28 Twelftree Christ 6L See also O. Bauernfeind Die Worte der Dämonen (Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1927) 13ff; cf. TA. Burkill Mysterious Revelation: An Examination of
the Philosophy of St Mark's Gospel (New York: Cornell University Press, 1963) 78;
Hull Magic; see also below.
29 Fridrichsen Miracle 12f.
30 Burkill Revelation 76.
31 Cf. Burkill Revelation 75.
32 W. Wrede The Messianic Secret (Cambridge and London: Clarke, 1971) 33f. Cf. AJÍ.
Maynard "TI EMOI KAI SOI" NTS 32(1985) 584; R. Trevijano "El transfordo apoc-
alíptico de Me 1, 24.25; 5, 7.8 y par." Burgense 11 (1970) 117-33. "TI f+ioi Kai aot"
33 Eg. See R Seesemann TDNT V, 117-8.
34 S.V. McCasland T h e Demonic 'Confessions' of Jesus" JR 24 (1944) 33.
35 McCasland JR 24 (1944) 33.
 § 6 The Demoniac in the Synagogue 63

Any decision regarding the origin of the demon's words in Mark 124
(and 5.7) depends to a large extent on the interpretation given to them.
Therefore, we need to discuss how the demon's words would have been
understood in first century Palestine.
In both Mark 1.24 and 5.7, the reported words of the demons begin in
the same way tv F||itv (5.7 has ejioi) KGU ooi? What does this question
mean? Although in classical Greek it would mean "What have we in
common?", in Mark 1.24 it probably corresponds to Hebrew-Aramaic
idiom ( i M ,] ?~na) and means: "Why are you bothering us?"34 J.D.M
Derrett has examined the question — with a view to understanding John
2.4 — and says that the phrase is a "protestation that there is not, or
should not be, a difference of viewpoint, still less a dispute, between the
two personalities."37 Others take the question to be the demon's defence
against Jesus the exorcist.38
The question in Mark has parallels in the New Testament era in John
2.4, as well in the Old Testament39 and in Philo (see below). In the
rabbinic literature, Strack and Billerbeck (II, 401) cite only Pesiqta Rab-
bati 5.
Two examples will help us to elucidate its meaning for first century
Palestinians. In 2 Samuel 19.16—23 Shimei asks David for forgiveness for
cursing and throwing stones at him (2 Samuel 16.5—14). But, Abishai
suggested that Shimei be put to death. David replies: "What have I to do
with you?", giving the impression that he is asking not to be interfered
with. Josephus shows that, in the New Testament era, the phrase in ques-
tion was understood as a rebuttal or counter-attack. In his rewriting of this
story he has David reply: "Won't you be quiet . . .?" (Ant. 7.265).
The other Old Testament example of the question, "What have we (or
I) to do with you!" is in 1 Kings 17. A widow is providing food and
water for Elijah and her son becomes seriously ill. She connects her son's
illness with the presence of Elijah, a man of God. She says to Elijah,
"What have you against me (ti e(ioi Kai ooi), O man of God? You have
come to me to bring my sin to remembrance, and to cause the death of
my son!" (1 Kings 17.18). What the woman attempts to do in these words is
to defend her household by a kind of warding off of Elijah from the

36 H M Buck "Redactions of the Fourth Gospel and the Mother of Jesus" in D£. Aune
(ed.) Studies in NT and Early Christian Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1972) 177; Anderson
Mark 91.
37 JX)M Derret Law in the NT (London: DLT, 1970) 24L
38 Bauernfeind Worte 3-28.
39 See, e.g. 2 Sam (LXX 2 Kgs) 16JO, 1922; 2 Kgs (LXX 4 Kgs) 3.13; 2Chr 35.21. See
further N. Turner Grammatical Insights into the NT (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1965)
43-7; Buck in Aune (ed.) Studies 177.
64 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

situation. Also, in Judges 1112, Jephthah sent messengers to the King of

Ammon in an attempt to avert war. The messengers were to say: "What
have you against me (xi ejjtoi ical oot), that you have come to fight
against my lord?" With this we need to compare a passage in Philo. In
Quod Deus immutabilis sit, written around the same time as the earliest
New Testament documents, Philo uses the 1 Kings passage showing that
the phrase ( u e^oi Kai ooi) was used to ward off evil. He writes: "Every
mind that is on the way to be widowed and empty of evil says to the
prophet, 'O man of God, you have come in to remind me of my iniquity
and my sin' " {Quod Deus immutabilis sit 138). Philo has not reversed the
notion of "warding off" to one of "welcome" of the man of God, as
Bauernfeind thinks40 for, as Burkill points out,41 Philo is talking about a
God-inspired man, on the remembrance of past iniquities and sins,
attempting to keep them in check and from returning to his old ways.42
In view of these parallels, it seems best to adopt the view of Bauern-
feind, and those who have followed him, that the words of the demons
were most likely understood as defence mechanisms against Jesus the
exorcist,43 As we proceed we shall find other elements in the words of the
demons to confirm this interpretation.44
Having concluded that these words of the demon were a defence
against Jesus, we can return to the question of their origin. On the one
hand, its introduction ("and he cried out saying") would conform to no
theological motif in the early Church and the question is certainly
appropriate here as a warding off of Jesus the enemy-exorcist. And,
importantly, it has a Semitic background. Yet, on the other hand, we have
to face the possibility that it has been included to conform to literary con-
ventions. However, the phrase is not used consistently in Mark (cf. 5.7) nor
does it not conform to 1 Kings 17.18, the passage which best explains the
meaning and purpose of Mark 1.24. Therefore, its early origin seems quite
probable. The final decision will have to be made in the context of the
whole of verse 24.
Next, we need to ask if Mark or the early Church is likely to have
added the name or title "Jesus of Nazareth", either for dogmatic purposes

40 Bauernfeind Worte 6ff„ followed by Pesch Markus. I, 122 a 19.

41 Burkill Revelation 77 and n. 14.
42 Cf. Philo Immut. 133-9.
43 Bauernfeind Worte 3-28; O. Bächli " 'Was habe ich mit Dir zu schaffen?' Eine
formelhafte Frage im A.T. und N.T." TZ 33 (1977) 79-8. Cf. the critique of
Bauernfeind by P. Guillemette "Mc 1, 24 est-il une formule de défense magique?"
ScEs 30 (1978) 81-%.
44 Cf. Buck in Aune (ed.) Studies 177-8 who, after examining the use of the phrase in
Epictetus 1116; L22i5; I27J3; 2.1916; 219J7ff.; 3.22.26, concludes that it always sets up a
distance between the two parties involved.
 § 6 The Demniac in the Synagogue 65

or in order to make it conform to the literary pattern of such formulae.

Or, is it a title likely to be original to the earliest story?
From the characters involved in this story we would expect the name
"Jesus" to be part of the words of the demons so we will direct our at-
tention to "Nazareth".
Jesus of Nazareth is not a term that was of special significance in the
early Church as a designation for Jesus. First, Paul does not use the term,
nor does any later Christian Greek writer.45 Secondly, for Matthew (cf.
2.23u and 21.11), Luke (Acts 10.38) and John (1.45), the term refers to Jesus'
coming from Nazareth in Galilee.47 Thirdly, when it was used, Na£a-
0r|v6<; and Na^copaToc; were terms restricted to the Palestinian Church.48
Mark, coming from a community that probably did not use the title,
would have no special interest in promoting the term as a title of Jesus.49
So, up to this point, we can conclude that there are no obvious
dogmatic reasons why Mark or the early non-Palestinian Church would
have wanted to introduce the name "Nazareth" into the traditioa
It is possible that the title "of Nazareth" could have been added to the
tradition by early Palestinian Christians. However, if Matthew can be
taken as an example of a tradition that has passed through early
Palestinian Christianity50 then we have little evidence that it showed par-
ticular interest in the title.51 This conclusion is strengthened if we take Q

45 H J i Schaeder '/'DAT IV. 874.

46 See B. Lindars NT Apologetic (London: SCM, 1961) 194ff. and Str-B I, 92
47 KJL Rengstorf DNTT II, 33.
48 Schaeder TDNT IV, 874; cf. Acts 2.22; 3.6 etc. On the variant terms see DJ3. Taylor
"Jesus - of Nazareth?" ExpTim 92 (1980) 336-7; G. Allan "He shall be Called - a
Nazarite" ExpTim 95 (1983) 81-2
49 I assume that Mark was written in the context of a community. See Marxsen Mark,
Kee Community ; E. Best Mark: The Gospel as Story (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1983)
chap. XV; Twelftree Christ 116 a 8L
50 For a Palestinian origin of Matthew see GD. Kilpatrick The Origins of the Gospel
According to St. Matthew (Oxford: Clarendon, 1946) chap. VII; E. Käsemann "The
Beginning of Christian Theology" in his NT Questions of Today (London: SCM, 1969)
83; F.W. Beare The Gospel According to Matthew (Oxford: Blackwell, 1981) 8.
However, many scholars agree that the Gospel was compiled in Syria. See P. Bonnard
L'évangile selon Saint Matthieu (Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1963) 9-10; Filson
Matthew 15; D. Hill The Gospel of Matthew (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott,
1972) 48-52; Schweizer Matthew 15-17; Goppelt Theology I, 213.
51 Matthew drops NaCaçTivôç at 2030/Mark 10.47; 28.5/Mark 16.6. At 26.69 Matthew does
not use NaÇaprivôç (/Mark 14.67) but at 26.71 he uses NaÇupaîoç (/Mark 14.69). At
223 Matthew has NaÇwpavcx; but the parallel verse in Luke 2.40 does not. At 2.23
Matthew has NaÇapéx, the Lukan parallel has NaÇapéO (239). At 4J3 N a Ç a p â
(/Mark 121/Luke 431) and 2111 NaÇopée (/Mark 1111/Luke 19.45) have been added to
Matthew's sources. At 313/Mark 1.9 NaÇctpÉT and at 120/Luke 2.4 NaÇapéO has been
dropped by Matthew. If Matthew is relying on Q at 13.54/Luke 4.16 then he has there
dropped NaÇapô.
66 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

to be a Palestinian compilation for it also shows no interest in the desig-

nation "Jesus of Nazareth".52
Even though PGM VIII.13 ("I know you Hermes, who you are and
whence you come and which is your city") comes from the fourth or fifth
century, we see from it that the origin of the one being named was
probably of importance in Mark 1.24." If Mark or the early Church
introduced a name and origin in order to conform to a literary convention
or theological motif it is surprising, in this supernatural context, that they
should have chosen "Jesus of Nazareth" rather than the more appropriate
and theologically pregnant "Son of God", as Mark seems to have done in
3.11 or "Son of David", which Matthew prefers (see §23 below). Thus, there
do not appear to be dogmatic reasons why the early Church would want
to introduce this particular appellation. Therefore, we can conclude that, so
far as we can see, "Jesus of Nazareth" probably does come from the
earliest pre-Easter telling of the story.54
The next part of the words of the demon is, "Have you come to
destroy us?" (riXGec, aitoXeoai f)[iac;;). This phrase clearly serves well the
early Church's dogmatic purposes. As we will be discussing later, the
destruction of evil was expected in the messianic age (e.g. As. Mos. 10.1, 3;
see §23 below). The early Church took up the theme (Luke 10.18 and
Revelation 2010) and Jesus is portrayed in the Gospels as one who
destroys the evil powers (e.g. Matthew 12.28ff./Luke 11.20ff., see §10
below). Yet, neither in Mark, nor in the rest of the New Testament is
ajioAAv^n used in relation to the ministry of Jesus.55 Also, anoXXu(ai is by
no means a word of particular interest to Mark. Nor did any section of
the early Church — as represented in the Gospels — think that Jesus'
exorcisms were the final or complete destruction of evil (see chap. VI
below). And, when we examine the history of religions parallels of
addresses to spiritual entities, we find — as we did when discussing the
sons of Sceva story in Acts 19 — that the mention of the spiritual entity
can involve a description of him, including his activities. In Acts 1913 the
qualification appended to Jesus' name was argued to be designatory or
identificatory rather than descriptive (see §3 above). Here, as we will see,
the reverse is the case. In Mark 1.24, Jesus is not yet being identified —

52 On the provenance of Q see RD. Worden "Redaction Criticism of Q: A Survey"

JBL 94 (1975) 546 who mentions Wellhausen, Harnack, Tödt, Steck and Hoffmann. See
also Kümmel Introduction 70. On the non-occurrence of "Jesus of Nazareth" in Q see
RA. Edwards A Concordance to Q (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975).
53 See Twelftree Christ chap. IL
54 For the Semitic background of "from Nazareth" see W.C. Allen Matthew (Edinburgh:
T & T Clark, 1912) 16f.
55 On outöWuni see H.C. Hahn DNTT I, 462; A. Oepke TDNT I, 394ff.; Str-B IV, 527
and II, 2.
 § 6 The Demoniac in the Synagogue 67

that comes after "I know . . . " He is being described. A good parallel
example of this is PGM IV.3045—49 where God, who is being invoked, is
described as the light bringer, invisible, and causes rain to come upon the
earth.56 So, once again, it is reasonable to conclude that this description of
Jesus' activity by the demon is part of the original story.
So far, apart from the initial words of general defence, the demon has
made known Jesus' origin (Nazareth) and his activity (the demon's de-
struction) in a continuing effort to over-power Jesus. Now the climax of
the defence comes with the "I know" formula — knowledge of Jesus' iden-
tity.
There are a number of appropriate parallels to this part of the verse.
Note particularly PGM VIII.6fj "(I know) your name which was received
in heaven, I know you and your forms . . ."" Statements like these occur
in incantations designed to gain control over spiritual beings. And so, from
what we have seen so far, this formula is not out of place in its setting in
Mark 1.24. Finally, we need not doubt the historical veracity of this phrase
for it is in an Hebrew idiom. That is, we have here the prolepsis of the
subject of a subordinate clause as in Genesis 1.4 "God saw the light, that
it was good."58
However, what should we make of the origin of the phrase "the Holy
One of God"? We can begin by noting that "the Holy One" is used in the
New Testament in relation to Jesus, albeit rarely ([Luke 1.36]; John 6.69;
[Acts 3.14; 427, 301 1 John 2.2a, Revelation 3.7). The term has no
recognizable tradition at all as a messianic title and we know of no other
instance of the exact title in the period (cf. "holy ones of God" in CD
6.1).59 The basic intention of the word is to signify that which is marked
off from the secular. That is, it denotes the sphere of the divine.60 Thus,
the term is used of beings that belong to this sphere.61 And, importantly, it
is used of human individuals (CD 6.1; Revelation 22.6).62 In Jeremiah 1.5
the prophet is "sanctified": that is, he belongs to God. In Ben Sirach 45.6,

56 Cf. PGM IV3033ff.

57 See also PGM IV1500, 2984ff; V103ff.; VIIL13; Bauernfeind Worte llf.; R. Reitzenstein
Hellenistische Wundererzählungen (Leipzig: Teubner, 1963) 124.
58 N. Turner A Grammar of NT Greek IV (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1976) 16.
59 R. Bultmann The Gospel of John (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971) 449 n. 4; W.R. Domeris
"The Holy One of God as a Title for Jesus" Neotestamentica 19 (1985) 9.
60 See O. Procksch TDNT I, 88f.; Bultmann John 448 n. 5; H. Seebas DNTT II, 224;
WA. Domeris "The Office of Holy One" Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 54
(1986) 35-8.
61 Cf. W. Bousset and H. Gressmann Die Religion des Judentums im Späthellenistischen
Zeitalter (Tübingen: Mohr, 1966) 321 and n. 2; Seebas DNTT II, 225f.; cf. also Bult-
mann John 449 n. 5.
62 See Bultmann John 449 n. 5; Domeris Neotestamentica 19 (1985) 12.
68 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

Aaron is called "holy" (cf. Numbers 16.3-5). And, in Psalm 105.16 (LXX),
Aaron is referred to as "the holy one of the Lord" (cf. 2 Kings 4.9). These
parallels make a Semitic background to Mark 1.24 quite probable,63 and its
status as a genuine reflection of the words of the demon or demoniac
high. If this is right then the demon or demoniac was simply identifying
Jesus as belonging to God or perhaps being in the service of God as an
exorcist.64
This completes our investigation into the origin of the various elements
of Mark 1.24. It will be apparent that few of the history of religions
parallels cited are actually words of demons. In fact, I can find no precise
extra-biblical parallels to the "I know" formula. All the precise parallels
are, like PGM VIII.13, words addressed to a power-authority in order to
gain its aid. Bultmann called attention to this as it related to Bauernfeind's
work.65 Bultmann said that, in Bauernfeind's evidence, the demon appeared
in the role of the threatened man who utters the "protective" words, while
Jesus takes on the role of the demon. But, in fact this is not quite the case.
Rather, in Mark 1.24, the demon appears to be using technical devices
which, in the parallels, were used to call up the aid of the power-authority.
Thus, the situation is the same in that in both cases control over a
powerful preternatural being is sought, in one case for aid, in another to
disarm
The next part of the story, Mark 1.25, has to do with the technique
Jesus used to exorcise the demoa In the first part of the verse Jesus is
said to ertitiji^v the demon. It has been pointed out,66 that TW, the
Semitic equivalent underlying enix^i^tv in the LXX, occurs in the Qumran
material.67 We have seen (§3 above) that Kee attempted unsuccessfully to
show that it is a technical term and designates the commanding word
spoken by God or his representatives at which evil powers are subjugated
so that the way is thereby prepared for the establishment of God's
rule.68 We showed in §3 above that I W / e i t n i ^ v in this context can be

63 Cf. Judg 1617(B). See F.C Hahn The Titles of Jesus in Christology (London: Lut-
terworth, 1969) 233; F. Mussner "Ein Wortspiel in Mark 1:24?" BZ 4 (1960) 285-6 and
E. Schweizer " 'Er wird Nazoräer heissen' (zu Mc 1.24/Mt 2.23)" in W. Eltester (ed.)
Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964) 90-3 suggest that "Jesus of
Nazareth" would have been a play on the words "Holy One of God". Cf. B. Blackburn
Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions (Tübingen: Mohr, 1991) 110 n. 65.
64 Contrast Guelich Mark I, 57, following Koch. Wundererzählungen 57-61, who suggests
that the demons are recognizing the deity of Jesus.
65 Bultmann History 209 n. 1
66 Notably by JA. Fitzmyer "Some Observations on the Genesis Apocryphon" CBQ 22
(1960) 284; WJL Brownlee The Meaning of the Qumran Scrolls for the Bible (New
York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964) 210 n. 41; Geller JJS 28 (1977) 142.
67 1QM 1410; lQHf 4.6; lQapGen 20.28-9.
68 Kee NTS 14 (1967-8) 232-46. Cf. Harvey Constraints 118.
 § 6 The Demoniac in the Synagogue 69

translated simply as "rebuke in order to expel". Without the theological

connotation Kee attempted to associate with enixi(i^v, we may take this
word as part of the original report of Jesus' exorcism.
Mark 125b reports words of Jesus to the demon, "Be quiet and come
out of him" (cpi(jia)0r|xi Kai e£-eX6e e^ auxou). Again, the question is — Did
these words originate in the early Church?
In relation to cpt|ia)Gr|u we need to take into account the notion that
this injunction to silence may have been part of a "Messianic Secret"
constructed by the early Church.69 From 1.34 it seems that Mark might
have understood Jesus' prohibition as a general injunction to silence.70
However, if the early Church wished to include in this command the
more general conception of ceasing to talk about Jesus it is surprising that
it did not use ouima ("be quiet"), as in 10.48, rather than qniacoGriii, which
is so strongly related to "incantational restriction", rather than to
"talking".71 That is, the use of (pi(iojT]xv puts someone in a position where
they are unable to operate,72 whereas the other injunctions in Mark 73 are
requests and commands to silence. Further, if by qn[ia)8r|ti the publishers
of Mark understood the meaning "be silent"74 then the phrase (pcovrioav
cpiovrj ^eyaXri is a glaring oversight by them.75 In other words, q)t(ao>&rfit in
1.25 does not fit the pattern of interdictions in the rest of Mark, nor of a
conscious reworking at this point76 and was probably understood in terms
of someone or something being bound or restricted.
Further, cpi^oaQrixi is well known in the magical papyri. For example, P.
Oslo 1.161f. has: "Remedy to prevent the wrath of a person . . . muzzle

69 Wrede Secret 34, though see his note 17 there: T h e phimotheti is not in itself an
indication that Jesus rejects the messianic address, but simply suppresses the demon's
self-expression which lies in its words. In 4.39 Jesus uses the same term in addressing
the sea. cf. B. Weiss, Markusevang„ p. 62; Volkmar, p. 89, is not far short of the mark in
seeing it actually as a spell. Nevertheless, according to the parallel, the evangelist
seems to mean that Jesus is also repudiating the messianic form of address by his use
of the term." (Cf. Wrede Secret 145ff.). The comments of Robinson History 38 n. 1
are important here. "Wrede, maintains that the reason for silencing demons cannot be
their demonic nature, since this explanation would not apply to the silencings
following the raising of Jairus' daughter (5.43) and the healing of the deaf-mute (7.36).
But Wrede forces this parallel to the expense of ignoring the contrast between the
hostility in the commands to the demons and the absence of such hostility in the
other cases. Furthermore the basic assumption of Wrede, that all the silencings in
Mark must be understood in the same way, is open to serious question, in view of
the variety in form and mood of the silencings." Cf. Schweizer Mark 55; C Tuckett
(ed.) The Messianic Secret (London: SPCK and Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).
70 Schweizer Mark 52 and RSV.
71 See BAGD and LSJ.
72 Cf. Matt 22.34; Lucian Peregrinus 15.
73 Wrede Secret 34ff.
74 Cf. RSV.
75 Cf.- Burkill Revelation 89 (and n. 6).
76 Burkill Revelation 74.
70 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

(cpi^tooátai) the mouths which speak against me . . . I77 And, in the

defixiones found at Cyprus, cptjioüv and cpi(acotiKÓv are equivalent to
KcxiaSeTv ("to bind") or K a t á S e a j i o t ; (a magical knot) used in,
incantations.78 And, the original meaning of q>i(ioüv was "to bind",79 some-
times in relation to the tongue.80 Thus, in the context of an exorcist's
command, q>i|i&)0r|ii, is quite appropriate in Mark 1.25, and cpi|aóco cor-
responds to the Aramaic oon. Therefore, it is most likely part of the
primary tradition rather than Christian redaction. Of course, as 1.34 shows
— "He did not permit the demons to speak because they knew him" —
this command to silence was taken up into Mark's theological programme.81
Next to consider in Mark 1.25b is Jesus' command, "Come out of him"
(e^eXOe el; aútoü). The Lukan form of this phrase (4.35) with ájió in place
of ¿K is paralleled in PGM IV.3013ff.. With this can be compared PGM
IV.1243ff.: e^eXGe . . . KCU anóctr|Gi a n o toü SeTva. Very similar
expressions are found in Philostratus' Life 420 where Apollonius orders
the demon to quit (anaXXatxeoGai) the young lad, and in Lucian's Phil-
opseudes 11, where a spell drives out (e^eXaoac) poision, and in Phil-
opseudes 16, where a Syrian drives out (e^eXaúvei) a demon. And, as we
saw in the last chapter, in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Me'il. 17b) two
rabbis order a demon to leave a girl. In view of all this, and there being
no obvious reasons why this command to the demon to leave should have
been added to the tradition by the early Church, it is reasonable to assume
that this command of Jesus has not been added to the story but belongs to
the bedrock of historical tradition.
The next part of the story, Mark 1.26—8, relates the response to Jesus'
command, first by the demon, and then in turn, by the crowd.
The demon is said to "tear or convulse (onapá^av) the man". Mark, or
his tradition, seems to be fairly consistent in including this element in his
stories. If 5.13 is included then the element is in all his stories. But, that
Mark did not add this violence to the stories of Jesus is clear from the

77 Further examples in S. Eitrem Papyri Osloenses I (Oslo: Norske Videnskops-Akademi,

1925) 76f.; BDF §346; cf. E. Rohde Psyche: The Cult of Souls and Belief in Im-
mortality Among the Greeks (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1925) 604; Eitrem
Notes 30f.; U. Luz "The Secrecy Motif and the Marcan Christology" in Tuckett (ed.)
The Messianic Secret 81.
78 Cited by Rohde Psyche 603f\; see also A. Audollent Defixionum Tabellae (Frankfurt
Main: Minerva GmbH, Unveränderter Nachdruck, 1967) 20.5; 2513; 3Z13; cf. Fridrichsen
Miracle 11Z
79 See BAGD; BDF §346; Kertelge Wunder 54 and n. 87, (cf. Rohde Psyche 327 n. 107 -
this word is "the 'binding' whereby the spirit-raiser magically compels the unseen to
do his will").
80 See esp. Audollent Defixionum 15.24; cf. Wünsch cited in Rohde Psyche 327 n. 107.
81 W.C. Robinson "The Quest for Wrede's Secret Messiah" in Tuckett (ed.) The Mes-
sianic Secret 105.
 § 6 The Demoniac in the Synagogue 71

fact that he shows no particular consistency of interest in its function.

Thus, in 9.26—7, the violence could be a means towards portraying Jesus'
compassion, but this could hardly be said of 5.13 (the drowning of the
pigs), and in 1.27 the violence may have been a vehicle for dramatizing
and heightening Jesus' authority.
Further, it is unlikely that any sector of the early Church appended this
factor to the Jesus stories. Matthew and Luke's attitude to this violence
makes this most probable. Matthew omits the whole of this first story
(Mark 1.23—8), and in 8.32 he changes Mark's strong eitviyovto ("they
were suffocated/strangled'' Mark 5.13c) to a less violent ¿JieQavov ("they
died"). He also omits the violent convulsions of Mark 9.26 (Matthew 1718).
Luke's treatment is also telling of the early Church's embarrassment over
this aspect of Jesus' exorcisms. Most noticeable is his addition of "having
done him no harm" (4.35) to Mark's reference to "convulsions" and "loud
crying".
Thus, in so far as the first three Evangelists represent the attitude of the
early Church on this point, it seems unlikely that the early Church in-
troduced this violence into the Jesus tradition and we can take it that, in
all probability, it goes back to the earliest report of the event
The crowd's response is said to be amazement (¿0a|i(iJr)6r|aav, Mark
1.27). We have already discussed this and shown that is was most likely
part of Mark's tradition and, notably, that the Jesus tradition shows no
consistency in the occurrence of this motif. Thus, although we cannot be
sure, it quite probably goes back to the original reports of the event.
Finally, by way of summary here, having set aside Christian redaction
we can see what can be confidently said to belong to the very first reports
of this event. From our discussions the following elements should probably
be included: (1) a demoniac is said to confront Jesus in the synagogue at
Capernaum, (2) there is a report, faithfully transmitted in Mark, of a
dialogue between Jesus and the demoniac and possibly (3) the crowd is
said to be amazed.82

82 Cf. Guillemette NovT 22 (1980) 222-47.

 § 7 The Gadarene Demoniac1
Mark 5.1-20 (Matthew 8.28-34/Luke &2Ó-39)

This story is both the most astounding of the Synoptic exorcism stories
and the one with the most textual and history of tradition problems. These
difficulties have, in turn, provoked a wide spectrum of opinion on the
historicity of this story. For example, some see the story as faithfully
reflecting a historical event2 while others see it as a popular folk tale
appended to the authentic Jesus tradition.3 Some scholars have attempted
to apply Levi-Straussian structural exegesis to the passage. For example,
Jean Starobinski says that the story in Mark is a psychic event and that
the pigs being destroyed in the sea is "manageable only through a purely

1 Literature: Pesch Markus. I, 29f.; R. Pesch Der Besessene von Gerasa (Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1972); F. Annen Heil für die Heiden (Frankfurt: Knecht, 1976);
J£>. Kingsbury "Observations on the 'Miracle Chapters' of Matthew 8-9" CBQ 40 (1978)
559-73 and notes; Schürmann Lukas. I, 479f.; Gnilka Markus I, 199; J.D.M. Derrett
"Contributions to the Study of the Gerasene Demoniac" JSNT 3 (1979) 2-17; R. Girard
"Les demons de Gérasa" in Le Bouc émissaire (Paris: Grasset, 1982) 233-57; A. Man-
rique "El endemoniado de Gerasa" Biblia y Fe i (1982) 168-79; Drewermann Markus. I,
360-5; Latourelle Miracles 120-1; Guelich Mark I, 271-89; Stock Method 164-9; R.
Detweiler and W.G. Doty (eds.) The Daemonic Imagination Biblical Texts and Secular
Story (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990). On the textual and geographical problems of
"Gadara" see G. Dalman Sacred Sites and Ways: Studies in the Topography of the
Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1935) 177; T. Baarda "Gadarenes, Gerasenes, Gergesenes
and the 'Diatesseron Tradition" in E. Ellis and M. Wilcox (eds.) Neotestamentica et
Semítica (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1969) 181-97; Marshall The Gospel of Luke 336-7;
Schürer History I, 132-6; JA. Fitzmyer The Gospel According to Luke 2 vols. (Garden
City: Doubleday, 1981 and 1985) I, 736-7; J D M Derrett The Making of Mark 2 vols.
(Shipston-on-Stour Drinkwater, 1985) I, 99-101; Gnilka Markus 1, 275.
2 E.g. E. Lohmeyer Das Evangeliums des Markus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1959) 95-9; Taylor Mark 277-85; G. Dehn Der Gottessohn (Hamburg: Furche, 1953)
110-114; GEB. Cranfield The Gospel According to Saint Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1966) 177-80. Strauss, Life 430, saw the story as reflecting a his-
torical event but gave a rationalistic explanation for the cause of the fate of the herd
of pigs; cf. Mann Mark 278.
3 C.G. Montefiore The Synoptic Gospels 2 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1909) I, 11; Dibelius
Tradition 85ff.; F.C Grant IB 7, 712; W. Bundy Jesus and the First Three Gos-
pels (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955) 243. Cf. Pesch Markus I, 282-95;
Annen Heil für die Heiden.
 § 7 The Gadarene Demoniac 73

symbolic interpretation: the fall of the pigs is a figure for the fall of
rebellious spirits into the abyss."4 However, as H.C. Kee comments: "The
verbal acrobatics are dazzling, but they cannot conceal that the method is
not really concerned with the text, but with the 'deep' (= spiritual)
meaning."5 Some interpret the story psychologically6 while others interpret
it in the context of first century demonology. 7 It has also been seen as a
Christian midrash inspired by Isaiah 65.1—5.8 Recently, insights from a
sociological approach have been applied to the pericope.9 This variety of
approaches signals to us that we may not yet fully understand the nature
of the Jesus tradition, and that we should proceed with caution.
The story of Mark 5 reads as follows.
(1) And they came to the other side of the sea into the country of the Gerasenes.
(2) And when he had come out of the boat immediately there met him out of the
tombs a man with an unclean spirit, (3) who lived in the tombs, and no longer was any
one able to bind him with a chain (4) because he had often been bound with fetters
and chains and he had burst from the chains and the fetters he broke, and no one had
the strength to subdue him. (5) And continually night and day among the tombs and
among the mountains he was crying out and bruising himself with stones. (6) And
seeing Jesus from afar he ran and knelt down before him (7) and crying out with a
loud voice he said; "What have I to do with you, Jesus Son of the Most High God? 1
adjure you by God, do not torment me." (8) For he had said to him; "Come out
unclean spirit from the man!" (9) And he asked him; "What is your name?" And he
said to him; "Legion is my name, because we are many." (10) And be begged him
greatly not to send them out of the country. (11) Now there was there on the mountain
a great herd of pigs feeding; (12) and they begged him saying, "Send us into the pigs,
so that we can enter into them." (13) And he allowed them. And coming out the
unclean spirits entered into the pigs, and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the
sea, about two thousand, and was drowned in the sea.
(14) And their herdsmen fled and reported it in the city and in the country; and
they came io see what it was that had happened (15) and they came to Jesus and saw
the demoniac sitting clothed and in his right mind, the one who had the legion, and
they were afraid. (16) And those having seen it declared what had happened to the
demoniac and about the pigs. (17) And they began to beg him to depart from their
borders.

4 J. Starobinski "Le Démoniaque de Cerasa: Analyse litéraire de Marc 5:1-20" in P.

Bovon (ed.) Analyse Stucturale et Exégese Biblique (Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé,
1971) 72, quoted by H.C. Kee Christian Origins in Sociological Per s pectine (London:
SCM, 1980) 103.
5 Kee Origins 103. Note especially 186-7 n. 8.
6 E.g. M.M. Baird "The Gadarene Demoniac" ExpTim 31 (1919-20) 189; L Vv'eatherhead
Psychology, Religion and Healing (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1951) 6 2 f f , T
Hawthorn "The Cerasene Demoniac: A Diagnosis Mark v.1-20 Luke viii 26-39
(Matthew viii.28-34)" ExpTim 66 (1954-5) 79-80.
7 Bauernfeind Worte 34f.; Burkill Revelation 87; J. Jeremias Jesus' Promise to the
Nations (London: SCM, 1957) 30 n. 5; S. Cave "The Obedience of Unclean Spirits"
NTS 11 (1964—5) %f..
8 H. Sahlin "Die Perikope vom gerasenischen Besessenen und der Plan des .Markus-
evangeliums" ST 18 (1964) 159-72
9 Theissen Followers 100-102; Theissen Miracle, e.g. 147-8. 254-6.
74 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

(18) And as he was entering into the boat, the demoniac begged him that he might
be with h i m (19) And he did not let him, but he said to him; "Go to your home to
your people and tell them how much the Lord has done for you and had mercy on
you." (20) And he went away and began to proclaim in Decapolis how much Jesus had
done for him, and they all marvelled.

We must face the difficult task of trying to detect what contribution

Mark and earlier Christians made to this pericope so that we can set this
material to one side in our search for reliable historical data.
It is generally agreed that this pericope belongs to a longer pre-Markan
unit (4.35—5.43) which, with few modifications, Mark incorporated in his
Gospel.10
However, it has long been proposed that two previously separate stories
have been brought together in 5.1—20.11 One suggestion is that one of the
stories is the original exorcism and call-story with features in common
with the others in Mark (L23-7; 3.17-19; 4.35-41 and 9.14-29). 12 A
second story, once foreign to the Jesus tradition, included the tale of the
destruction of a herd of pigs. As well as creating significant difficulties,
such a division of the material seems to rest on a number of presup-
positions which we need to examine.
Probably the most important presupposition is that the pigs episode is
the proof of the success of the exorcism and is out of character with the
Jesus tradition, fitting better with the milieu of someone like Apollonius
of Tyana or the Eleazar of Josephus rather than with Jesus. However,
parallels to the pigs phenomenon are found in Jewish as well as Hellenistic
literature. For example, it is found in Josephus Antiquities 8.48, Philostratus
Life 4.20 and Acts of Peter 2.4.11.13
We have already expressed severe reservations about the use of the
Apocryphal Acts in illuminating the New Testament stories of Jesus as
they seem often to be dependent upon the New Testament (§2 above).
Nevertheless, Acts of Peter 2.4.11 and these other storeis bring into relief
the nature and function of the pigs episode in Mark 5. First, in contrast to
the parallel stories, Jesus the exorcist in Mark 5 makes no request for
proof of his success. The proof of a successful cure is the fact that the
people find the former invalid now "sitting properly clothed and in his
right mind."14 Secondly, in Mark 5.13 the demons are said to enter into the

10 E.g. Taylor Mark 94f„ Achtemeier JBL 89 (1970) 275f; Stein ZNW 61 (1970) 81 n. 36;
Kertelge Wunder 112f_ On the larger unit, 41-8.26 see NU. Petersen ' T h e Composition
of Mark 41-8.26" HTR 73 (1980) 185-217.
11 E.g. Montefiore Gospels I, 11; Dibelius Tradition 88; Bundy Jesus 243; D.L. Bartlett
Exorcism Stories in the Gospel of Mark (Yale: Ph.D. Thesis, 1972) 136ff.
12 Bartlett Exorcism 136ff„
13 E.g. Dibelius Tradition 89; Duling HTR 78 (1985) 6.
14 Dibelius Tradition 87.
 § 7 The Gadarene Demoniac 75

pigs (etaijXOov eu;) rather than act upon them as objects as in the stories
in the Acts of Peter and other parallels. Thirdly, in Mark 5 the demons
themselves are said to make the request for leniency to leave the man and
transfer to the pigs in preference to being sent out of the region.15
This alternative understanding of the pigs incident that we have just
mentioned — that the demons were thought to be displaced from the man
into the pigs — has convincing parallels. In the Babylonian material exor-
cists transferred demons from a sufferer to some object.16 In the
Babylonian texts the intention of the exorcist is that the demons are to be
transferred to the water in a container with which he has been working a
spell, then to be dissipated when the pot is broken and the water poured
onto the ground.17 The Greeks (Plato Republic 398a) and Romans (Pliny
Nat. Hist. 28.86) also believed in the transfer of evil from one person to
another and from people to objects. In more recent times, Sir James Frazer
reported that in Morocco "most wealthy Moors keep a wild boar in their
stables, in order that the jinn and evil spirits may be diverted from the
horses and enter the boar."18
What these history of religions parallels show is that it is probably
more appropriate to view the destruction of the pigs as part of the cure
rather than something set up as a deliberate proof of the exorcist's success.
That is, the demons were believed to have passed from the man to the
pigs and then, possibly, from the pigs to their watery home.
There is a sense in which this aspect of the story is out of character
with the other exorcism stories of Jesus, for no other story has such a
dramatic ending, nor is Jesus said, anywhere else, to destroy people's
livelihood. But, we may only have a few of the exorcism stories which

15 Cf. b. Pesah 112b; Jub. 10.7-9; Bultmann History 224 and 42Z Of interest is Theissen's
comment: "I may perhaps be allowed . . . to put forward a (totally improvable)
hypothesis. The possessed are clearly in the power of spirits of the dead which have
not found rest, which is why they stay by the tombs. Could they have been fallen
fighters who lost their lives in the resistance?" (Miracle) 255 n. 58.
16 See also b. Git 69a; cf. T.W. Da vies Magic, Divination and Demonology Among the
Hebrews and Their Neighbours (London: Clarke and Leipzig: Spirgatis, 1897) 104.
17 Cf. Thompson Devils II, xxxv. In this connection it is worth quoting from Count
d'Alviella's Hibbert lectures of 1892 where he says: "Sometimes it is deemed essential
to make the spirit thus expelled pass into the body of a living being, a pebble, a
scrap of wood, or some object which can be thrown away . . ." Count d'Alviella
Lectures on the Origin and Growth of the Conception of God (London: Williams and
Norgate, 1892) 88-9. G.R. Driver "Three Technical Terms in the Pentateuch" JSS 1
(1956) 98 says the Assyrian exorcists drove a goat into the wilderness and there
slaughtered it, that it might take away a person's sickness.
18 J. Frazer, The Golden Bough Part 4, The Scapegoat (London: Macmillan, 1920) chap. I
"The Transference of Evil", quotation from page 31. See also J.D_M. Derrett "Spirit-
possession and the Gerasene Demoniac" Man (n.s.) 14 (1979) 268-93; Bultmann
History 225 and Kee Medicine 86, citing Philostratus Life 3.38.
76 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testamen! Data

were once related to Jesus. (As we will see, the importance Jesus gave his
exorcisms and the impression conveyed by the Synoptic Gospels show
this.) Also, from different perspectives, each story can be seen to have its
unique or uncharacteristic features. Mark 123—8 is set within a synagogue;
Mark 7.24—30 is most probably a healing from a distance, and of a Gen-
tile, and Mark 9.14—29 involves a sick boy as well as his father. So,
perhaps it is unwise to begin by excluding uncharacteristic elements from
the Jesus stories.
It is also to be pointed out that the early Church, in so far as it is
represented by the Synoptic tradition, did not think this aspect of the
Gadarene demoniac story as uncharacteristic of Jesus. It is notable that
Matthew, who so often saw fit to cut and abbreviate stories of Jesus,19 did
not delete this motif as uncharacteristic or unworthy of Jesus. Further, that
a variety of ancient cultures have left stories of demons proving their
leaving people by acting on some third object, or, as in Mark 5, being
transferred from the sufferer to another home tells in favour of the
historicity of this aspect of the story. Yet, the Mark 5 story is still
sufficiently different from any of the parallels to the pigs phenomenon
that we do not suspect it to be written to suit an expected form.
Our discussion of the pigs episode in this story has led us into the
question of historicity. We have seen that the pigs would have been
understood as a temporary home for the demons on their way into the
water. In the light of our discussion we can conclude that this element of
the story probably belonged to the original tradition of the historical Jesus.
A second presupposition upon which the two-story hypothesis is based
is that the exchange between Jesus and the demon, and particularly the use
of the term Xeytcov, are more likely to be Roman or Hellenistic in origin
than Jewish or Palestinian.
The first part of this presupposition can be dispensed with more quickly
than the second. It is enough to note that when we were examining the
exchange between Jesus and the demoniac in Mark 1.21—8 a sufficient
number of appropriate parallels were adduced to make it apparent that
such exchanges were not out of place in a Jewish or Palestinian milieu.
Regarding the second part of the presupposition, XeYtcov is indeed a Latin
loan word (Legio). However, it is found in Greek writings from the first
century BC (cf. Diodorus Siculus 26.5) and there are many examples of its
use in Greek papyri (e.g. P. Oxy. 1666.5f.20). Thus, there is good evidence
for thinking that the word X.eyicov was quite at home outside a strictly
Roman milieu, especially as the Roman legions were an all too well

19 See Held in Bornkamm, Barth and Held Tradition 168-92.

20 See also MM 371; BAGD 467-8.
 § 7 The Gadarene Demoniac 77

known fact of Jewish life in the New Testament period.21 So, we conclude
that the second presupposition is unsupported. The verbal exchange and
the word Xeyviiv are not necessarily foreign to a Palestinian milieu but
entirely appropriate in territory occupied by the Romans.
Another presupposition of those who argue for two stories being
brought together here is that 5.1—20 does not fit the form of an exorcism
story22 and that a division of the material would bring one story into line
with the form of other Gospel exorcism stories. But the use of form
criticism to determine which stories do, and do not, belong to a particular
tradition is a highly questionable methodology. Few stories, if any, show a
pure "form". To set up one story against the others will always reveal
differences, and arbitrarily to assign stories to a Sitz im Leben on "form"
alone is for the historian to use "the wrong tool".23
It is further supposed that a different centre of interest and subject
matter is added by the presence of the pigs. But, is it to be assumed that a
story must have only one focal point? And, instead of introducing conflict,
could not the pigs incident reflect upon, and heighten interest in the
manifestly cured man? In other words, the fate of the pigs resulted in a
crowd coming to see what had happened and they see a man clothed,
seated and in his right mind.
Such a division of the story is also presumed to reduce difficulties in
sorting out the start and end of the pericope. But the difficulties in the
beginning of the pericope have been attributed to Mark by a two-story
theory, and the difficulties of where the story ends remain in the first
story.
Finally, it is supposed that the textual difficulties and inconsistencies in
the extant story can be solved by dividing the story. However, the
division of the story does not help explain the difficulty of the position of
verse 8, nor does it explain variation in vocabulary, nor does it help in
solving the problem of the end of the narrative. In fact, postulating the
coalition of two stories creates at least one major difficulty: that of giving
sufficient explanation as to why, in the first story, the crowd makes the

21 J.D.M. Derrett's suggestion that there are a number of military terms here ("Legend
and Event: The Gerasene Demoniac: An Inquest into History and Liturgical Pro-
jection" in E.A. Livingstone [ed.] StudBib 1978 II [Sheffield: JSOT, 1980] 63 and n. 4)
is of little consequence for anoaxiXXu, enixyBJlw, and ayeX-p have wide
varieties of meanings that do not, of themselves, suggest a military motif.
22 Bartlett Exorcism 139. See the criteria set out in Kertelge Wunder 52.
23 M.D. Hooker "On Using the Wrong Tool" Theology 75 (1972) 570-81; cf. G. Stanton
"Form Criticism Revisited" in M. Hooker and C. Hickling (eds.) What about the NT?
(London: SCM, 1975) 13-27. See also the discussion of form criticism in E. Güttge-
manns Candid Questions Concerning Gospel Form Criticism (Pittsburgh: Pickwick,
1979).
78 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

radical demand for Jesus to depart from their region. From other exorcism
stories of Jesus we might expect either fear or wonder, but not a request
to leave the area.24
The result of this examination of the two-story hypothesis has cast
considerable doubt on its usefulness in explaining either the origin of the
suggested parts of the story or the difficulties in the story as it stands. We
will have to see, as our own investigations of this passage proceed, if there
are other explanations which could help explain the problems of the story.
Another major problem that has been tackled from time to time is the
ending of the story. For example, R.H. Lightfoot said that the story could
satisfactorily end at 515 for "Evidence is given in this verse, first, of the
reality and completeness of the cure ('clothed and in his right mind'), and,
secondly, of the effect upon the witnesses ('they were afraid')."25 Never-
theless, the obvious point to make is that while verse 15 could end the
story it does not, and it must be shown, to support the view represented
by Lightfoot, that verses 16—20 are an addition.
Verse 15 ends, m i e<popr)0Tiaav — "and they were afraid". This is
possibly a Markan addition, for in the Markan framework the response to
Jesus' miracle could be associated with 4.41.26 However, such a response is
to be expected.
Verse 16 (the witnesses reporting what had happened) has been thought
to be out of place; not fitting well with verse 14 (the herdsmen running
away to tell what had happened) and made redundant by verse 15 (people
coming to see what had happened).27 But, even though its "missionary"
motif is in line with Mark's special interest, verse 16 is probably at least
pre-Markan, for there is little evidence of Mark's hand, and the untidy
state of the story is more likely to stem from Mark's tradition than his
hand.
In verse 17 ajiep%eo6ai, a p x e ° 9 a i and opiov may be evidence of
Mark's creativity.28 However, on the other hand, the request for Jesus to
leave the region follows naturally from the people's fear of him and may
be expected to be part of the original story. A decision is difficult but, on
balance, I am inclined to conclude that verses 16 and 17 are part of Mark's
tradition.
What then of verses 18—20, are they an addition to the original story?
Wrede takes these verses as being composed in line with a "Messianic

24 Cf. IF. Craghan "The Gerasene Demoniac" CBQ 30 (1968) 527.

25 R A Lightfoot History and Interpretation in the Gospels (London: Hodder and Stough-
ton, 1935) 88; see also Craghan CBQ 30 (1968) 527.
26 Pesch Markus. I, 292.
27 Anderson Mark 146.
28 See Pryke Style 141 and Neirynck EIL 57 (1981) 153; Neirynck ETL 63 (1987) 368.
 § 7 The Gadarene Demoniac 79

Secret" theory; as being supplementary to the story, in the same category

as 7.36 where Jesus is proclaimed against his will. For the view that it is a
Markan supplement Wrede adduced a number of pieces of evidence. How-
ever, they are open to other interpretations. We can enumerate them.29
(1) The contrast between verse 19 ("Go home...") and verse 20 ("he
proclaimed in Decapolis") is not a formal one as verse 20 begins with
Kai and not 5e (cf. 1.45a; 7.36b).30 Yet, we need to be aware that Kdi most
probably reflects the Semitic adversative which is so common in Mark.31
(2) OIKOQ/Oitcia ("house") is not always a place of secrecy and retreat (cf.
e.g. 2.1, 15; 3.30; 14.3). (3) The title o kuqick; ("the Lord") need not stand
over against o 'Irpout; ("Jesus") at any stage in the history of the story. (4)
The man is not thought to be proclaiming Jesus' messiahship,32 but simply
"what Jesus had done". We could add that o kuqioc, ("the Lord") may act
as an assertion by Jesus that God has effected the cure, thus pointing away
from himself. We are probably justified, therefore, in concluding that
Mark did not compose these verses in line with any "Messianic Secret"
theory.33
But, the question remains as to whether or not, for other reasons and in
what way, Mark may have been responsible for verses 18—20. Verse 18a —
"And as he was getting into the boat" — can most probably be attributed
to at least the pre-Markan tradition which contributed the "boat" motif.
However, it is noticeable that the man's request iva ¡¿ex' auiou p ("to be
with him", 5.18) is virtually the same as the only other occurrence of the
phrase in a similar form (Tva coaiv net' auiou) in 3.14 as the purpose for
which Jesus appointed the Twelve.34 Thus, it is reasonable to suppose that
Mark is responsible for verse 18b and therefore for K a i ouk acpi^Kev autov
("and he would not let him") and probably for the aKka ("but") of verse 19.
While there is not the contrast between verses 19 and 20 in the way
Wrede thought, there is an obvious difference between them. The usual
widest sense of oikoc; is "family" or "clan".35 But, the healed man's
"parish", Decapolis, while not conflicting with oikoc;, is certainly more
extensive. "Decapolis" was most probably part of Mark's received tradition
as it is unlikely that, probably writing in Rome, he would have had reason

29 From Burkill Revelation 92.

30 Cf. Taylor Mark 258. On the term Decapolis see S.T. Parker "The Decapolis Reviewed"
JBL 94 (1975) 437-4L
31 See Taylor Mark 48-9, 57-8; C.RD. Moule An Idiom-Book of NT Greek (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1959) 178 and Black Aramaic 62-9.
32 Implied by Wrede Secret 14L
33 See also Burkill Revelation 92.
34 Taylor Mark 284 and K. Stock Bolen aus dem Mit-Ihm-Sein (Rome: Biblical Institute,
1975).
35 See BAGD.
80 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

to add it if it was not already present. Yet, the vocabulary and style of
verses 19 (unayeiv, oikoc,) and 20 (anep^eaGai, 36 apxeoGau 37 KT|puaaeiv38)
are particularly Markan. Also, the contribution of Tva ¡iex' autou t) and
Kripuooeiv here further identify a probable Markan link between these
verses and the theme of the call and mission of the disciples. We suspect,
then, that Mark has rewritten and filled out a previously brief ending to
highlight a latent missionary motif.39
Thus, in the pre-Markan tradition the end of this story probably
extended beyond the reference to fear in the audience (verse 15). The
pre-Markan ending probably included mention of the audience telling of
what had happened (verse 16), and requesting Jesus to leave the region
(verse 17). The request to be "with Jesus" (verse 18b) is probably Mark's
addition to the mention of Jesus getting into the boat (verse 18a) and
perhaps telling the man to go home (verse 19b). Mark probably filled out
to highlight an ending (mentioning the man going home to Decapolis)
which he recognized as containing a missionary motif useful to him.
We should now examine the central section of the pericope, noting any
further significant Markan contributions, and noting also how far par-
ticular parts, or the story as a whole, relate to the historical Jesus.
In verses 2 and 6 Jesus twice meets the demoniac. Schweizer, for
example, gives two possible explanations for this. His first solution is
based on the possibility that the tradition has been altered so as to lose
eSpqie from verse 2. Schweizer's second, attractively simple explanation is
that verse 6 can reasonably be accounted for as a rather unskilful re-
sumption of the story after the digression of verses 3—5.40 And, we may
note that Luke (8.29) has attempted to tidy up this point of the story.
For the variation in vocabulary between |ivn[ieTov (verse 2) and
|ivfj|aa (verses 3 and 5) I can suggest no clear explanation, though (iVTf-
|-ia could be a Markan word.41 Even if |ivr||aa is a Markan word — in that
he introduced it into verses 3—5 — there seems to be no evidence to

36 On Mark's special interest in unctyeiv, o i k oc, and ciutf.(j)(£o0ai see USE 69, 78, 83;
Pryke Style 141; Neirynck ETL 57 (1981) 153-6; Neirynck ETL 63 (1987) 369, 372.
37 This word has been the centre of some debate. See Taylor Mark 63f_ It cannot be
used as evidence for the Palestinian origin of this verse for the construction is good
colloquial Greek (H. St. J. Thackeray "An Unrecorded 'Aramaism' in Josephus" JTS 30
(1929) 361-70, esp. 370, cf. Black Aramaic 125f.). In any case the locution is cha-
racteristic of Mark. See Pryke Style 79f_
38 Lightfoot History, extended note on 106ff.; Schweizer in Neotestemantica et Patristica
NovTSup 6, 35f.; Neirynck ETL 57 (1981) 154; Neirynck ETL 63 (1987) 37L
39 Cf. Nineham Mark 155 and Schweizer Mark 113.
40 Schweizer Mark 112; cf. Taylor Mark 280. For parallels to the binding and shackling
of the demonic see Geller JJS 28 (1977) 143-4. See also Derrett Man (n.s.) 14 (1979)
287.
41 In the NT Mark = 4; Luke = 2; Rev = L
 § 7 The Gadarene Demoniac 81

suggest that either Mark has added, composed or significantly contributed

to this section. In any case, nothing notable can be made of the distinction
between the words.42
Verse 6 says that the demoniac ran from afar and fell down and
worshipped Oipooeicuvriaev) Jesus. At least such an interpretation of the
action of the demoniac probably arose in the early Church, especially in
the light of the supposed messianic confession which follows (verse 7).
However, in the last section (§6) we saw that demoniacs were most
probably extremely disturbed when they met Jesus, so itpooeKuvr|oev is
probably a later interpretation of the falling down of the demoniac in
front of Jesus.
What of the phrase cpo)VT) ^eya^i] ("a loud voice") in verse 7? We can
probably draw the same conclusion about this as we did about avcucpa^EV
("to cry out", 1.23). That is, since it is not used consistently in the exorcism
stories, and since the phenomenon is known outside Christian tradition,43
the phrase probably is an echo of a historical event.
We turn now to discussing the origin of the various elements of the
conversation between Jesus and the demoniac (5.7—13).
1. t i ¿(ioi Kai ooi; ("What of me and you?", verse 7). This is the first of
four phrases that constitute the demon's words to Jesus. In discussing Mark
1.24 (§6 above) it was established that the words of the demon there are
to be understood as a defensive action designed to disarm the threatening
exorcist. The context, structure and wording of this verse indicate that we
should also understand this verse in the same way. That this first phrase is
not dependent on 1.24 is suggested by the change in number from f](_iTv
("we") to e|ioi ("me").44
2. We have also previously argued that the name should be taken as
part of the demon's address (see §6 above). We do not need to be detained
by the name 'Ir]aou in the address, but we should make mention of the
important phrase uie tou 0eou ("son of God", verse 7). There is no doubt
that this appellation is of particular interest to Mark.45 Yet, there is little
other evidence of Mark's hand in this verse and this is the only time the
phrase occurs in the vocative in Mark.
Even if Mark has not added the reference to Jesus as the "Son of God",
it is possible that the Church before him felt it appropriate to introduce
the title here. However, if we may anticipate some of the discussion in
chapter IV we may note that the designation "Son of God" was entirely at

42 See O. Michel TDNT IV, 679 and C.J. Hemer DNTT I, 264.
43 E.g. Philostratus Life 4.20.
44 Bauernfeind Worte 24; cf. Burkill Revelation 88.
45 See [Iii 3.11; 8.38; 9.7; 12.6; 13.32; 14.36, 61; 15.39 and Dehn Gottessohn and Ree Com-
munity 121ff.
82 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

home in a Palestinian setting and that the designation was used to signify
a close relationship to God. Furthermore, since demons were believed to
include the character and origin of their opponents in their defence, it
may be concluded that it is unlikely that the early Church needed to in-
troduce "Son of God" here (cf. §17 below).
The last part of the titular address to Jesus is 100 uvyiatou ( T h e Most
High [GodT, verse 7). To begin with, we know from a Pseudo Danielic
text among the Qumran Scrolls (4QpsDan A* [= 4Q243]) that in Palestine
the title was used of figures probably other than the messiah or anointed
one.1,6 Though I can find no exact parallel to this title in the context of a
demon's defence, the title is found in the magical-incantation literature and
the appellation is not out of place here. PGM IV.1067f. calls a god "good
and holy light of the most high god". In PGM V.46 an incantation's au-
thority is "the name of the most high god".47 In the New Testament this
title is attested in two different traditions as part of a demon's defence
against Christian exorcists: here and in Acts 16.17 — of Paul as a "servant
of the Most High God". This, along with the fact that uyiaux;, as a divine
name, is on the margins of New Testament tradition,48 points to the
improbability that Mark or the early Church needed to introduce it into
the demon's defence. Again, it seems that we can be reasonably confident
that this title was included in the first report of this event.
OpKi^co oe tov Qeov ("I adjure you by God", verse 7) is the third
element in the demon's words of defence. Oqki^co is entirely appropriate
in this context.49 That it would not need to have been added at any stage
in the history of the transmission of this story is clear from later reactions
to it. Matthew (8.29) omits it and Luke (8.28) softens it, suggesting that
they object to the thought of a demon(iac) attempting to bind Jesus super-
naturally. The form of the adjuration, " . . . by God", is entirely in keeping
with the form found in the PGM. Two examples from PGM IV and one
from a tablet can serve as examples. Lines 3019—20 of PGM IV read: "I
adjure (oqk^co) you by the God of the Hebrews . . .", and line 3046 reads:
". . . I adjure (opici£co) you by God the light bringer . . ."50 A lead tablet
from the large Necropolis of ancient Adrumetum, the capital of the region
of Byzacium in the Roman province of Africa reads: "I bind (opKv^w) you

46 JA. Fitzmyer T h e Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Tes-
tament" NTS 20 (1973-4) 393; J A Fitzmyer A Wandering Aramean (Missoula: Schol-
ars Press, 1979) 90-4. See also RJL Trebilco "Paul and Silas - 'Servants of the Most
High God' " JSNT 36 (1989) 51-73.
47 See also PGM XII.63f„ 72; (cf. T. Sol. where the title is used); MM.
48 G. Bertram TDNT VIII, 620; see also Hahn Titles 291f.
49 See Twelftree Christ 43. See also Bruce Acts (1952) 358.
50 Cf. the use of Solomon's name in Josephus Ant. 8.45ff_
 § 7 The Gadarene Demoniac 83

demoniac spirit, which lies here, by the holy names of Aoth . . "51 Thus, in
5.7, Mark probably understood the demon to be using God as his source of
power-authority to fetter Jesus.
The last part of the demon's words is, "Do not torment me" (jit)
Paoaviapt;, Mark 5.7). In Matthew 8.29 and Luke 8.28 we see the sig-
nificance the early Church saw in the demon saying this. It is that the
term had clear eschatological signficance for the early Church. Have we
any confidence then in the historicity of this element of the defence? I
think, in view of what is said to happen to the demons (they are not
thought to be finally destroyed [see 5.10—13] and that Mark does not take
up the eschatological significance of 5.7), this phrase is probably original.
Understanding the position of verse 8 ("For he had said to him, 'Come
out of the man, you unclean spirit!' ") has long been a problem for inter-
preters of Mark. There are at least three possible solutions.52 First, it could
be that verse 8 stood before verse 7 but the position was later changed
because the demon did not immediately obey the command. But, then we
ask, why was the command not simply omitted? Secondly, it could be that
verse 8 was not part of the original story but was added later by an
editor.53 However, from what we have seen of other exorcism stories, it
would be surprising if such a command would need to have been added.
Thirdly, it could be that verse 8 is in its original position. Jesus is so
powerful that the demon at once senses it must leave its victim. An
explicit command is not readily necessary and it now comes as an after-
thought in a subordinate clause. Burkill prefers this alternative as the story
as a whole shows delight in the narration of subordinate details.54 But,
verse 8 certainly reads like an explicit command. So, it seems that none of
these three solutions is adequate.
There is another possibility, one which permits verse 8 to remain in its
present position. In eXeyev yag auxu ("for he said to him" the original
narrator — Mark or, more likely, his predecessors — clearly intended the
following command to relate to what the demon had just said. Therefore,
perhaps as in Mark 1.24—5, on meeting Jesus, the demon cried out in his
defence. Then, perhaps simultaneously with the command of Jesus, the
demon further attempted to ward off Jesus' attack. So, in order to convey

51 See f u r t h e r BAGD; cf. K.L. Schmidt TDNT V, 462f. and notes; cf. Josephus Ant.
18124); cf. P. Oxy 3275.40, 46; 3295.19, 24 where cpKOc; is an "oath". See also Bell (et
al.) Proceedings of the British Academy 17 (1931) 251, lines 19f„ cf. pp. 255, 266 and,
e.g. PGM IV.3019, 3033, 3039, 3045, 3052, 3056; Deissmann Studies 274; cf. P. Oslo 1153
and pp. 72f; (and though Christian, see T. Sol. passim); MM and LSJ.
52 See Burkill Revelation 89f_
53 Cf. Pryke Style 14.
54 Burkill Revelation 90.
84 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

this fast or overlapping dialogue, the narrator adopted the solution that we
have in verse 8.55 The advantage of this explanation is that it makes sense
of verse 9 ("And Jesus asked him, 'What is your name? . . .' "). The
possession of someone's name was widely held to be equivalent to having
power over them.56 If, as we shall show in a moment, this is how we are
to understand verse 9, then it is redundant if the command of verse 8 was
thought to be successful. If, however, the adjuration of the demon "by
God", and the command to the demon "to come out" overlap in some
way, perhaps cancelling each other out, so that Jesus is not at first suc-
cessful, verse 9 becomes significant. That Jesus was not always thought to
be initially and immediately successful in his healings is shown by the
two-part cure of the blind man in Mark 8.22—6." Also, Acts 19.13—19 is an
example of an unsuccessful exorcism, in this instance, because the
possessed man did not respect the exorcists.
But, are we justified in taking verse 9 as being Jesus' further attempt to
gain ascendancy over the demon? We probably are for, as just noted, in
the ancient world the possession of someone's name was thought to
include power over that person. And, further, of the historicity of this
notion in the context of a preternatural conflict we can be confident. On
the one hand, we have no knowledge of any dogmatic reasons why the
early Church would want to introduce this element into the tradition and,
on the other hand, we have examples of exorcists' requests for names over
that which they sought to exercise control. (Eg. note PGM IV.3039ff. as
well as PGM XIII.242ff..58) When discussing Mark 1.25 we noted that other
exorcists often seem to have had considerable difficulty in getting demons
to speak or give their names. According to this story Jesus seems to have
had no such difficulty, for the demon immediately supplies his name. But,
has this success been attributed to Jesus? We cannot be certain. However,
if our interpretation of the position and significance of verse 8 is correct
then the early Church did not always seek to make Jesus instantly suc-
cessful (cf. Mark 6.56; 8.22—6). So, on balance, it seems quite likely that

55 Cf. the Good News Bible translation which puts v. 8 in parenthesis. See also Derrelt
Man (nü.) 14 (1979) 288 and his citations.
56 Green ANRW II.19.2 (1979) 635 and n.65. See also Langton Essentials 28f„ 157; Weath-
erhead Psychology 65 and Aune ANRW II.23.2 (1980) 1546.
57 Loos Miracles 419ff.. E. Best "Discipleship in Mark: Mark 8.22-10.52" SJT 23 0970)
325, calls this story a " 'botched' healing in which Jesus fails to give a blind man
perfect sight at the first attempt, and only at the second fuliy restores his vision."
However, in 'The Miracles in Mark" RevExp 75 (1978) 539-54, reprinted in Disciples
and Discipleship (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986), Best says lhat "the two stages are
not intended to imply that Jesus found the miracle difficult" (186 n. 22).
58 See also PGM 1.162; IV.3037; cf. A. Deissmann Light from the Ancient East (London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1910) 257 and n. 8, Klostermann Markuseiangelium 49; C. Bon-
ner "The Technique of Exorcism" HTR 36 (1943) 44-5.
 § 7 The Gadarene Demoniac 85

the demon's reported immediate reply accurately reflects a historical sit-

uation.
Paul Winter says that in the demon's reply — "My name is Legion; for
we are many" (verse 9) — "an anti-Roman attitude definitely comes to the
fore," discernible in the use of ^eyicov.59 Winter says that during the great
revolt the Legio Decima Fretensis was stationed in Galilee near the place
where this story has its locale,60 and that the emblem of this legion was a
boar. However, not only did Vespasian have the fifth, and fifteenth legions
with him when he took Gamala (War 4.13), but the Roman legions were
not restricted to any one area.
Jeremias also attempts to see the narrative as making a specific
connection between the number of pigs and the number of soldiers in the
Roman legion. However, the body of soldiers he cites is not a legion,
which in the imperial period consisted of about 6,000 men, but a
ieXo<; which had a strength of 2,048 men.61 And, in any case, the lack of
precision (ot;, "about") in the use of Sioxi^ioi indicates that no special
significance was intended to be attached to the number of pigs in the
herd. It is best then to see that no specific link was intended between the
number of pigs and a Roman legion, nor that the early Christians were
using this passage to express an anti-Roman sentiment.62 Rather, in ter-
ritory occupied by the Romans, "legion" was an appropriate term to
express the great number of demons thought to be involved. Indeed, a
Syriac incantation bowl is inscribed to protect a person "from all legions,"
which shows that such language is not out of place in this context. 63 And,
such multiple possessions, usually successive and thought to be under a
group leader, are well known in a variety of history of religions parallels.64
Mark 5.9 includes the phrase "because we are many" in the direct
speech of the demon. Was this part of the original tradition? History of
religions parallels show that it was important not only to know the name
and how it related to the nature of the demon, but also the actual nature
of the demon. A good example of this is PGM IV.1017—19 where a god
reveals his name and nature: " . . . my name is Ba i'vxcococox. I am the one

59 P. Winter On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1961) 129. Cf. Theissen Followers
101-2 and K. Wengst Pax Romana (London: SCM, 1987) 65-8.
60 Winter Trial 129. He cites Josephus War 3.233, 289 and 458, 485. On the m i l i t a r y
background of 'legion' see J. Mateos "Términos relacionados con 'Legión' en Me 5,2-
20" Filologia Neotestamentaria 1 (1988) 211-15.
61 Jeremias Promise 31 n. 5. Cf. H. Preisker TDNT IV, 68.
62 Contrast Wengst Pax Romana 66.
63 J.A. M o n t g o m e r y Aramaic Incantation Texis /rom Nippur (Philadelphia: University
Museum, 1913) 37.6-7; cf. 7.17. Also see b. Ber. 51a. On the appropriateness of a m i l i -
tary term here see Derrett Man (ns.) 14 (1979) 289.
64 See Derrett Man (as.) 14 (1979) 288. Note Luke 8.2.
86 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

who is from heaven; my name is BaXcaiiirc." The phrase, "for we are

many", fits this form of a demon's disclosing its nature. Luke's deleting
this phrase from the demon's reply strongly suggests that the early Church
did not seek to shape the demon's reply to fit the form.
A potential difficulty here is the constant change of numbers of
demons, exemplified in the demon's reply to Jesus — "My name is Legion
for we are many" (cf. 5.7f.). However, the change of numbers makes it ob-
vious that the demon in mind here is multiform.65
In verses 10 and 12 the demon pleads for leniency. This component of
the story was probably not introduced by the early Church for, as we
have seen, other exorcism stories outside the New Testament contained
this feature.66 And, in view of the non-theological nature of the plea (con-
trast Matthew 8.29 and Luke 8.31), we can see no motivation for adding
the element. It was held that demons were especially associated with
particular areas from which they did not want to move.67 In Matthew and
Luke the "torment" which the demons seek to avoid is the eschatological
punishment (Matthew 8.29; Luke 8.26 and 29). But in Mark that which the
demons fear is simply being sent "out of the region". It seems then, at
least in this story, that neither Mark nor his tradition associated this
exorcism of Jesus with the final punishment or destruction of the demons.
The second part of the demon's request is that they should be allowed
to enter into some pigs that were grazing on the side of the hill (verse 12).
As we have argued already, this el'ement of the story is probably part of
the original Jesus tradition. In so far as water was understood as one of
the appropriate havens of demons, the destruction of the pigs is the
description of the demons plunging into a new home.68 This uncharac-
teristic herd like behaviour of the pigs would certainly have caused the
onlookers to conclude the pigs were "bewitched".69
Our survey of this Markan pericope leads us to support Bultmann's
conclusion on this story. He says, "clearly this story is essentially intact in
its original form."70 We could also support Schweizer's suggestion that the
inconsistencies and apparent redundancies in the text are probably due to
the narrator's lack of skill71 rather than the accumulation of material

65 A.R. Johnson The One and the Many (Cardiff: University of Wales Press Board, 1942)
29f. and notes; cf. Klostermann Matthäusevangelium 113; Hull Magic 103.
66 See also Klostermann Markusevangelium 49 and Twelftree Christ chap. IL
67 Taylor Mark 282; W. Foerster TDNT II, 6f; O. Böcher Christus Exorcista (Stuttgart
Kohlhammer, 1972) 20ff.
68 On various interpretations of the stampede of the pigs see Loos Miracles 390ff_
69 See further on the behaviour of pigs Derrett JSNT 3 (1979) 5-6.
70 Bultmann History 210. Cf. Annen Heil für die Heiden 186.
71 Schweizer Mark 112, though he does not think that there are two stories here.
 § 7 The Gadarene Demoniac 87

around an early story. We have also shown that much of this story most
probably reflects tradition that rightly belongs to the original Jesus story.72

72 Cf. Latourelle Miracles 118-9.

 § 8 The Syrophoenician Woman's Daughter1
Mark 7.24-30 (/Matthew 1521-8)

We are examining this pericope also in an attempt to identify and set

aside Christian redaction in order to reconstruct the earliest form of the
story.
(24) And from there he arose and went away into the borders of Tyre. And
entering into a house he did not wish any one to know it, and he was not able to be
hidden; (25) but immediately a woman hearing about him, whose little daughter had an
unclean spirit, came and fell down at his feet. (26) Now the woman was a Greek, a
Syrophoenician by birth; and she asked him to cast the demon out of her daughter.
(27) And he said to her, "Let the children first be fed, for it is not good to take the
bread of the children and throw it to the dogs." (28) But she answered and said to him;
"Lord; and the dogs under the table eat the crumbs of the children." (29) And he said
to her, "For saying this go, the demon has gone out of your daughter." (30) And going
away into her home she found the child lying on the bed and the demon gone.

Mark has this story in a section where Jesus is on a Gentile Mission

(7.24—8.26).2 Mark usually begins his pericopes with Kai ("and"), but as
5e ("but") is used here we suspect he may wish to indicate a significant
break in the story, since on the other times he uses 5e to start a paragraph
they clearly imply a significant break in the story (1.14; 10.32 and 14.1).3
While this pericope might belong primarily to the Gentile Mission in
Mark, Jesus' freedom from the law, and the receptivity of the Gentiles are

1 Literature; A. Dermience "Tradition et rédaction dans la péricope de la Syro-

phénicienne: Mark 7,24-30" RTL 8 (1977) 15-29; Pesch Markus. I, 39L Also, Gnilka
Markus U, 43; G. Theissen "Lokal- und Sozialkolorit in der Geschichte von der
syrophönikischen Frau (Mk 7.24-30)" ZNW 75 (1984) 202-25; B.C. Wee T h e Syro-
phoenician Woman - Mark 7.24-30; New Testament in the light of the Old"
Compass 18 (1, 1984) 38-40; Latourelle Miracles 175-6; R.S. Sugirtharajah "The Syro-
phoenician Woman" ExpTim 98 (1986) 13-15; Drewermann Markus. I, 472-92; A. Stock
"Jesus and the Lady from Tyre. Encounter in the Border District" Emmanuel 93 (1987)
336-9, 358; Guelich Mark I, 381; G J t O'Day "Surprised by Faith: Jesus and the
Canaanite Woman" Listening 24 (1989) 290-301; Stock Method 209-15; F. Dufton "The
Syrophoenician Woman and her Dogs" ExpTim 100 (1989) 417.
2 On the historicity of such a mission see Taylor Mark 633-6; Nineham Mark 197f;
Jeremias Promise 33.
3 GH. Turner "A Textual Commentary on Mark 1" JTS 29 (1926-7) 152.
 § 8 The Syrophoenician Woman's Daughter 89

brought sharply into focus in this story, as it stands after the section on
Jewish legalism (7.1—23).4
The evidence is not decisive but Mark may have reworking this
introduction (verse 24).5 However, whether or not the setting of the story
in the region of Tyre and Sidon is Markan will depend to a large extent
on the origin of verse 26, which says the woman was a Syrophoenician
(see below).6 The mention of going into a house as a retreat is probably
Markan.7 Although aKka ("but", verse 25) is not a significant indicator of
Mark's hand,8 eu6w; ¿Kouoaoa ("immediately hearing") may be Markan
redaction. 9 It is possible that Guyatpiov, the diminutive of daughter, is
Mark's responsibility.10 However, as this could be due to Semitic influ-
ence, 11 and since a phrase begun with a relative T]<;, "whose") and
completed by a personal pronoun (autrjc,, "of her") is also probably due to
Semitic influence,12 this whole phrase is probably pre-Markan, including
nveujia ¿KaGaptov ("unclean spirit").13 There is nothing in the last part of
verse 25 — the woman prostrating herself at the feet of Jesus — to
intimate Markan editorial activity.
Verse 26a ("the woman was a Greek") may be from Mark's hand as it
is one of his many parentheses.14 This raises the question of the origin of
the setting of this story. The question can be put thus: Would Mark or the
early Church give a Gentile setting to the story?
Burkhill's view is that a story that had its origin in Syrophoenicia
would not describe the woman as "a Syrophoenician by birth".15 However,
the description of the woman is for the hearers of the story. To describe
the woman as a Greek may have led Jews to think she was a Hellenistic
Jew. Adding "a Syrophoenician by birth" identifies the woman as a pagan

4 Anderson Mark 189f.; Schweizer Mark 151; TA. Burkill 'The Historical Development
of the Story of the Syrophoenician Woman (Mark vii: 24-31)" NovT 9 (1967) 173; and
"The Syrophoenician Woman: The Congruence of Mark 7.24-31" ZNW 57 (1966) 35.
5 See Bultmann History 38, 64; Best Temptation 79; Pesch Markus. I, 61; Kertelge Wun-
der 154,
6 See Marxsen Mark 69 and n.55. The point is not altered however, even if BurkiU's
criticism (ZNW 57 [1966] 35ff.) is correct of Marxsen's view that Mark takes up geo-
. graphical data and refrains from supplementing it, for it is the internal evidence of
this particular pericope that is important here.
7 See Stein ZNW 61 (1970) 78 and n. 29. Cf. Wrede Secret 36.
8 Neirynck ETL 57 (1981) 146.
9 On eùOvx; see Kertelge Wunder 51 n. 58; cf. USE 72; Neirynck ETL 57 (1981) 147.
10 Cf. Turner Grammar IV, 28.
11 BDF 1113.
12 Black Aramaic lOOf; Turner Grammar IV, 21; cf. Taylor Mark 60.
13 See §6 n. 19 above.
14 Turner Grammar IV, 26 and those mentioned there.
15 Burkill ZNW 57 (1966) 23-37 and Burkill NovT 9 (1967) 161-77.
90 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

from the area.16 Also, Mark shows an interest in the Gentiles and Jesus'
Gentile Mission,17 so he would hardly create this potentially offensive
story. Thus, the traditional place reference can be retained as part of the
original story.18
Verse 27a — "let the children first be fed" — is probably not a later
addition to Mark.19 Only jtpcoxov ("first") might suggest Mark's hand, but
the evidence is too slight to suggest that Mark is responsible for this
phrase.20 Again, in verses 27—8 (the conversation between Jesus and the
woman) there is little evidence upon which to build a case for Markan
redactioa The Jewish style of referring to Gentiles as "dogs"21 tells against
the Church ever creating this section of the pericope.22 The closing two
verses also show little of Mark's hand, save perhaps the reference to the
woman going "home".23
Mark's interest in this pericope as an exorcism story seems slight. The
centre of interest is on the woman, her origin, her faith or persistence, and
upon Jesus' words. It seems that Mark found this story in his tradition
much as we now have it, but he has reworked its introduction in order to
fit it into his Gospel In the next chapter we will discuss the historicity of
a healing from a distance in the Jesus tradition.

16 Theissen Miracle 126. On the Aramaic behind "Syrophoenician/Canaanite" having both

meanings see G. Schwarz "EYPOOOINIKISEA-XANANAIA (Markus 726/Matthäus
15.22)" NTS 30 (1984) 626-8.
17 Jeremias Promise 33; Taylor Mark (see index); Nineham Mark 197f_
18 To the contrary J.DM. Derrett "Law in the NT: The Syrophoenician Woman and the
Centurion of Capernaum" NovT 15 (1973) 161-86 reprinted with further annotations in
his Studies in the NT I (Leiden: Brill, 1977) 145.
19 As suggested by Held in Bornkamm, Barth and Held Tradition 198, following Bult-
mann History 38.
20 Pryke cites rtpikov as a Markan redactional word (Style 137) but HSE does not cite
the word as significant of Mark's hand.
21 See also Jeremias Promise 29.
22 Cf. Taylor Mark 347. On Jewish attitudes to Phoenicians and Tyrians see Josephus Ag.
Ap. 17L
23 See Stein ZNW 61 (1970) 78 and n. 29. Cf. Wrede Secret 36.
 § 9 The Epileptic Boy1
Mark 9.14—29 (/Matthew 1714-21/Luke 937—43a)

Once again, we are attempting to isolate and set aside Christian redaction
from this story in order to help trace elements in it that probably belong
to the historical Jesus tradition.
(14) And coming to the disciples they saw a great crowd around them and scribes
arguing with them. (15) And immediately all the crowd when they saw him were
greatly amazed and running to him greeted him. (16) And he asked them; "Why argue
with them?" (17) And one of the crowd answered him; Teacher, I brought my son to
you, having a dumb spirit; (18) and wherever it seizes him it dashes him down, and he
foams and grinds his teeth and becomes rigid; and I asked your disciples to cast it out,
and they were not able." (19) But he answered them; "0 faithless generation, how long
am I to be with you? How long am I to endure you? Bring him to me." (20) And they
brought him to him. And seeing him the spirit immediately it convulsed him, and
falling on the ground he wallowed foaming. (21) And he asked his father, "How long
has this been happening to him?" And he said; "From childhood; (22) and it has often
thrown him into fire and into water to destroy him; but if you can do anything, help
us having compassion on us." (23) But Jesus said to him; "If you can* All things are
possible to him who believes." (24) Immediately the father of the child said crying out;
"I believe; help my unbelief!" (25) But Jesus seeing that a crowd was running together,
rebuked the unclean spirit saying to it; "Dumb and deaf spirit, I command you, come
out of him and no longer enter him." (26) And crying out and greatly convulsing him
it came out; and he became as dead, which caused most of them to say that he died.
(27) But Jesus taking his hand raised him, and he arose.
(28) And when he had entered the house his disciples asked him privately; "Why
could we not cast it out?" (29) And he said to them; "This kind cannot come out by
anything except by prayer."

It is Bultmann's opinion that, in this pericope, two miracle stories have

been combined in the pre-Markan stage. Presumably they were brought
together because of the similarity of the illness and healing.2 Bultmann

1 Literature: Schürmann Lukas. I, 568; Kertelge Wunder 174—9; Pesch Markus. II, 97f.;
Gnilka Markus II, 45; Best Following chap. 6; R Achinger "Zur Traditionsgeschichte
der Epileptiker-Perikope Mk.9, 14-29 par, Mt 17, 14-21 par, Lk 9, 37-43a" in A. Fuchs
(ed.) Probleme der Forschung (Wien: Herold, 1978) 114-43; Latourelle Miracles 154;
Drewermann Markus. II, 15-40.
2 Bultmann History 211. See also, e.g. Schweizer Mark 187; Anderson Mark 229;
Nineham Mark 242; PJ. Achtemeier "Miracles and the Historical Jesus: A Study of
Mark 914-29" CBQ 37 (1975) 476-7 and those mentioned by von W. Schenk "Tradition
und Redaktion in der Epileptiker-Perikope Mark 9 14-29" ZNW 63 (1972) 76 n. 1; G.
92 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

admits that it is now difficult to make clear distinctions, but the first story
may have occupied verses 14—20. This story would have had its point in
the contrast between the Master and the magician's disciples, whose
inability to heal provides the foil for the Master's power. Verses 21—7 are
the scond story describing the paradox of unbelieving faith.
To support his theory Bultmann offers three pieces of evidence. 1. The
disciples have a part to play in verses 14—19 only and, thereafter, pass
from the scene, whereas in verses 21—2 the father takes the chief role,
though he only has a minor one in verses 17—19. 2. The illness is described
twice; in verses 18 and 21—2. 3. The crowd is already present in verse 14
yet, according to verse 25, comes on the scene for the first time.3
So, are there two stories here? 1. If we were to presume for the
moment that the reference to the disciples in verses 28—9 is Markan then
the disciples do indeed pass from the secne after verse 19a. However, this
need not be an indication of there once being two stories for, in other
stories, characters are introduced and withdrawn within a story. Mark
5.1—20, which we have argued to be a single story, has the herdsmen
entering late in the story (§7 above).
2. Bultmann's second piece of evidence is that the illness is twice
described. In fact it is probably described three times (verses 17c—18a, 20b,
and 21c—22a). While this might indicate an amalgamation of stories there
may be another explanation that would make these two or three "de-
scriptions" inelligible as they stand.
The first description (17b—18a — "having a dumb spirit; and wherever it
seizes him it dashes him down, and he foams and grinds his teeth and
becomes rigid") comes at the very beginning of the story (after the
introductory setting) as in Mark 5.2—5. It would conform to the first
element in the form critics' analysis of miracle stories.4
In dealing with the other exorcism stories we have seen that a re-
curring element was the visible or audible consternation of the demon
when confronted by the exorcist. That this second description of the illness
(verse 20b) fits this category is clear from its opening phrase — "And
seeing him . . . "
Also, in our examination of exorcism stories so far it has been ap-
parent that an important part of the stories was the exorcist's knowing the
demon by gaining knowledge of its name and thereby its character.5 That

Petzke "Die historische Frage nach den Wundertaten Jesu, dargestellt am Beispiel des
Exorzismus Mark. IX, 14-29 par" NTS 22 (1975-6) 186-8. To the contrary see Loos
Miracles 401
3 Bultmann History 211
4 Kertelge Wunder 52.
5 See also Twelftree Christ chap. IL
 § 9 The Epileptic Boy 93

the third description of the illness (verses 21—2) fits this category is
manifest not only because it begins with a question — "How long has this
been happening to him?" but also by the answer which mentions the
demon's predilection for fire or water. Thus, the two or three descriptions
of the illness do not require a two story hypothesis for their explanation.
3. Are there two crowds in this story — one in verse 14, and another in
verse 25? Bultmann6 takes eniouvtQexei ("run together", verse 25) to refer
to a second crowd coming to the area. No parallel to the word has been
cited in classical Greek or in the papyri7 and so its precise meaning is
difficult to determine. Nevertheless, in this context, the meaning is prob-
ably that a crowd is converging on a single point.8 In any case, the story
does not require a two story theory to explain the mention of the crowd
in verse 25 and it could be intended to be the same crowd as in verse 14.9
It seems that we may conclude that the evidence from this story neither
demands nor needs a two story hypothesis.10 Now we need to discuss
which parts of the story may, with reasonable probability, be attributed to
redactors and which parts may be traced back to the first reports of Jesus'
activity.
As might be expected, Mark's hand is particularly evident in the
introduction. However, we do not need to discuss this for the story proper
begins in verse 17 with the father saying that he had brought his demon-
possessed son to the disciples who could not heal the boy.11 In the Acts of
Thomas (8.75—81) there is a story which has a similar chain of events but
there is no indication that the story is in any way dependent on the
account of the possessed boy in Mark 9.12
L We have already offered an explanation for the three descriptions of
the illness (verses 17b—18b, 20, 21b—22), that is, they fit the common
"form" of an exorcism story. We should attribute these descriptions to the
very earliest form of the story for they do not conform to the pattern of
descriptions elsewhere in Mark (cf. 123, 26; 3.11; 5.2ff^ 7.25) nor does the
vocabulary of the descriptions betray any particular early Church interests.
2. Does the rebuke by Jesus in 9.19 belong to the original story or is it
from a Christian hand?

6 Bultmann History 21L

7 Cf. Taylor Mark 400; MM 247.
8 For its Aramaic background see Taylor Mark 400; Black Aramaic (1946) 85 n. 3.
9 See also M.-J. Lagrange Evengile selon Saint Marc (Paris; Gabalda, 1920) 241; A.
Plummer Tiie Gospel According to St. Luke (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1922) 220;
Swete Mark 200.
10 So also Petzke NTS 22 (1975-6) 188.
11 On the Markan redaction of the introduction see Petzke NTS 22 (1975-6) 194-5.
12 Cf. Achtemeier CBQ 37 (1975) 473.
94 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

That Jesus is meant to be addressing the disciples in his rebuke to the

"faithless generation" is clear from the use of aotoTt; ("them", cf. verse
20a). Being plural, this can only refer to the disciples or possibly the
crowd. However, the crowd is not the focus of attention here. And, the
conclusion of the pericope indicates that the disciples are firmly at the
centre of interest.
A number of factors might indicate that it is Mark who is responsible
for the reference to the disciples and their inability here, (a) Markan
activity at each end of the pericope predisposes us towards suspecting
Mark's hand in this reference to the disciples, (b) In view of the father's
desperate cry, "I believe; help my unbelief!" (924), the rebuke may once
have been directed towards the father, (c) Where faith is mentioned
elsewhere in Mark as important in healing it is always that of those
seeking the healing, either of the sick person (5.34; 10.52) or people acting
on their behalf (25; 5.36). If 9.19 was intended to be directed towards the
disciples it would be an exception to this pattern.
Thus, while Mark seems responsible for heightening the reference to
the disciples' inability in verses 18b—19, the rebuke is so integral to this
story that it was probably to be found in Mark's traditioa It is most likely
that the early Church — as represented by Matthew and Luke — saw an
echo of Deuteronomy 32.5 in this saying.13 For some, such a conclusion
casts doubt on the verse being in the earliest material.14 However, the use
of Deuteronomy 32.5 in Mark 9.19 is significantly different from the way
the early Church generally used it. In the early Church Deuteronomy 32.5
seems to have been used to characterize the pagan world in contrast to
the community of faith (see Matthew 12.39; Philippians 2.15 and Acts
2.40).15
3. As verse 24 deals with the faith of the father and not the disciples, it
is probably part of the original tradition16. However, verses 22b—23 may
have their origin in the post-Easter community, the father's cry for pity
being a foil for Jesus' words on faith which are difficult to show as being
pre-Easter in origin. On the other hand, the father's cry for help is
consistent with Jesus' rebuke and does not show Jesus in a kindly light, in
that he causes the father some grief, and so it is probably to be associated
with the original story.

13 See, e.g. R H Gundry The Use of the OT in Matthew's Gospel (Leiden: Brill, 1967)
83-4; Schürmann Lukas. I, 570 n. 25; Beare Matthew 369.
14 See, e.g. RE. Tödt The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (London: SCM 1965)
224; Käsemann in Essays 40.
15 See KE.W. Turner Historicity and the Gospels (London: Morbray, 1963) 73ff. cited §15
below.
16 Cf. Mark 1.40; 5.23, 28; Luke 5.5. Also Theissen Miracle 54f„
 § 9 The Epileptic Boy 95

4. Verse 25 is the report of Jesus' exorcistic technique. "He rebuked"

(ejietinToev) is used to describe Jesus' words which follow. The command
of Jesus is said to be "Dumb and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of
him and no longer enter into him"
(a) When dealing with Mark 5.8 we noted that there were no particular
reasons why the early Church should have added the details of the address
to the demon. And, on the other hand, the use of the demon's name in
exorcistic incantations was a long and well established convention.17 We
conclude then that this element of the words of Jesus belongs to the his-
torically authentic traditioa
(b) "I command you" (eyco ejtitaooco aov, cf. Mark 127). The phrase is
also well known in the magical literature in the context of incantations
seeking to control demons and gods. For example, PGM XIII.171 has "I
command you, great one . . . demon of the great god . . ." and PGM
VII.331 has . . Lord Anoubi, I command you; for I am . . ,"18 Even
though the precise formula has not been found in the stories of other
exorcists, 19 this is fitting vocabulary for an exorcist's command. Pesch
suggests that eycb has probably been introduced into the tradition in order
to contrast the faith of Jesus with the powerless unbeliever.20 However, as
will be argued below (§18), this use of eyco ("I") is most likely to be part
of the authentic Jesus tradition (see §§10 and 18 below).
(c) ". . . And no longer enter into him" (icai (jtriKexi eioeXG^c, eu; autov).
The Babylonian material illustrates the ancient belief in the re-entry of a
demon into a person.
"Perform the incantation of Eridu . . .
That the evil Spirit, the evil Demon
may stand aside,
And a kindly spirit, a kindly Genius be
present." 21

In PGM IV.3024f. there seems to be a provision to arrest a free-ranging

demon to prevent it entering a person: "let thy angel descend . . . and let
him draw into captivity the demon as he flies around this creature . . ."22
Also, this apparent repetition in Mark 9.25 is a recognized routine in both
Hellenistic and Jewish material. In PGM IV.1254 there is a Jewish
prescription for the wearing of an amulet after a demon has been expelled.

17 Lucian Philops. 16; Philostratus Life 3.38; 420; (cf. Acts Thorn. Act 331-3).
18 See Eitrem Notes 27.
.19 Cf. Kee NTS 14 (1967-8) 240.
20 Pesch Markus. II, 94; cf. V. Howard Das Ego Jesu in den synoptischen Evangelien
(Marburg: N.G> Elwert, 1975) 86-97.
21 Thompson Devils II, 85, cf. 8; I, 206, 207, (etc.).
22 See also Eitrem Notes 26; Luke 1124-6; Deissmann Light 252 n. 2; Thompson Devils II,
59 and 85.
96 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

Eleazar is said to have "adjured the demon never to come back into him
. . (Josephus Ant. 8.47). The demon with which Apollonius was dealing
"swore that he would leave the young man alone and never take
possession of any man again" (Philostratus Life 420). So the reported
technique of Jesus accords well with the history of religions parallels. But,
at this point, has the Synoptic tradition been shaped during its transmission
in accordance with an accepted pattern of story telling technique? It is
difficult to discover a precise literary convention that is being followed;
Josephus has |ar|Ket' etc; auxov enavr^eiv (or, in some manuscripts, ena-
veXSeTv, Ant. 8.47) but Mark 9.25 has |ir|K£ii eioeXGpi; eu; autov. The
whole of verse 25 is, to my knowledge, nowhere paralleled in its entirety.
The last part of the formula in verse 25 is found in a story (Josephus Ant.
8.47), and in a prescriptive incantation in the magical papyri (see PGM
IV.3024—25), as well as apparently on amulets (cf. PGM IV.1294). Further,
Mark and his tradition show no desire to be thoroughly consistent in their
representation of Jesus' exorcistic words. That is, they show no desire to
adhere to a literary pattern. Finally, in view of the later Evangelists' hesi-
tancy over this genre of Jesus' words in the tradition (cf. Matthew
17.18/Luke 9.42) it seems that we may be fairly confident that verse 25 is
a genuine reflection of the words of Jesus the exorcist.
5. Verses 26—7 report the departure of the demoa Reports of the
violent departure of demons were common in the ancient world (see §17
below) and it is found in other stories of Jesus (Mark 126; 5.13). Again, in
view of Matthew's (17.18) and Luke's reticence here (4.35), this element in
the story probably goes back to eyewitness accounts. Since the reference
to Jesus taking the lad by the hand and raising him not only closely
resembles 1.31 and 5.41 but also could hardly fail to remind the early
Christians of Jesus' resurrection (see Acts 2.24, 32; 3.26; 13.33—4; 17.31) as
well as power to awaken the dead, then the formulation — if not the
content of this verse — may have originated after Easter. Over against
these points it is necessary to note that the use of the hands in healing
was so common in the Jewish world that it would in fact be surprising if
Jesus did not use the technique.23
6. Finally, verses 28—9 relate the disciples' question to Jesus about their
inability to cast out the demoa In view of the vocabulary, Mark may
have given us this particular ending to the pericope.24 Yet, the reference to

23 On the use of hands see D. Daube The NT and Rabbinic Judaism (Salem: Ayer, 1984)
224-46 and the bibliography in DNTT II, 152f.
24 Note, elç, OIKOÇ, |ja8r|XT|c;, ïôioç, eropuTav, ßuvaoöav (bis) and èÇépxeÇOc"- AND see
HSE 19, 72-4, 76, 78.
 § 9 The Epileptic Boy 97

this kind of demon only being able to be cast out "in prayer"25 may not
be Markan for he does not show prayer as an element in Jesus' technique
or healing, or in anyone else's — notably the Strange Exorcist who is said
simply to invoke a powerful name (Mark 9.38—41).26 The reported tech-
nique of the disciples in 6.13 is anointing with oil not prayer.21 Whether or
not verses 28—9 were in this position in Mark's tradition is difficult to
tell, though in view of the inconsistency between the motif of faith
embedded in the pericope (verses 19, 23, 24) and prayer in this concluding
sentence it may have been placed here by Mark. For, though it is possible
that this inconsistency existed in Mark's tradition, inconsistencies would
probably have been omitted or ironed out in the transmission of tradition.28
We began this section with the objective of setting aside Christian re-
daction in order to help trace elements in this story that probably belong
to the historical Jesus tradition. In order to focus on Jesus' ability as an
exorcist the disciples' inability is highlighted by redirecting Jesus' rebuke
(verse 19) from the father to the disciples. Mark's special contribution to
this story was probably in concluding it with an application appropriate
for the Church. On the other hand, we have seen that there is probably a
considerable amount of reliable historical recollection in this pericope,
including the descriptions of the illness, the rebuke, Jesus' technique, and
the violent departure of the demon.29

25 Some texts make reference to "fasting", see Taylor Mark 401 and Metzger Commen-
tary 101.
26 Nineham (Mark 242) is incorrect in saying that the disciples were unable "to cast out
an evil spirit in his name (v. 18)" (my emphasis). This form of exorcism is not in
view here (v. 29).
27 On exorcism in the post-Apostolic Church see §16 n. 18 below.
28 On "inconsistency" as an indication of redaction see Stein ZNW 61 (1970) 78-9 and §5
above.
29 Cf. Achtemeier CBQ 37 (1975) 473 . .(there) is no indication that later interests in
the story would have caused modifications in the story in the gospels, to make that
story conform to later interests. We can, with some confidence, assume that the stories
as now presented in the three synoptic gospels represent substantially the form given
them by the respective evangelists." Cf. the reconstruction of Mark's tradition by
Schenk ZNW 63 (1972) 93-4. See also Latourelle Miracles 152-4. To the contrary,
arguing that the story reflects the early Church rather than an historical event, see
Petzke NTS 22 (1976) 180-204.
 § 10 The Beelzebul Controversy1
Matthew 932-4; 12.22-30/Mark 3.22-7/Luke 1114-23

This is one of the most important pieces of material in the Gospels

relating to our theme. There is Q material here and we are presented with
the possibility of Q containing a brief exorcism story. The charge against
Jesus (Matthew 12.24/Luke 11.15/Mark 3.22, cf. 30) has been variously
understood and so we must attempt to answer some questions. If the
charge can be shown probably to be historically reliable, what would it
have meant? What was meant by the term Beelzebul? From where did the
term come? We should also ask what this passage tells us about Jesus'
technique in exorcism and his impact on those around him. In turn, it will
be necessary to take yet another look at the Spirit/finger saying of
Matthew 12.28/Luke 11.20 to enquire about its historicity and meaning. In
view of Best's treatment and understanding of the parable of the Strong
Man (Mark 3.27), we will also need to ask how these verses may relate to
Jesus' understanding of the fall of Satan.

1 Literature: Pesch Markus. I, 220f_ See also S. Aalen " 'Reign' and 'House' in the
Kingdom of God in the Gospels" NTS 8 (1961-2) 215-40, E.C.B. MacLaurin "Beelzeboul"
NovT 20 (1978) 156-60: Gnilka Markus I, 143; A.J. Hultgren Jesus and His Adversaries
(Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979); A. Fuchs Die Entwicklung der Beelzebulkontroverse bei
den Synoptikern. Traditions geschichtliche und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung
von Mk 322-7 und Parallelen, verbunden mit der Rückfrage nach Jesus (Linz: SNTU,
1980); B. Chilton "A Comparative Study of Synoptic Development: The Dispute
between Cain and Abel in the Palestinian Targums and the Beelzebul Controversy in
the Gospels" JBL 101 (1982) 553-62; J.-M. Van Cangh " 'Par l'esprit de Dieu - par le
doigt'. Mt 12,28 par. Le 11,20" in Delobel (ed.) Logia 337-42; R. Meynet "Qui donc est
'le plus fort'? analyse rhétorique de Me 3, 22-30, Mt 12, 22-37; Luc 11, 14-26" RB 90
(1983) 334-50; F. Neirynck "Mt 12,25a/Lc 11,17a et la rédaction des évangiles" ETL 62
(1986) 122-33; Drewermann Markus I, 311-21; C. Mearns "Realized Eschatology in Q? A
Consideration of the Sayings in Luke 7.22, 11.20 and 16.16" SJT 40 (1987) 189-210; L M
White "Scaling the Strongman's 'Court' (Luke 11:21)" Forum 3 (1987) 3-28; BJ. Malina
and J A Neyrey Calling Jesus Names: The Social Value oj Labels in Matthew
(Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1988) esp. 3-32; D.E. Oakman "Rulers' Houses, Thieves and
Usurpers: The Beelzebul Pericope" Forum 4 (1988) 109-23; P. Sellew "Beelzebul in
Mark 3: Dialogue, Story, or Sayings Cluster?" Forum 4 (1988) 93-108; MD. Goulder
Luke. A New Paradigm 2 vols. (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989) a 502-9; Guelich Mark I, 166-86;
A.O. Nkwoka "Mark 3:19b-21: A Study of the Charge of Fanaticism Against Jesus"
Biblebhashyam 15 (1989) 205-21; Stock Method 129-38.
 §10 The Beelzebul Controversy

Matt. 1122-30 Matt. 932-34 Mark 322-27 Luke 11.14-15, 17-

(22) Then (32) And as (14) And he

was brought to they were was casting
him a blind going away out a demon
and dumb behold they [and it was]
demoniac, and brought to him dumb; but when
he healed him, a dumb the demon had
so that the demoniac man. gone out the
dumb man spoke (33) And when dumb man
and saw. (23) the demon had spoke, and the
And all the been cast out crowds
crowds were the dumb man marvelled.
amazed and spoke. And the (15) But some
said; "Is this crowds of them said;
the Son of marvelled "By Beelzebul
David?" (24) saying; "Never (22) And the the prince of
But when the was anything scribes who demons he
Pharisees seen like this came down from casts out
heard it they in Israel." Jerusalem demons." . . .
said; 'This (34) But the said, "He has (17) But he
man does not Pharisees Beelzebul," knowing their
cast out the said; "By the and "by the thoughts said
demons except prince of prince of to them;
by Beelzebul demons he demons he "Every kingdom
the prince of casts out the casts out the divided
demons." (25) demons." demons." against itself
But knowing (23) And is laid waste
their thoughts calling to and a house
he said to them in against itself
them; "Every parables he falls. (18)
kingdom said to them; And also if
divided "How can Satan Satan is
against itself cast out divided
is laid waste Satan? (24) against
and every city And if a himself, how
or house kingdom is will his
divided divided kingdom stand?
against itself against For you say by
will not itself, that Beelzebul I
stand. (26) kingdom cannot cast out
And if Satan stand; (25) demons. (19)
casts out and if a house But if I by
Satan, he is is divided Beelzebul cast
divided against out the
against itself, that demons, by
himself; how house will not whom do your
then will his be able to sons cast them
kingdom stand? stand. (26) out? Therefore
(27) But if I And if Satan they shall be
by Beelzebul has risen up your judges.
cast out the against (20) But if by
demons, by himself and is the finger of
whom do your divided, he God I cast out
sons cast them cannot stand demons, then
out? Therefore but has an the kingdom of
100 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

Matt. 1232-30 Matt. 932-34 Mark 3.22-27 Luke 1114-15, 17-23

they shall be end. (27) But God has come

your judges. no one can upon you. (21)
(28) But if by enter into the When the
the Spirit of house of a strong man
God that 1 strong man and fully armed
cast out plunder his guards his own
demons, then goods, except palace, his
the kingdom of he first binds goods are in
God has come the strong peace; (22)
upon you. (29) man, and then but when one
Or how can he plunders stronger
someone enter his house. assails him
the house of a and overcomes
strong man and him, his
plunder his armour he
goods, except takes away in
he first binds which he
the strong trusted, and
man? Then the spoils are
indeed he may distributed.
plunder his (23) The one
house. (30) who is not
The one who is with me is
not with me is against me,
against me, and the one
and the one who does not
who does not gather with me
gather with me scatters.
scatters.

Mark introduces the pericope with a reference to the family2 coming to

seize Jesus because they said he was beside himself (3.19b—21). The au-
thenticity of this is assured as it is unlikely to have been created by the
early Church.3 Further, the Johannine tradition also preserves a similar
reference (e.g. John 10.20). In view of Mark's supplying verses 31—5 (Jesus'
true family) to the present context4 he may also have appended verses
19b—21 as the introduction to this particular pericope.5

2 That Mark intends oi raxQ' aùxoû to refer to Jesus' "family" rather than "friends" is
evident from Mark's conclusion to the pericope where his mother and brothers are
mentioned (331). See further, J.E. Steinmueller "Jesus and oi Jtap' aùxoû (Mark
3:21-21)" CBQ 4 (1942) 355-9; BAGD 610.
3 Taylor Mark 235.
4 That Mark is responsible for the position of vv31-5 see, e.g. Schweizer Mark 83f;
Taylor Mark 245; JD. Crossan "Mark and the Relatives of Jesus" NovT 15 (1973) 85ff„
% f f ; Stein NovT 13 (1971) 193f; Mann Mark 251-2
5 See Bultmann History 29f; cf. Dibelius Tradition 47.
 §10 The Beelzebul Controversy 101

1. An Exorcism Story Matthew 12.22—3/Luke 1114

It fairly clear that Matthew has entirely reworked these two verses. This is
particularly obvious when we take into account the doublet in Matthew
9.32-3.

Matthew 1222-3 Matthew 932-3 Luke 1114

Then was brought And as they were And he was

to him a blind and going away behold casting out a
dumb, demoniac and they brought to demon [and it was}
he healed him, so him a dumb dumb; and when the
that the dumb man demoniac man (33) demon had gone out
spoke and saw. And when the demon the dumb man
(23) And all the had been cast out, spoke, and the
crowds were amazed the dumb man crowds marvelled.
and said; "Is this spoke. And the
the Son of David?" crowds marvelled
saying; "Never was
anything seen like
this in Israel."

The material in either of the Matthean passages, which is paralleled in

Luke, we may take to be from the Q tradition (in italics above).
Where Matthean passages agree against Luke in having npooq>ep-
eiv ("bring")6 and 5ai|iovi£o|juxi ("demonized")7 we are probably dealing
with Matthean vocabulary rather than pointers to Lukan redaction.
In 12.22 Matthew's hand is evident in the demoniac being blind as well
as dumb. The healed man is described as a dumb man who spoke and
saw. However, Kai pXejieiv seems to be an awkward additioa Further, of
all the healings in the New Testament the only one not having a precursor
in the Old Testament is the giving of sight to the blind. Accordingly, a
fond hope for the Messianic Age was that the blind would receive their
sight (Isaiah 2918; [32.31 35.5; 42.7,16, 18-20; 43.8; 61.1s). It is also pertinent
to notice that the only time where the theme of the reception of speech
occurs in the Old Testament it is twinned with the theme of the reception
of sight (Isaiah 35.5 and 6). In 11.4—6, Matthew has already shown an
interest in this Old Testament passage. And, one of the predominant
themes Matthew continues to pursue is that of Jesus fulfilling the mes-
sianic hopes of the Old Testament.9. Thus, in this eschatological and

6 Hawkins Horae Synopticae 7; Turner Grammar IV, 43.

7 Occurs as follows: John 10.21; Luke 836; Mark 132; 515, 16, 18; Matt 424; 816, 28, 33;
932; 12.22; i52Z
8 LXX has "recovery of sight to the blind", cf. RSV note.
9 See also S. McConnell Law and Prophecy in Matthew's Gospel (Basel: ThD. Thesis,
1969) 154f; Gundry OT in Matthew's Gospel 208ff.
102 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

messianic context (Matthew 12.22—8) it is not surprising that Matthew

would have wanted to heighten an already messianic healing and so alter
Q in the way he has. It is consonant with this that among the Synoptics,
xucpXoc, ("blind") has a relatively high frequency of occurrence in Mat-
thew.10 So, the version in Matthew 9.32—3 is most probably the earlier
one.11
Regarding the verbalization of the crowd's amazement in Matthew
12.23, the evidence is in favour of a Matthean origin. That is, it seems to
be a type of response to miracles that Matthew prefers.12 Further, the re-
sponse in Matthew 9.33 bears no resemblance to that in 12.23. Also, the
title "Son of David", not found in Luke, is of particular interest to
Matthew.13 Thus, the actual words of the crowd in Matthew 12.23 cannot
be traced back to Q.
From this exercise we can see that the common source material, Q,
followed closely by Luke, involved a brief story of a dumb demoniac
being healed so that he could talk, and the crowd was said to be amazed.14
R.H. Fuller, however, thinks that this miracle story is an editorial
composition.15 It is, he says, a story which is an "ideal scene" "deliberately
created to carry the saying."16 His support for this seems to be: 1. "After
all, the church was interested in the saying, not in the setting," and 2. "the
Beelzebul sayings (were) handed down without any setting by Mark and Q
(Matt. 1222 par.)."17
It is true that Mark does not use an exorcism story as a setting for the
pericope, but to say that neither does Q is to beg the question, since both
Matthew and Luke precede the controversy with an exorcism, and Fuller
has not shown that this is not Q material. Fuller has also not shown that
one Evangelist is dependent on the other.
The most important point for Fuller is that this exorcism was created
because "the church was interested in the saying, not in the setting." But,
at least Matthew and Luke have shown that they were interested in a

10 Matt = 17, Mark = 5 and Luke = 8.

11 So also C Burger Jesus als Davidssohn: Eine Traditions geschichtliche Untersuchung
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970) 77-9.
12 See 7.28; 9.8; cf. 1531; 2L14. Luke has it only at 716 and 1317. Cf. B. Gerhardsson The
Mighty Acts of Jesus According to Matthew (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1979) 74; Theissen
Miracle 69.
13 Matt = 10, Mark = 4 and Luke = 5. See JM. Gibbs "Purpose and Pattern in
Matthew's Use of the Title 'Son of David' " NTS 10 (1963-4) 446-64; J£>. Kingsbury
Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (London: SPCK, 1976) 99f. and notes.
14 Cf. IS. Kloppenborg The Formation of Q (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 121-2.
15 Fuller Miracles 25 n. 1 He feels the same about Matt 9.27-31, 32-34.
16 Fuller Miracles 32. Cf. Theissen Miracle 114, . . the miracle story is really (also)
the introduction to an apophthegm."
17 Fuller Miracles 32.
 § 10 The Beelzebul Controversy 103
setting for the material And, how is it that they agree so closely on the
setting? On Fuller's own evidence it is more reasonable to presume that
the exorcism story is pre-Matthean and/or Lukan material. If it can be
assumed that Luke had no knowledge of Matthew18 then we are justified
in thinking that the Q tradition contained a brief exorcism story at this
point in which a dumb demoniac is healed, the man talks and the crowd is
amazed.19
Luke describes the healing using ¿KpaXXcov ("casting out", 1114), while
Matthew says eQepaneuoev ("he healed") in 12.22, but uses eKpXr|9ev-
toc, ("cast out") in 9.33. This predisposes us towards thinking that Q used
¿KpaXAco ("cast out")20 as the word to describe what Jesus was doing in his
exorcisms. We will discuss this word a little more fully shortly.
The brevity of the account of the exorcism indicates that Q saw
nothing special in Jesus' technique of exorcism and that it is primarily
introductory in nature to what follows. That this introductory exorcism is
of a dumb spirit is important. That exorcism had eschatological overtones
for Q will become apparent later in the pericope. However, already in the
introduction the eschatological dimension of exorcism is affirmed, since
one of the hopes of the Messianic Age was that the dumb would sing for
joy (Isaiah 35.5 and 6 and see above).
Even though Matthew in particular has drawn attention to this little
story, its probable historical reliability is enhanced by its incidental trans-
mission in Q. Further, the ensuing debate about exorcism presupposes that
an exorcism first took place. And, to follow Bultmann, "no story original
to the tradition would be likely to begin with a reference to some activity

18 For a test case in defence of this view see F.G. Downing "Towards the Rehabitation
of Q" NTS 11 (1964-5) 169-87; also A M Honoré "A Statistical Study of the Synoptic
Problem" NovT 10 (1968) 95-147, esp. 135. That Luke did use Matthew see, e.g. A.W.
Argyle "Evidence for the View that St. Luke used St. Matthew's Gospel" JBL 83 (1964)
390-6 and R.T. Simpson "The Major Agreements of Matthew and Luke Against Mark"
NTS 12 (1966-7) 273-84.
19 Cf. T.W. Manson The Savings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1949) 82ff; A. Polag
Fragmenta Q (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979) 50f_ Q is sometimes
said to contain only "sayings" material (see S. Petrie " 'Q' is Only What You Make It"
NovT 3 [1959] 29) but apart from Luke 1114, it may also have contained Luke 4.2-13;
71-10, 18-23; 11.29-32; see Kümmel Introduction 68. Kee, Miracle 205, says that the
only miracle story deriving from the Q tradition is Luke 71-10.
20 In fact, Luke seems unlikely to have added the word for while it occurs 14 times in
the material he takes up from Mark (Mark 112, 34, 39, 43; 315, 22, 23; 5.40; 613; 918,
28, 38; 1115; 1218) he only uses the word 5 times (from Mark 3.22; 918, 38; 11.15 and
12.8) and a i far as we know he only once added the word to his tradition (Luke 20.21;
cf. Mark 125). On the other hand, while Matthew only drops the word a few times
(from Mark 112/Matt 41; Mark L39/Matt 4.23; Mark L43/Matt 8.4; Mark 7.26/Matt
15.25; Mark 918/Matt 1716) he has a known predilection for 0£pcwi£vxa (see HSE 62).
104 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

of Jesus in quite general terms."21 Thus, it seems probable that Mark (or
his predecessors) has disposed of the exorcism story and inserted the
remaining material about a debate on exorcism between 3.21 and 3.31—5
because it fitted well with the charge of Jesus' family that Jesus was mad
(3.21).

2. The Charge Matthew 12.24/Mark 3.22/Luke 111522

Matthew and Luke agree (= Q) with Mark that an accusation was levelled
at Jesus — but by whom? Matthew says it was the Pharisees and Mark
says it was the scribes. Luke says that it was by some of the crowd. Each
of the Evangelists is following his habit in this respect Matthew seems
concerned to make the Pharisees Jesus' opponents.23 Mark's desire is to
make the scribes Jesus' opponents.24 This is in line with the tendency for
tradition to take on proper names during its transmissioa25 However,
Luke often drops such specific references from his sources.26 Therefore, we
can no longer know who directed the accusation against Jesus.
What was the nature of the accusation? Comparing Luke 1115b (". . . he
casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of demons") with Matthew
9.34b, Q appears to be better preserved in Luke 11.15b than in Matthew
12.24. In view of Matthew 12.27/Luke 11.19, "Beelzebul" was probably in Q
here. There is no evidence for thinking that Q contained reference to
Jesus "having" Beelzebul (cf. Mark 3.22). However, this is probably an
omission for Mark has this much stronger accusation that Jesus was
"possessed by Beelzebul" (BeeX^eßouX exeO- This is most probably part of
the authentic tradition for it is quite unlikely to be an invention of Mark
or any other early Christian.

21 Bultmann History 13; so also J. Jeremias NT Theology (London: SCM, 1971) 91

22 Luke 11J6 is similar to Mark 8J1 rather than any possible Q material (cf. Matt 161;
1238) and so it probably does not belong to Q material. T. Schramm Der Mar-
kus-Stoff bei Lukas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971) 46f_
23 Hill Matthew 215; cf. TJ. Glasson "Anti-Pharisaism in St. Matthew" JQR 51 (1960-1)
316-20, R. Hummel Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im
Matthäusevangelium (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1966) 12—17; S. van Tilborg The Jewish
Leaders in Matthew (Leiden: Brill, 1972).
24 See MJ. Cook Mark's Treatment of the Jewish Leaders (Leiden: Brill, 1978) 85ff. and
J.C Weber "Jesus' Opponents in the Gospel of Mark" JBR 34(1966) 214-22.
25 See EJP. Sanders The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1969) 188f_ See also S. Schulz Q: Die Spruchquelle Der Evangelisten
(Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972) 204f. n .206; and BM. Metzger "Names for the
Nameless in the NT. A Study in the Growth of Christian Tradition" in P. Granfield
and J.A. Jungmann (eds.) Kyriakan: Festschrift Johannes Quasten 2 vols. (Münster
Westfalen: Aschendorff, 1970) I, 79-99.
26 At the following points Luke deletes references to the scribes from his Markan
sources: Luke 432; 1115, 37, 38; 937; 10.25, 27; 1831; 20.41; 22.47, 54; 2335. Though less
often, Luke also deletes references to the Pharisees from his Markan sources: Luke
533; 1116, 37; 22.20.
 §10 The Beelzebul Controversy 105

What did this two-part charge of being possessed and casting out
demons by Beelzebul originally mean?27 Did Jesus' audience think that he
was using a particular foreign god to effect his exorcisms?28 This idea
involves the notion that "Beelzebul" is a Jewish distortion of "Baal-Zebub",
the name of the god of Ekron in 2 Kings 12. But, (a) the connection of
the name Beelzebul with the name of the Philistine god at Ekron seems
quite late — no earlier than Jerome (cAD 340—420).29 (b) Outside the
New Testament, Beelzebul is mentioned by Origen (CC VIII.25) and Hip-
polytus (Refutation 6.34), but they make no connection with the name of
Ekron. (c) Josephus, who mentions the incident of Ahaziah (Ant. 9.19), has
the phrase "the Fly-God of Akkron (Ekron)" using the same words as the
Septuagint to render the latter part of the Hebrew Baal-Zebub traditionally
supposed to mean "Fly-God".30 Thus, even Josephus (c.37—100) does not
seem to know a connection between Baalzebub of 2 Kings 1.2 and a term
"Beelzebul".
A possible clue to the meaning of Beelzebul is in Matthew 10.25: "If
they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will
they malign those of his household."31 Though it is rare in the Old
Testament (1 Kings 8.13 = 2 Chronicles 6.2; Isaiah 6315; Habakkuk 3.11),
"Zebul" C?3i) can be used as a synonym for heaven and probably means
"dwelling". A similar meaning is found in the Qumran scrolls.32 In the
Hellenistic period Baal was the chief cultic rival of the Yahwistic faith
especially in the time of Antioches IV.33 In later Old Testament writings
the name "Lord of Heaven" was available only to Yahweh.34 Now in
Judaism and the New Testament pagan gods were said to be demons.35
"What better name then for Satan, the chief of the demons, than that of the chief of
the heathen gods? He could not of course be called by his proper name — . . . this
title is restricted to Yahweh — but this name 'Lord of Heaven' could be hinted at in a
slight disquise."36

27 On it being a charge of magic see §24 below; JJL Neyrey "Bewitched in Galatia: Paul
and Cultural Anthropology" CBQ 50 (1988) 72-100 discusses Paul's accusation that the
Galatians have been bewitched by teachers possessed and controlled by Satan (Gal. 3i).
28 The view of W. Manson The Gospel of Luke (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930)
138; cf. BAGD.
29 Plummer Luke 30L
30 Ralph Marcus on Ant. 919 in St. J. Thackeray Josephus VI, 12 n.(a).
31 For most of what follows I am dependent on L. Gaston "Beelzebul" TZ 18 (1962) 247-
55. Cf. E.C.B. MacLaurin "Beelzeboul" NovT 20 (1978) 156-60.
32 1QM 12J, % 1QS 10.13; 1QH 3.34.
33 E. Bickermann Der Gott der Makkabaer (1937) esp. 50ff- cited by Gaston TZ 18 (1962)
252 n. 2L Cf. Hengel Judaism and Hellenism I, 261; II, 172.
34 Ezra L2; '511; 12; 6.9, 10; 712, 21, 23; Neh 1.4, 5; Z4, 20; Ps 136.26; Dan 218, 19, 37, 44;
434; 5.23; Tob 13J1; 2 Macc 15.23.
35 LXX Ps 95.5; 1 Cor 10.20; cf. LXX Deut 3217; Ps 105.37; Bar 4.7; Rev 9.20.
36 Gaston TZ 18 (1962) 253. Cf. W.E.M. Aitken "Beelzebul" JUL 31 (1912) 34-53.
106 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

We can conclude here that Jesus is accused of being inspired by Satan.

The word used, Beelzebul = Baalshamaim = Satan, is transparent enough to
be readily understood by Jesus and those around him.37
Thus, what the exorcism of Jesus leads the crowd to think is that he is
evil and inspired not by God but by Satan (cf. Mark 3.22). As we have
said, the historicity of such a charge can scarcely be doubted.
When we are drawing together conclusions in chapter IV from the
examination of the data in this chapter we will be asking how such a
charge could have arisen in the minds of those who observed Jesus as an
exorcist (§§22 and 24).

3. Jesus' Reply Matthew 12.25-30/Mark 3.23-7/Luke 11.17-23

(a) The precise wording of the first part of the reply need not detain us
and its meaning is clean that is, it is impossible for Jesus to be casting out
demons by Beelzebul/Satan for that would mean Satan was divided. Even
if he were exorcising by Satan, even if Satan were divided against himself,
Jesus' exorcisms would still mark the destruction of Satan and his king-
dom.38
(b) The next argument — at least in Q — that is used to counter the
charge is to point out the inconsistency of charging Jesus with being in
league with Satan while not considering by whom their own people cast
out demons.
It is apparent that Mark does not have this Q saying about the Jewish
exorcists, nor those about Jesus' source of power-authority, and the
kingdom of God (Matthew 12.27—8/Luke 11.19—20). In the light of Mark's
evident interest in the relationship between the kingdom of God, the Holy
Spirit and the exorcisms of Jesus, it is most unlikely that this saying we
now have in Q was available to Mark or he would have most probably
included it.
The question Jesus puts is, "by whom do your sons cast them out?"39
The natural response to this of course would be "God", and the context
supplies only two alternatives, Satan or God.40 There is a problem here in
the next verse (Matthew 12.28/Luke 11.20). Jesus is said to claim that

37 Cf. Gaston TZ 18 (1962) 253. Gaston goes on to suggest that Zebul was used, among
the possible synonyms for heaven, probably because the Pharisees in the Beelzebul
Controversy knew a certain claim made over the temple (254). See also Aitken JBL 31
(1912) 34-53.
38 The mention of Jesus calling to the disciples in parables is probably from Mark's
hand; see Taylor Mark 239; Schweizer Mark 83f; Dibelius Tradition 237; Kertelge
Wunder 126 n. 505; Best Temptation 117; Schreiber ZTK 58 (1961) 16.
39 On ot uioi see C.E. Carlston The Parables of the Triple Tradition (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1975) 18 n. 11.
40 That Jewish exorcists did operate "by God" is clear from PGM IV.3019ff_
 §10 The Beelzebul Controversy 107

his exorcisms mark the arrival of the kingdom of God. What then is Q's
understanding of Jesus' contemporary exorcists and their exorcisms? In Q's
present arrangement, with Luke 11.19 and 20 juxtaposed, it has generally
been thought that the obvious interpretation is that Q felt that the
exorcisms of the Jews were related in some way to the coming of the
kingdom of God. This interpretation has rightly been variously and vig-
orously avoided by New Testament critics.41 Creed,42 for example, resorts
to Bultmann's hypothesis that verse 19 is a late insertion from the con-
troversies of the early community with its Jewish opponents.43 But, even if
the reference to the Jewish exorcists is "late" it was still part of the Q
material that Matthew and Luke used. Further, even to alter the present
order of the material so that Luke 11.19 and 20 are no longer juxtaposed is
of little help, for the problem of Q's understanding of the Jewish exorcists
would still remain unanswered.
We cannot take up the suggestion of A.E Harvey who supposes that
Jesus' contemporaries were unsuccessful or only partially successful.44 There
is nothing in the text to support this and, in fact, the question about the
Jewish exorcists' authority (Matthew 12.27/Luke 1119) presupposes that
they were successful Nor, as our present study will show, is it possible to
say, with C.G Caragounis, that Jesus' exorcisms were of a different order
because they lacked all characteristica of Jewish and Hellenistic exor-
cisms.45
There is, however, another alternative. The pericope up until Matthew
12.28/Luke 11.20 is not about the relationship between exorcism and the
inbreaking of the kingdom of God. The Pharisees' accusation and Jesus'
reply have, so far, only to do with Jesus' source of power-authority.
Therefore, all that Q can possibly be saying about the Jewish exorcists is
that they, in some way, share the same source of power-authority as Jesus.
This notion of Jesus tolerating others as allies is made more plausible
when we note Luke 11.23(/Matthew 12.30) and its positive doublet — "For
whoever is not against us, is for us" (Luke 9.50/Mark 9.40). In both Luke
and Mark this saying follows John's (the disciple's) report of a Strange
Exorcist they tried to dissuade from operating because he was not

41 E.g. N. Perrin Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1976)
63; W.G. Kümmel Promise and Fulfilment (London: SCM, 1957) 105-6.
42 J.M. Creed The Gospel According to St. Luke (London: Macmillan, 1930) 160f. Carlston
Parables 18 also finds vv. 19 and 20 incompatible. See also Schweizer Matthew 284.
43 Bultmann History 14, followed by Kümmel Promise 105-6. Further on the origin of
the connection between the two verses see G.R. Beasley-Murray "Jesus and the Spirit"
in Descamps et de Halleux (eds.) Melanges Bibliques 468 n. 1.
44 Harvey Constraints 109.
45 C.C Caragounis "Kingdom of God, Son of Man and Jesus' Self-Understanding"
TynBul 40 (1989) 230-1 Further, see chap. IV below.
108 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

following Jesus. Thus, Q is not alone in seeing Jesus being tolerant of

other exorcists whom he is said to regard, at least to some extent, as allies.
As the reply is entirely dependent upon the preceding charge, we can be
assured of the probable historicity of the reply.
(c) The Spirit/Finger saying (Matthew 1228/Luke 11.20) is one of the
most significant verses with which we shall deal: "But if in a Spirit (Luke
has "finger") of God I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has
come upon you." But, in understanding and interpreting this verse in the
context of Q and perhaps the ministry of Jesus, we face a myriad of
problems including: What was the wording of this verse in Q? Why, in Q,
are the exorcisms of Jesus linked with the inbreaking of the kingdom of
God? Can the saying be traced back to the historical Jesus? and, if so,
What was its significance for Jesus?
(i) There is no need here to rehearse completely the debate about
whether Q contained the word "Spirit" or "finger". There is good reason
for taking "Spirit" as the original in Q.44 In any case, the meanings of the
variants are similar. In the Old Testament the term "finger of God" is used
to identify the direct activity of God. So, in Exodus 3L18 it is the finger of
God that wrote on the tablets of stone (see also Exodus 8.19; Deuteronomy
9.10 and Psalm 8.3). And, in the Qumran War Scroll, God is said to raise
his hand against Satan (1QM 18.1—15). The activity of the Spirit of God
also indicated the activity of God himself. In Ezekiel 11.5 the Spirit of the
Lord falls on Ezekiel and he is addressed by the Lord. What is most
interesting is that in Ezekiel 8.1 it is the hand of the Lord that falls on
Ezekiel to produce a vision. Thus, here is an instance where "hand" and
"spirit" are used synonymously. Further, in the Old Testament the "finger
of God" is a variant of "the hand of God" with no alteration of meaning.47
(ii) Why are the exorcisms of Jesus linked with the inbreaking of the
kingdom of God? This verse has three components, the exorcist ("/"),48 the
source of power-authority for the exorcism (Spirit), and the meaning
attached to the combination of these two components — the inbreaking of
the kingdom of God. So, are the exorcisms of Jesus linked with the com-
ing of the kingdom because Jesus performs the exorcisms or because

46 For the literature see Dunn Jesus 44ff. and R.W. Wall " T h e Finger of God' Deu-
teronomy 9JO and Luke 11.20" NTS 33 (1987) 144-50; van Cangh in Delobel (ed.)
Logia 337-42 and Caragounis TynBul 40 (1989) 8-10.
47 See also 1 Chr 28J1-19. R.G. Hamaraerton-Kelly "A Note on Matthew 12.28 par. Luke
11.20" NTS 11 (1964-5) 168; C.K. Barrett The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition
(London: SPCK, 1947) 144 and notes. On the finger of God as a symbol of power in
the Greek world see Clement of Alexandria Stromata 6.16.133.
48 On the status of eyt) in Luke 11.20 see the apparatus in Nestle-Aland NT Graece ed.
XXVL
 §10 The Beelzebul Controversy 109

Jesus performs the exorcisms in the Spirit of God? Or, do we, in fact,
have to choose between these two options?
It is generally recognized that the key element in this verse is "Spirit of
God" by, or in, which Jesus operates.49 However, from what we have just
said about the previous verse (Matthew 12.27/Luke 1119), where Q seems
to accept that the Jews also operate on the same side as Jesus (cf. the
Strange Exorcist — Mark 9.38—41/Luke 9.49—50), Jesus' source of power-
authority may not be as unique as it has been claimed. Yet, on the other
hand, while operating in the same sphere (of "God") as the Jewish
exorcists, there is an aspect to Jesus' power-authority that was hitherto
unknown. That is, in contrast to his contemporaries (note the adversa-
tive 5É), Jesus claimed it was the Spirit of God who provided him with
his power-authority. The Spirit of God was not one of the Jewish rabbis'
sources of power-authority.50 In so far as we can tell, Q is making a
unique claim for Jesus.
Although the use of eyoJ is not everywhere in the New Testament to be
taken as implying a contrast, or used for emphasis,51 Stauffer is correct to
say that "On the lips of the Synoptic Jesus the emphatic lyu> is relatively
infrequent. It is found in warning, promises and commands uttered by
Jesus with the sense of His divine power and authority."52
The only other time Q uses iytù on the lips of Jesus it is to draw
attention to the person of Jesus (Matthew 8.9/Luke 7.8). Hence, we can
suggest that the breaking in of the kingdom is linked with Jesus' exor-
cisms in Q because Jesus in the Spirit casts out demons.
In Matthew 1228/Luke 11.20 ¿KpaXXco is placed on the lips of Jesus in
Q. How much is to be made of the use of this word is difficult to decide.
So far as I know this is — along with Mark — the first time it is used in
relationship to exorcism. In literature prior to the Gospels, for example in
Tobit 6.17, the demons are not "cast out", but flee (cpey/co). When we take
into account the two elements of Matthew 1228/Luke 1120 — casting out
demons (that is, Satan [Matthew 12.26/Luke 1118] — the enemy of God)

49 E.g. Dunn Jesus 4 4 f f .

50 See also Str-B II, 526ff_ Contrast Hengel Charismatic Leader 64 n. 102 who, speaking
generally of Jesus' ministry, says: "It is quite likely that, by contrast with Jesus,
contemporary apocalyptic-messianic prophets appealed freely to the 'Spirit'. According
to the Easter texts and apocalyptic literature there was in Judaism nothing unusual in
appealing to actual possession of the Spirit. . ." However, I have not been able to find
any evidence to suggest that the "Spirit" was appealed to as a source of power-
authority for exorcism.
51 BDF 227Jf.; cf. N. Turner A Grammar of NT Greek III (Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1963) 37f„
52 E. Stauffer TDNT II, 348.
110 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

and the coming of the kingdom of God, the LXX's use of etc0aM.co may
be useful in conjecturing the implication of its use in Q.
Most of the occurrences of ¿KpaXXo» in the LXX are in contexts where
an enemy, frustrating or standing in the way of God fulfilling his purpose
for his chosen people of Israel, is cast out (EKPOIXXCO) SO that God's
purpose can be fulfilled. This purpose is most often the possession of the
promised land. Two examples can illustrate this. First, "Little by little will I
drive them out ( e K 0 a \ \ a > ) before you, until you are increased and possess
the land" (Exodus 23.30). Secondly, "The eternal God is your dwelling
place, and underneath are the everlasting arms. And he thrust out (¿K0aX-
\a>) the enemy before you, and said, Destroy. So Israel dwelt in safety . . .
in a land of grain and wine . . ." (Deuteronomy 33.27—8). In the light of
the LXX's use of eKfiaXku, it may be that Q was implying that Jesus was
casting out an enemy of God in order that God's purpose might be ful-
filled — the coming of the kingdom of God.
(iii) What can we say about the historicity of the Spirit/finger saying?
That the saying rightly belongs to the historical Jesus seems quite likely
from the following: (1) The "kingdom" was a central theme of the public
ministry of Jesus.53 (2) The fact that the kingdom of God is said to have
already come (etpGctoev),54 which corresponds to X13D, suggests that the
saying arose in Jesus' own ministry.55 (3) Also, the verse is part of an
antithetic parallelism — a characteristic of Jesus' speech.56 (4) The early
Church did not associate the dawning of salvation with Jesus' exorcisms
(see also §29 below).57 Together, these factors weigh in favour of the
historical reliability of the Spirit/finger saying.58 We will discuss the sig-
nificance of this saying for Jesus in §29.

53 N. Perrin The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (London: SCM, 1963) chap.
10; and Rediscovering chap. 1; Jeremias Theology par 11; R A Hiers The Historical
Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1973) chap.
2; JR. Butts "Probing the Polling, Jesus Seminar Results on the Kingdom Sayings"
Forum 3 (1987) 98-128.
54 On £<p0ao£v see Kümmel Promise 106-9. Cf. Jeremias Theology 34.
55 G. Dal man The Words of Jesus (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902) 107. Jeremias
Theology 103ff- Barrett Spirit 140; D. Flusser Jesus (New York: Herder, 1969) 90; H.
Baltersweiler "Wunder und Glaube im NT" TZ 23 (1967) 243-8.
56 Jeremias Theology 14. See also Dalman Words 202-3.
57 See Twelftree Christ chap. IV.
58 On the wide agreement of the historicity of this saying see Beasley-Murray in Des-
camps et de Halleux (eds.) Melanges Bibliques, 468 and G.R. Beasley-Murray Jesus
and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans and Exeter Paternoster, 1986) 356
n. 28, who cites Bultmann who affirmed that the saying can "claim the highest degree
of authenticity which we can make for any saying of Jesus: it is full of that feeling
of eschatological power which must have characterized the activity of Jesus"
(Bultmann History 162). See also JD.G. Dunn "Matthew 12:28/Luke 11:20 - A Word of
 §10 The Beelzebul Controversy 111

(d) In the Parable of the Strong Man (Matthew 12.29/Mark 3.27/Luke

11.21—2), is Luke following Q in the parable of the Strong Man (11.21—2),
(while Matthew 12.29 follows Mark 3.27) or is he reworking Mark 3.27?
Luke at least is following the order of Q here (cf. Matthew 12.28/Luke
11.20 and Matthew 12.30/Luke 11.23). That is, he has the same order as
Matthew. It is uncharacteristic of Luke to rewrite Mark so exten-
sively59 and if he was, here, reliant on Mark it is surprising that he has
only taken up o io%up6<; ("the strong man") into the vocabulary. There is
some evidence of Lukan activity in i a uitapxovta ("the goods"),60 yet in
the allusion here to t a oicuXa autou 5ia5i5coaiv ("divides his spoil") of
Isaiah 53.12a (tc3v iaxupcov ¡jtepieT OKUXCX), Luke does not follow the
Alexandrian text as usual.61 Thus, it seems probable that Luke is following
a tradition here other than Mark — probably Q.
That this parable was always in this context is not only suggested by
the subject matter (see below) but because both Q and Mark agree on its
context.62 What can we say about this parable of the Strong Man reflect-
ing words of Jesus? The comparison of a possessed person to a "house" is
still common is the East.63 Further, two Gospel traditons preserve this
parable (Mark/Matthew and Luke) and the Gospel of Thomas (35) also has
it. Thus, this parable most probably belongs to the authentic sayings of
Jesus.
How did the Gospel writers understand the parable? The parable has
two components; first, the Strong Man is bound (Sriofl) or overpowered
(viKr|Ofl) and then, secondly, his house is plundered. It is a widely held
view that the binding of Satan is to be seen as taking place at the
Temptation (see §11 below). For example, Ernest Best takes it that the
binding in the parable refers to a previous definite act — the Temptation
— because Sfpr] is an aorist subjunctive.64 However, an aorist subjunctive
in a final .clause does not only describe a single action but also expresses
an action in which no particular stress is placed on the time of the action
(see e.g. John 17.1, 21). And, with an aorist subjunctive following eav
|iT| (Mark 3.27), a future, even uncertain, single act cannot be excluded.

Jesus?" in W J i Gloer (ed.) Eschatology and the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrick-
son, 1988) 31-49; Caragounis TynBui 40 (1989) 8 n39.
59 Marshall Luke ATI.
60 Only once in Q (Matt 24.42/Luke 12.44) - following Edwards Concordance. Matt = 2
(excluding Matt 24.42), yet Luke = 14 (excluding Luke 12.44) and Acts = 25 and Paul
= 12.
61 Lindars Apologetic 85; T. Holtz Untersuchungen über die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei
Lukas (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1968).
62 Taylor Mark 240; Crossan NovT 15 (1973) 92.
63 P. Joüon in J. Jeremias The Parables of Jesus (London: SCM, 1972) 197.
64 Best Temptation 13.
112 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

That the plundered "belongings" (ta gkeut^) is in the plural does not
require the metaphor to refer to a plurality of exorcisms following a
single binding (in the Temptations),65 for "belongings" is probably a
collective term, as Luke also understood it (Luke 11.21; cf. 8.3; 12.15, 33, 44;
14.33; 16.1; 19.8; Acts 4.32). Further, if Mark intended the binding to refer to
a specific event in the past, like the Temptation story, then we might
expect the subsequent plundering to be in the present rather than, as here,
in the future (Kai tote . . . Siapitaoet, "and then he may plunder"). Also,
we will find (see §11 below) little support for the notion of the defeat of
Satan in any of the Temptation narratives. There is then nothing in this
parable to point us to the Temptation traditions as the understood point of
the defeat of Satan.
How would the parable have been understood by Jesus' and his au-
dience? The Strong Man in verse 27 is obviously understood to be Satan.
And, in verse 23 ("How can Satan cast out Satan?"), it is Satan who is
being cast out in exorcism. Furthermore, the notions of binding (and
loosing) are quite natural in the context of dealing with demons, exorcism
and healing. For example, in Luke 13.16 the healing "looses" a woman
whom Satan had "bound". In Mark 7.35 a "bound" tongue is healed (cf.
Mark 5.3b; Luke 8.29). And, further, Deissmann has pointed out that
running through antiquity is the idea that man can be bound or fettered
by demonic influences.66 Also, the progressive pattern of verse 27 — bind-
ing first and then plundering — fits the ancient method of dealing with
demons. This is illustrated, for example, in the magical papyri. First, there
was the adjuring to bind or restrict the demon, then the giving of
directions to the demon — all in the same progressive act (see, e.g. PGM
IV.3037ff.). If we note the metaphor of a house we gain further insight
into the meaning of the parable for Jesus and his audience. In Luke
11.24—6 the metaphor of a house is used to describe the individual who is
posssessed by a demoa What is at stake is the "house".67 So also in Mark
3.27c it is the house that is taken from the Strong Man, the "Lord of the
House" (3.22).
Thus, in conclusion, what we have here is a parable of an exorcism.
Satan, the Strong Man, is bound and his house, the possessed person, is
taken from him.68 If, as we are suggesting, the binding was thought to

65 MMJ3. Turner "Prayer in the Gospels and Acts" in DA. Carson (ed.) Teach Us to
Pray: Prayer in the Bible and the World (Grand Rapids: Baker and Exeter Pater-
noster, 1990) 320 n. 14.
66 Deissmann Light 306 and n. 5, see also 307ff.; and F. Buchsel TDNT II, 60 esp. n. 3.
67 Cf. Gospel of Thomas 35 which also takes the house rather than the contents to be at
risk.
68 Cf. R. Otto "The Kingdom of God Expells the Kingdom of Satan" in B. Chilton (ed.)
 §10 The Beelzebul Controversy 113
refer to part of the role of exorcism then the tension Cranfield sees be-
tween verses 27 and 23b—26 is also resolved.69
To conclude this section we can note that the Beelzebul Controversy
pericope contains probable reliable historical data in the brief exorcism
story, the charge and reply, including the parable of the Strong Man which
show that Jesus believed that in exorcism Satan was being cast out. We
shall have more to say later in the light of this important pericope (see
§§18 and 29 below).

The Kingdom of God (London: SPCK and Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 30. To the
contrary see M Limbeck "Jesus und die Dämonen. Der exegetische Befund" BK 30
(1975) 7-1L For a case that the 'Strong One' is the disciple in defence against Satan
see Meynet RB 90 (1983) 334-50.
69 Cranfield Mark 138.
 §11 The Temptations1
Mark 112,13 and Matthew 41, 2,11/Luke 41, 2,13

The reason for drawing attention to this passage is that an examination of

it may help towards answering the question, When for the Jesus of history
is Satan defeated, in the Temptations, the exorcisms, the cross, at some
future time, or a combination of these?

Matthew 41, 2, 11 Mark 112, 13 Luke 41, % 13

(1) Then Jesus was (12) And (1) And Jesus full
led up into the immediately the of the Holy Spirit
wilderness by the Spirit drove him out returned from the
Spirit to be tempted into the Jordan and was led
by the devil. (2) wilderness. (13) And by the Spirit in the
And having fasted he was in the wilderness (2) for
forty days and forty wilderness forty forty days being
nights, afterward he days being tempted tempted by the
was hungry. . . (11) by Satan, and he was devil. And he ate
Then the devil left with the wild nothing in those
him, and behold, beasts. days and when they
angels came and and the angels were ended he was
ministered to him ministered to him hungry. . . (13) And
when the devil had
ended every
temptation he
departed from him
for a time.

1. For a start, it seems fairly clear that Luke does not intend to convey
the idea that Satan was finally defeated in the Temptations, for he says
that "the devil . . . departed from him for a time" (4.13). This is confirmed
when we look at other references to Satan in Luke ([8.121 10.18; 1118 and
1316). Thus, we have an indication that Luke thought that Satan was

1 Literature: Jeremias Theology 68; Pesch Markus. L 98-100; Fitzmyer Luke I, 519; F.
Neugebauer Jesu Versuchung: Wegentscheidung am Anfang (Tübingen: Mohr, 1986);
Kloppenborg Formation of Q 246-62; Guelich Mark I, 36; Drewermann Markus. I,
142-61; Stock Method 50-7; G J l Twelftree "Temptation of Jesus" in JB. Green and S.
McKnight (eds.) Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove: IVP, 1992).
 §11 The Temptations 115
active throughout the ministry of Jesus. Conzelmann's contention that the
period described between Luke 4.13 and 22.23 was "one free from the
activity of Satan"2 is thus hardly tenable.3
2. The relationship between the Temptations and the fall of Satan is less
clear in Matthew. In 4.10 Satan is told to "go" (ujtaye) and in 4.11 he
"leaves" Jesus (acpvnoiv autov). However, in view of Matthew including
the Beelzebul Controversy (12.22—32) and Jesus' rebuke to Peter, "Get
behind me Satan" (16.23), it seems that Matthew also saw Satan's activity
continuing in Jesus' ministry after the Temptations.
3. If neither Matthew nor Luke view the Temptations as the defeat of
Satan, what can we say about Q? In fact, we are in much the same sit-
uation as we were with Matthew and Luke. Reference in Matthew
4.11a/Luke 4.13 to the devil leaving comes from Q.4 However, the second
part of the verse probably does not. Matthew's mention of the ministry of
the angels comes from Mark (113), though iSou and itpooriXGov being
typically Matthean are probably from his hand.5 And, although Luke
shows no particular interest in tcaipoc, he does favour axQU6 and only he
uses the phrase a x p i KCCIQOU (here and at Acts 1311). So, it is most likely
that it is Luke who adds the phrase at 4.13.7
If this is correct then the Q Temptations probably ended only with a
simple reference to the devil leaving Jesus. From this we can hardly
conclude that in the Q Temptations we have expressed the very important
motif of the defeat of Satan. In fact, from other Q material, as with
Matthew and Luke, we gain the distinct impression that Satan was not
defeated at the Temptations. For, the Beelzebul Controversy (see §10
above) and — if it belongs to Q — the Return of the Seventy, portray not
a defeated enemy but one in the process of being defeated.8
4. It is Ernest Best's view that in Mark the defeat of Satan is attached
to the Temptation.9 After an initial examination of the Markan Temp-
tation pericope Best says that there is no overwhelmingly convincing
theme in it, nor is there evidence to indicate in any clear way the result

2 H. Conzelmann The Theology of St. Luke (London: Faber and Faber, 1969) 170.
3 See f u r t h e r S. Brown Apostacy and Perseverance in the Theology of Luke (Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969) 6ff. and Baumbach in J. Rohde Rediscovering the
Teaching of the Evangelists (London: SCM, 1968) 243f.
4 Schulz Q 18L
5 'Iöoü, Matt = 62, Mark = 7, Luke = 57. I I p o a e p x e a 6 a i . M a " = 52, Mark = 5, Luke =
10; see also Schulz Q 18L
6 Hawkins Horae Synopticae 16; cf. Schürmann Lukas. I, 214 n. 198.
7 Cf. E. Klostermann Das Lukasevangelium (Tübingen: Mohr, 1929) 6L
8 See T weif tree Christ 109.
9 Best Temptation 15; cf. Carlston Parables 135 and n. 30; M.D. Hooker The Message of
Mark (London: Epworth, 1983) 37; Kee Medicine 73; Beasley-Murray Jesus and the
Kingdom 108-111, esp. 366 n. 4.
116 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

of the Temptation.10 For this Best says we must look elsewhere in Mark —
in the Beelzebul Controversy (3.19b—35). This we have done. Now we look
at Mark's account of the Temptation and its immediate context.
Even if there is internal evidence suggesting that the Baptism and
Temptation pericopes exhibit different strands of tradition,11 Mark at least
has them juxtaposed. (That the present literary relationship is at least
earlier than the Synoptics is indicated by the same relationship between
the two pericopes in Q.) Thus, in Mark we should understand these pas-
sages as contributing to the significance of each other and we might
expect some consistency of understanding between them on the part of
Mark.
The Temptation pericope is a mere two brief sentences in Mark so it is
difficult to draw out directly what Mark has in mind here. When we
observe the role of Satan in the rest of Mark there seems to be a
consistency of use.12 In 3.23 and 26 Jesus answers the Pharisees' charge
that his ministry is authorized and empowered by Satan. In 8.33 Peter
attempts to deflect Jesus from his intended mission and the retort is, "Get
behind me, Satan . . ." These two references have to do with criticism of,
and deflection of Jesus from his ministry. Into this pattern it is not
difficult to fit 4.15 — where Satan is said to destroy the "mission" of the
Sower. Turning to Jteipa^co we find that it is used on three other occasions
(811; 10.2; 12.15) — all in the context of confrontations with the Pharisees.
The reference in 8.11 is interesting. The Pharisees are asking Jesus for a
sign to prove himself, with which we should compare the Q Temptation
where Satan tempts Jesus to prove his sonship by throwing himself off the
pinnacle of the Temple. So, perhaps, we have in 1.9—13 indications that
Mark saw Satan's activity in the Temptation as having to do with an at-
tempt to deflect Jesus from his mission.
Best says that on the basis of the Markan account alone we would be
entirely ignorant of the outcome of the Temptation.13 However, in view of
the Old Testament background to the concept of the ministry of angels in
the wilderness14 where the purpose of the angels was to ensure the safety
of "God's Chosen" in a trying period, we should be alert to the possibility
that Mark is assuming a positive outcome, even though he does not
specifically say so. If we examine the Old Testament background for light
on Mark's reference to angels it is also possible that, although Mark may

10 Best Temptation 10.

11 Lohmeyer in Best Temptation 4 and n. L
12 L13; 323, 26; 415; 833. Mark does not use 6iaßoXo<;
13 Best Temptation 10.
14 U.W. Mauser Christ in the Wilderness (London: SCM, 1963) 101; see 1 Kgs 19.5, 7; Ex
14.9; 23.20, 23; 3234; 33.2.
 §11 The Temptations 117

have in mind the successful outcome of the Temptations, there need be no

thought of the victory over Satan — simply the safe passage through a dif-
ficult period.
Hence the last part of 1.13 does not deflect us from our earlier
suggestion and it confirms the idea that in Mark's Temptation it was Jesus'
mission that was at stake. And, when we take into account the fact that
immediately following the Baptism and Temptation Mark has Jesus em-
barking on mission (1.14—15) we are further justified in seeing Mark's
Temptation narrative as relating to Jesus' mission.
So, there is a victory in Mark's Temptation, discernible from the peri-
cope itself, but it is not the binding or overthrow of Satan:15 it is Jesus'
overcoming Satan in relation to his mission, the preaching of the Good
News (1.14-15; cf. 1.1).16
None of the Synoptic traditions see the defeat of Satan being repre-
sented in the Temptation story. Therefore, on examination, none of the
Gospel traditions is attempting to convey the notion that the Temptation
story is to be associated with the idea of the final defeat of Satan. We
have no reason to search behind the Temptation stories for an experience
of the historical Jesus which he might have considered significant in the
demise of Sataa We shall draw out further conclusions at an appropriate
point in a later chapter.

15 Cf. R. Yates "Jesus and the Demonic in the Synoptic Gospels" ITQ 44 (1977) 39-42;
Guelich Mark I, 38. Contrast Nineham Mark 63ff; A. Jühlicher (Die Gleichnisreden
Jesu 2 vols. [Tübingen: Mohr, 1910] II, 226) cautioned against associating the temp-
tation narrative with the parable of the Strong Man for in the narrative Jesus
successfully defends himself, whereas in the parable Satan is on the defensive so that
"neither the Pharisees nor the evangelists, still less Jesus himself, will have read out
of the temptation story a binding of Satan" (from Beasley-Murray Jesus and the
Kingdom 109-10).
16 See also H.P. Thompson "Called-Proved-Obedient: A study in the Baptism and T e m p -
tation narratives of Matthew and Luke" JTS 11 (1960) 1-12.
 § 12 Jesus' Answer to John1
Matthew 112—6/Luke 718-23

We must at least briefly consider this pericope because healing from

unclean spirits is mentioned in Luke 7.21. We need to discuss the origin of
the reference. As this passage may have to do with Jesus' self-
understanding in relation to his activities as an exorcist we need to
consider the historicity of various elements of this passage. Matthew and
Luke record the story as follows.

Matthew 11.2-6 Luke 718-23

(2) Now John hearing in (18) The disciples of John

prison the works of the Christ reported to him about all
sending through his disciples these things. And calling to
(3) said to him; "Are you the him two of his disciples John
coming one or do we look for (19) sent them to the Lord
someone different?" saying; "Are you the coming
one or shall we look for
another?" (20) And when they
had come to him the men said;
"John the Baptist sent us to
you saying; 'Are you the
coming one or shall we look
for anotherT" (21) In that
hour he cured many of diseases
and plagues and evil spirits
and to many blind he gave
sight.
(4) And answering Jesus said (22) And answering he
to them; "On going your way said to them; "On going your
tell John what you hear and way tell John what you saw and
see; (5) the blind receive heard; the blind receive their
their sight and the lame walk, sight, the lame walk, lepers
lepers are cleansed and the are cleansed, and the deaf
deaf hear, and the dead are hear, the dead are raised up,
raised up, and the poor have the poor have good- news
good news preached to them; preached to them; (23) and
(6) and blessed is he who is blessed is he who is not
not offended by me." offended by me."

1 Literature: Jeremias Theology 43 and 103-5; Dunn Jesus 55-60; Marshall Luke 289; S.
Sabugal La Embajada mesiánica de Juan Bautista (Mt 112-6 = Le 7J8-23), (Madrid:
 § 12 Jesus ' Answer to John the Baptist 119

Our interest in this story is that Luke 7.20—1 does not appear in
Matthew. That this material was originally part of Q could be indicated by
Luke uncharacteristically leaving in a repetition2 in 7.21, and by the fact
that such repetitions (cf. Luke 15.21—2; 19.34) are to be attributed to a
traditional biblical style.3 On the other hand, the cumulative impact of a
number of points leads to the conclusion that Luke is responsible for these
two verses.
First, the vocabulary indicates Lukan redaction.4 Secondly, 7.21 is an
awkward addition into the context.5 Thirdly, it is probably Luke who is
responsible for the aorist, "you saw and heard" in 7.22 (eiSexe Kal
r|Kouaaie, cf. Luke 1023—4/Matthew 13.16—17), so that the disciples of
John can indeed report specifically what they had seen and heard.6 Our
conclusion then is that the Q tradition is best preserved in Matthew, and
that Luke is responsible for the reference to Jesus' healings "from . . . evil
spirits" (Luke 7.21).7 On this we shall comment further in a moment.
The introduction to this pericope8 indicates that Q understood John's
question as arising out of the activity of Jesus (ia egya in Matthew 11.2
and jrepi jtavtcov toutcov in Luke 7.18). John the Baptist inquires: "Are you
he who is to come, or shall we look for another?" (Matthew 11.4/Luke
7.19). In his reply Jesus directs attention to what can be seen and heard —
including the healing miracles. But, it is not that Jesus is simply appealing
to the miraculous to prove his status; he is helping John to see that the
kingdom had come. Indeed the passage Jesus is said to echo (Isaiah 35.5
and 6a "then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the
deaf unstopped; then shall the lame man leap like a hart") illustrates this
very point. This passage makes no reference to a messianic figure 9 but
only to the state of affairs in the New Age.
It is this state of affairs that Jesus is said to want John to notice. Even
in the allusion to Isaiah 61.1 (Matthew 11.5/Luke 7.22, cf. also Isaiah

SYSTECO, 1980); Fitzmyer Luke I, 669; W. Wink "Jesus' Reply to John Matt 11:2-6/
Luke 7:18-23" Forum 5 (1989) 121-8.
2 On Luke's avoidance of repetition see HJ. Cadbury The Style and Literary Method of
Luke (New York: Kraus, 1969) 83-90.
3 Schürmann Lukas. I, 410 n. 18.
4 n a p a y i v o | i a i (IISE 79); 6e (Cadbury Style 142ff.); avt|p (Hawkins Horae Synop-
ticae 16); npo<; (USE 81; cf. Hawkins Horae Synopticae 21 and 45); perhaps gv EKeivß
TFL 4JP<JT (cf. Black Aramaic 109>, Qeparoixo GOTO (Hawkins Horae Synopticae 19 and 41;
Marshall Luke 291>, Jiveu|iäxuv novi^pSv (also at 8.2; 1126 [par. Matt 1Z451 Acts 19J2,
13, 15, 16; Mark also does not use the phrase. Cf. Marshall Luke 291); / a p i ^ o n a i (in
the Gospels, Luke = 3, cf. Marshall Luke 291).
5 Cf. Marshall Luke 290; Stein ZNW 61 (1970) 78.
6 Cf. Creed Luke 106 and W. Manson Luke 78f.
7 Cf. Polag Q 40.
8 Discussed in more detail in Schulz Q 190f.
9 R.T. France Jesus and the OT (London: Tyndale, 1971) 96. Contrast Ps 146.7b-8a.
120 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

29.18—19) all reference to the One bringing the good news is dropped so
that what is emphasized is not the messenger but the good news which is
being preached to the poor.10 But, as the climax of the core of the reply
comes with a reference to Isaiah 61.1 there is the hint that Jesus is not
without importance in the activities of the eschatoa For, as Stanton says,
"it is not God himself bur the one anointed with God's spirit who
announces good tidings to the poor — Jesus."11 This conclusion is enhanced
by the climax of the pericope (Matthew 11.6/Luke 7.23) which appro-
priately refers to Jesus possibly hindering people perceiving the new state
of affairs. Thus, for Q, the miracles and Jesus' preaching show that the
kingdom has come and, in turn, this reflects on the identity of the One
who performs the miracles and preaches to the poor.
Matthew and Luke take up this perspective, but with their own
particular interests. While Q seems to have placed this pericope in a con-
text that emphasized Jesus' person and authority,12 Matthew has placed it
in the context of the coming of the kingdom (chaps. 11—13) so that Jesus
and the kingdom are twin themes and in turn Jesus is the Christ in word
and deed.13 Luke has made the significant addition of 121 — "In that hour
he cured many of diseases and plagues and evil spirits and to many blind
he gave sight."14 This addition highlights Jesus' command to tell of what
John's disciples had seen and heard. But, it also directs more attention to
what Jesus was doing and turns the miracles into proofs of Jesus'
status.15 For our present study it is to be noted that Luke includes the cure
of people from evil spirits as part of the evidence or proof that Jesus is
the Coming One. If we note 1018 (see §13 below, cf. 4.40) it may be that
Luke wants to mark out exorcism as particularly important in his
understanding of the kingdom. This relationship between exorcism, the
person of Jesus, and the kingdom will be explored in chapter IV below.

10 Cf. Harvey Trial 9 and n. 21; also his Contraints 112. On the vexed question of the id-
entity of the poor see, e.g. DP. Seccombe Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts (Linz:
SNTU, 1982).
11 G.N. Stanton "On the Christology of Q" in B. Lindars and SS. Smalley (eds.) Christ
and Spirit in the NT (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973) 30, cf. 32. Cf.
Dunn Jesus 60f_
12 On the order of Q see V. Taylor "The Original Order of Q" in NT Essays (London:
Epworth, 1970) 95-118.
13 Held in Bornkamm, Barth and Held Tradition 251.
14 Schürmann (Lukas. I, 410 n. 18) thinks that Matthew is following his custom of
abbreviating his source so that Luke 7.21 would have been found in Q. But the signs
of Lukan editing tip the balance in favour of this being a Lukan creation (cf.
Marshall Luke 290f.).
15 Cf. Conzelmann Luke 191. This is the view which has dominated the understanding of
Jesus' miracles. See John Locke Works (London: Tegg, Sharp and Son, 1823) "To
convince men of this [his messiahship] he did his miracles: and their assent to, or not
assenting to this, made them to be, or not to be, of his church" 7:7-18.
 § 12 Jesus ' Answer to John the Baptist 121

If Luke is responsible for 7.21 then this pericope can tell us very little
about Jesus' understanding of his exorcisms. But, what of the historicity of
the remainder of the passage? F.W. Beare says that "the words of Jesus are
cast in a poetical structure, and may have originated as a Christian hymn
of praise for the wonders of the Messianic age."16 However, such structure
may in fact be more indicative of the ipsissima verba of Jesus than the
creativity of the early Christians.17 Bultmann says that "in all probability
the Baptist's question is a community product and belongs to those pas-
sages in which the Baptist is called as a witness to the Messiahship of
Jesus."18 However, it is very unlikely that the early Church would have
created a tradition in which one of the major witnesses was seen, even as
a foil, to doubt Jesus' mission. Further, Dunn has thoroughly explored the
question of the historicity of this interchange and concludes that,
"question and answer fit so neatly within the life-situation of Jesus and lack coherence
if either or both were first prompted by a post-Easter situation, that the substance at
least of the account must be regarded as historical. Jesus' words in [Matthew 11] <vv.4—6
only really make sense as an answer to such a question posed by disciples of the
Baptist."19

If this conclusion is correct, then it provides an important corrective or

balance to the saying in Matthew 12.28/Luke 11.20. There his exorcisms are
the focus of attention in relation to the kingdom. Here it is the healings,
and particularly his preaching to the poor, in which God's eschatological
reign is evident for Jesus.20

16 Beare Matthew 257.

17 Jeremias Theology 14-27, esp. 20-1.
18 Bultmann History 23. See also Fridrichsen Miracle 97-102.
19 Dunn Jesus 60.
20 Note Dunn Jesus 60ff_ Cf. Bultmann History 126.
 § 13 The Disciples' Mission(s)1
Mark 6.7-12, 30/Matthew 10.1-15/Luke 9.1-6; 101-11,17-20

It is beyond the scope of this present study to investigate the ministry of

exorcism in the Christian community after Easter.2 But, we need to in-
clude at least a brief examination of the mission charge for it may reflect
something of the historical Jesus' understanding of his exorcisms, and the
relationship between them and those of the disciples. Four different reports
of the Disciples' Missions have come down to us. The key sections read:

Matthew 101 Mark 6.7 Luke 91

(1) And calling (7) And he called (1) And calling

his twelve disciples the twelve and began the twelve together
he gave them to send them out two he gave them power
authority over by two and gave them and authority over
unclean spirits to authority over the all the demons and
cast them out and to unclean spirits. to heal diseases.
heal every disease
and every infirmity. Luke 1017-20

(17) The seventy

[two] returned with
joy saying; "Lord,
even the demons are
subject to us in
your name." (18) And
he said to them;
"I saw Satan like
lightning from
heaven falling. (19)
Behold I have given
you authority to

1 Literature: Schürmann Lukas. I, 498f.; Jeremias Theology 231; Pesch Markus. I, 331f.;
Gnilka Markus I, 236; JD.M. Derrett "Peace, Sandals and Shirts (Mark 6:6b-13 par)'
HeyJ 24 (1983) 253-65; Fitzmyer Luke I, 755; Fitzmyer Luke II, 849-50, 864 and Fitz-
myer Luke the Theologian: Aspects of his Teaching (New York: Paulist, 1989) 164-9;
Drewermann Markus. I, 390-404; Guelich Mark I, 318-24; Stock Method 179-8L The
brief nature of the following discussion does not warrant including the rather
extensive texts.
2 See Twelftree Christ chap. IV.
 § 13 The Disciples'Missionfs) 123

Matthew 10J Mark 6.7 Luke 1017-20

tread upon serpents

and scorpions, and
over all the power
of the enemy, and
nothing in any way
shall hurt you. (20)
Nevertheless do not
rejoice in this that
the spirits are
subject to you, but
rejoice that your
names are written in
heaven."

Hahn has convincingly shown that this variety of traditions arose from
just two sources.3 Mark 6.7—12 is one account followed by Luke in
chapter 9, and the other is Luke 10, probably Q.4 Matthew 10.1—14 is to be
seen as a conflation of these two accounts.5 The question arises: Do these
two traditions represent one common mission discourse or two? From the
pattern of the two traditions which are roughly paralleled in Mark and
Luke it is probably best to see just one source behind these two
traditions.6 And when, in 22.35, Luke refers back to instructions given to
the Twelve he alludes not to 9.11—12 but to 10.4,7 the mission of the
Seventy (Two).8
L In view of the contributions on this material by F.W. Beare (see n. 5)
above) it is pertinent that we should ask if Jesus ever sent his disciples out
on mission before Easter. On the basis of the witness of more than one
tradition, T.W. Manson said that "the mission of the disciples is one of the
best attested facts in the life of Jesus."9 But, as we have just noted, these
traditions probably go back to a common source. And, on the other hand,
Beare says, "that if such a mission took place, the Gospels tell us next to
nothing about it. In Matthew especially, . . . the whole story (as apart from

3 F.C Hahn Mission in the NT (London: SCM, 1965) 41-6 also Jeremias Theology 231.
4 Hahn Mission 41ff; cf. D. Lührmann "The Gospel of Mark and the Sayings Collection
Q" JBL 108 (1989) 62.
5 Schramm Markus-Stoff 26-9 and Hahn Mission 41; F.W. Beare "The Mission of the
Disciples and the Mission Charge: Matthew 10 and Parallels" JBL 89 (1970) 2\ Jeremias
Theology 231
6 Hahn Mission 42ff_
7 Marshall Luke 412; see also T.W. Manson Sayings 74.
8 On the reading of 6uo see esp. Metzger Commentary 150f.; and "Seventy or Seventy-
Two Disciples" NTS 5 (1958-9) 299-306; cf. also Beare JBL 89 (1970) 1 a 1.
9 Sayings 73; cf. G.B. Caird "Uncomfortable Words II Shake off the Dust from your
Feet (Mk. 6:11)" ExpTim 81 (1969-70) 41 - "The mission charge is better attested than
any other part of the gospel record."
124 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

the charge) shrinks to the words: These twelve Jesus sent out' (10.5); and
Mark and Luke add only that they come back and reported success."10
Beare agrees with Bultmann that the missionary charge must, in the end,
be included among the material produced by the Church.11
Yet there are clear hints in this material that it did not arise in the
early Church.
(a) Of the two traditions (Mark 6.7—13 and Luke 101—11, [17—20]) the
most primitive one is probably Luke's12 and it is noticeable that Mark felt
that the stringent requirements of the commission (as in Luke 10.4) were
inappropriate for his church.13 The wholly negative character of Luke 10.4
is particularly appropriate to the Palestinian Sitz im Leben.u The directive
not to salute anyone on the road is so out of harmony with common
courtesy in the East that its origin in the post-Easter community is un-
likely.15
(b) What the disciples are to proclaim is the kingdom of God.16 If the
theme of the disciples' message had originated after Easter we might
expect it to have been "Jesus" rather than the kingdom of God. The
absence of any Christology in the disciples' message makes it probable
that we have here a piece of pre-Easter tradition.17
(c) The Palestinian milieu of the personification of peace ("a son of
peace" 18) and shaking off the dust from their feet19 also point to the
pre-Easter origin of at least some of this material.20 Thus, even if the
framework of the mission charge has been supplied by the early Church,21
we have here clear evidence that Jesus most probably sent disciples out on
mission prior to Easter.22
2. The next question that requires our attention is, Did the disciples'
mission charge contain specific instruction to cast out demons? The
question arises because one of the sources (Mark 6.7) has Jesus giving the
disciples authority over the unclean spirits (cf. Mark 3.15) while the other
source (Q/Luke 10.9) has Jesus mentioning only healing the sick. Mark

10 Beare JBL 89 (1970) 12.

11 Beare JBL 89 (1970) D. Bultmann History 145; contrast Jeremias Theology 133.
12 Hahn Mission 43; cf. Beare JBL 89 (1970) 10; Bultmann History 145.
13 Caird ExpTim 81 (1969-70) 4L
14 To the contrary see P. Hoffmann Studien zur Theologie der Logionquelle (Münster
Aschendorff, 1972) 312-31 and Schulz Q 415.
15 BS. Easton Luke (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1926) 160.
16 Further see Kümmel Promise 22ff„ 105ff_
17 Cf. Jeremias Theology 232
18 See Str-B II, 166.
19 See Str-B I, 571; cf. Caird ExpTim 81 (1969-70) 41
20 Cf. Jeremias Theology 232 and n. 1
21 Marshall Luke 413.
22 Cf. Hengel Charismatic Leader 74.
 § 13 The Disciples' Mission(s) 125

may have added the reference to exorcism23 for in view of Luke 10.17
where the returning disciples tell of their success in exorcism, Luke
probably would not drop any such reference from his source. Thus, it
appears that' no such charge was given to the disciples. However, while it
is difficult to show that a specific charge to exorcise was given to the
disciples it is not difficult to show that the disciples probably involved
themselves in exorcism.
First, we have seen that the pre-Markan and historical tradition in Mark
9.14—29 assumed the disciples' ability to cast out demons. Secondly, Mark
himself believed the disciples to be exorcists (3.15; 6.7, 13). Thirdly, the
Strange Exorcist pericope assumes that the followers of Jesus were
exorcists (Mark 9.38/Luke 9.49). Fourthy, the return of the Seventy (Two)
mentions the disciples being given "power over the enemy" which, as we
will see, probably was at least of Palestinian origin (Luke 10.19). This
variety of evidence is support for assuming that the disciples probably
were involved in exorcism before Easter,24 even though we cannot recover
a specific charge of Jesus to do so. We could add, in view of Jesus' send-
ing the disciples out to preach the kingdom of God, and the connection he
made between the kingdom of God and the fall of Satan's kingdom and
exorcism (see chaps. IV and VI below), that Jesus would have assumed
that his command to preach the kingdom would have involved a ministry
of exorcism.
3. What then of the disciples' return? Are there any historical reminis-
cences in the accounts of the disciples' return (Mark 6.30/Luke 10.17—20)?
The Markan revision betrays the Evangelist's hand to such an extent that
it appears to be predominantly redactionaL25 As Mark is not in the habit
of inventing details for literary purposes,26 we can perhaps1 say that at least
a mention of the disciples' return was in Mark's tradition — but no more.
Even the two-part report on what the disciples had done and taught may
be from Mark's hand for, as we have seen (§6 above), he is intent on
holding both aspects together, at least in Jesus' mission. We must then rely
on Luke 10.17—20 to gain insight into the history of this tradition.
The case for recognizing this as coming from Luke's hand has not
often been proposed,27 nor is it generally thought to be from his source

23 Mark shows a distinct interest in exorcism. See Twelftree Christ 116-22.

24 Cf. Jeremias Theology 95; Hengel Charismatic Leader 73-4.
25 Cf. Taylor Mark 318.
26 Taylor Mark 318.
27 A relatively recent champion of this view has been Hoffmann Logionquelle 248ff.
The key to this case is that Luke 10J is Lukan. But this being redaction may have
no bearing on Luke 10.17-19 which Luke could have drawn from one of his sources.
Hoffmann also says that 1017-20 fits Luke's theology of mission. This argument
however can show no more than that he has included material that is in line with
126 III Jesus The Exorcist: The New Testament Data

"L".28 Rather it is more likely to be a compilation of material from

tradition (verses 18 and 19) and Luke's hand.29 The Palestinian elements in
the pericope30 suggest an early origin for this material, as especially does
the connection between exorcism and the fall of Satan, a connection which
the early Church did not maintain. It is quite likely, then, that this report
is conveying historically reliable material.
Of particular interest is 1018 — "I saw Satan like lightning from heaven
falling." As this is an unusual report, in that Jesus is said to experience a
vision,31 and because of the strangeness of language, it is often taken to be
a reliable reflection of Jesus' words.32 This verse has been taken to refer to
a number of different things.33 For example, C.J. Cadoux says it is possible
that we have here another allusion to the Temptations. But such a view is
only possible if one begins with the assumption that the victory over
Satan was represented in the Temptations.34 Edward Langton says that it
has been referred "to the original fall of the angels, to which so many
references are made in Jewish apocalyptic literature.''35 Such a view is only
possible if the verse is considered to be a saying detached from the
present context.36 However, authentic Jesus sayings in the Beelzebul Con-
troversy (see §10 above) so relate exorcism and the fall of Satan that we
would expect Luke 10.18 to be in its present context.

his theology of mission. S. Jellicoe ("St. Luke and the 'Seventy [-Two! " NTS 8 [1960-1]
319-21) argues that it is Lukan in that Luke's love of the LXX led him to use the
Letter of Aristeas - "Just as the seventy-two emissaries of Aristeas had, by their
translation, brought the knowledge of the Law to the Greek-speaking world, so the
seventy (-two) are divinely commissioned to proclaim its fulfilment in the Gospel
message" (321). See also S. Jellicoe "St. Luke and the Letter of Aristeas" JBL 89 (1961)
149-55, followed by G. Sellin "Komposition, Quellen und Function des Lukanischen
Reisebrichtes (Lk. 9.51-19.28)" No vT 20 (1978) 115.
28 T.W. Manson Sayings 73ff; A M Hunter The Work and Words of Jesus revised
edition (London: SCM, 1973) 203 and 208; G.B. Caird The Gospel of St Luke (Har- '
mondsworth: Penguin, 1963) 144. That the passage comes from Q see BJL Streeter The
Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (London: Macmillan, 1924) 289f. and 291 and in W.
Sanday (ed.) Studies in the Synoptic Problem (Oxford: Qarendon, 1911) 192 and J.C.
Hawkins in Sanday (ed.) Studies 135. To the contrary see Kloppenborg Formation of Q.
29 Cf. Bultmann History 158 n. 1; Fitzmyer Luke II, 859.
30 A. Schlatter Das Evengelium des Lukas (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1960) 281. Note also Str-B
II, 167f.
31 On the visions of Jesus see Kümmel Promise 133 and n. 27; cf. Fitzmyer Luke the
Theologian 166-9.
32 Note Kümmel Promise 133f. and notes; J. Jeremias Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980) 187-9.
33 Besides the two mentioned here see also, e.g. Jeremias Parables 122 n. 33.
34 CJ. Cadoux The Historic Mission of Jesus (London: Lutterworth, 1941) 66. Contrast
W. Foerster TDNT VII, 157 and n. 28.
35 Langton Essentials 170.
36 As does Kümmel Promise 113.
 § 13 The Disciples' Mission(s) 127

On the face of it this verse seems to convey the idea that Jesus had
seen Satan's speedy and complete defeat.37 On closer investigation the
verse probably tells a different story. To begin with, the modern eye
regards the metaphor of lightning as conveying the idea of light, but
above all speed. However, on the other occasions this word is used in the
New Testament the accent is not on speed but on brightness (Matthew
24.27; 28.3; Luke 11.36; 17.24; Revelation 4.5; 8.5; 1119 and 16.18). This is
especially the case in Revelation where the term is used of the stunning
and arresting brightness of God's activity with duration and speed being of
no particular significance. Thus, for Satan to fall like lightning would not
necessarily mean that his fall had been speedy or complete, but that it was
both manifestly obvious and stunning. We should not make too much of
the Greek tenses of this verse (eGeatpouv imperfect; Jteoovta aorist par-
ticiple) but, in its being linked with exorcism, this obvious and stunning
fall of Satan would seem to be considered an on-going process.38 If this is
correct then this pericope, particularly Luke 10J.8, tells us that Jesus
viewed even his disciples' exorcisms as linked with the fall of Satan. In
turn, this reflects back on the Spirit/finger saying (Matthew 12.28/Luke
11.20) to confirm, indirectly, the notion that Jesus saw his exorcisms as
having eschatological significance. Here is a view, expressed by Jesus, and
without parallel in contemporary Judaism, that the vanquishing of Satan
was taking place in the present,39 rather than being complete.40

37 So Jeremias Parables 122 and E. Linnemann Parables of Jesus (London: SPCK, 1966)
102.
38 Cf. Moule Idiom 206.
39 See also Jeremias Theology 95.
40 As does S. Vollenweider " 'Ich sah den Satan wie einen Blitz vom Himmel fallen' (Lk
10:18)" ZNW 79 (1988) 187-203.
 § 14 The Brief Summary Reports

Apart from the longer stories we have been examining, there are also
generalizing summaries of Jesus' ministry in the Gospels and Acts which
mention exorcism and which we need to consider briefly. These summar-
ies in the Gospels are at Mark 1.32—4 (/Matthew 816—17/Luke 4.40—1>,
Mark 1.39 (/Matthew 4.24/Luke 4.44) and Mark 3.7—12 (/Matthew
4.24—5/12.15—16/Luke 617-19). In Acts 1038 Luke says Jesus "went about
doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil,
because God was with him." If these brief statements are to contribute to
our sketch of the historical Jesus then we must ask about the origin of
this material.
L Mark 132—4} The objection of Vincent Taylor's that this pericope is
not a summary statement such as 3.7—12 because it is connected with a
particular time and place2 need not detain us. It holds only in part, for the
healing activity of Jesus is clearly summarized, introducing new infor-
mation in a general and non-specific fashioa There is a mixture of
redaction and pre-Markan tradition in this passage which may well reflect
historical happenings.3 However, the reference to demons and exoricsm
("the demon-possessed" [1.32]; "and he would not let the demons speak
because they knew him" [1.34D are generally agreed to be redactional
rather than historical data.4 It is best, then, for us to set this pericope aside
in our search for authentic historical material
2. Mark 139.5 It is generally agreed that this verse comes from Mark's

1 Literature: Pesch Markus. I 136; Gnilka Markus I, 85; Guelich Mark I, 63. On the
sum- mary reports in Mark see W. Egger Frohbotschaft und Lehre: Sammelberichte
des Wirkens Jesu im Markusevangelium (Frankfurt: Knecht, 1976); CW. Hedrick "The
Role of 'Summary Statements' in the Composition of the Gospel of Mark: A Dialogue
with Karl Schmidt and Norman Perrin" NovT 26 (1984) 289-311 and notes.
2 Taylor Mark 180. On the nature of the summaries see Hedrick NovT 26 (1984) 293-4
and 311
3 Gnilka Markus I, 85-6; Pesch Markus. I, 135; cf. Best Disciples 181.
4 E.g. Schweizer Mark 54; Gnilka Markus I, 86 and n. 1; Pesch Markus. I, 133-5. See also
those mentioned in Pryke Style 11. Though, to the contrary see Guelich Mark I, 63-4.
5 Literature: Pesch Markus. I, 140; Gnilka Markus I, 87-9; Guelich Mark I, 67.
 § 14 The Brief Summary Reports 129

hand 6 so we must also put it aside in our search for material that can be
traced back to the Sitz im Leben of Jesus' earthly ministry.
3. We are again in a similar position with Mark 37—121 as it is prob-
ably entirely redactionaL8 Nevertheless, Keck and Schweizer, for example,
have argued for the details of the setting being a core of traditional
material (3.7 and 8).9 However, a Sitz im Leben for such material would be
difficult to imagine.10 In any case, these two verses tell us nothing about
Jesus and exoricsm.
4. Acts 1038. In discussing this verse we must take into account the fact
that we are dealing with material that forms part of a speech in Acts; a
subject on which there has been considerable debate.11 In what has been
called one of the most important and influential studies of the subject ever
to have appeared,12 Dibelius argued that Luke composed the speeches as
well as provided their structure.13 In particular, 10.38 is part of Peter's
speech (10.34—43) which Dibelius argued to have been certainly contri-
buted by Luke, on the grounds that it is unlikely that thé early Church
would have a place for a relatively long speech in a legend about the
conversion of a centurion.14 In any case, we do not need to pursue this
debate, for the material certainly does not originate in the ministry of the
earthly Jesus but in the life of the early Church.
This brief, cursory discussion of the summary reports in the Gospels
and Acts establishes that none of the material relating to Jesus and exor-
cism can be shown to have most probably originated in the life of the
historical Jesus. Therefore, we must leave it aside when we come to sketch
our picture of the historical Jesus. Nevertheless, this data does show that
the early Church remembered Jesus as an exorcist and that exercism was
a distinctive and important part of his ministry.15

6 Schweizer Mark 54; Gnilka Markus I, 88; Guelich Mark I, 70.

7 Literature: Pesch Markus. I, 202; Gnilka Markus I, 132; CR. Kazmierski Jesus, the Son
of God (Würzburg: Echter, 1979>, Guelich Mark I. 14L
8 Best Following 36 and n. 55.
9 L£. Keck "Mark 3.7-12 and Mark's Christology" JBL 84 (1965) 341-58; Schweizer
Mark 79; and Pesch Markus. I, 198 who considers all of Mark 3.7-12 to be pre-Markan.
10 Best Following 36 and n. 55; Keck JBL 84 (1965) 341-58 whose critics are listed by
Best in Following 49 n. 55. See also Nineham Mark 112.
11 Literature: Fp. Bruce "The Speeches in Acts - Thirty Years After" in RJ. Banks (ed.)
Reconciliation and Hope (Exeter Paternoster, 1974) 53-68 and GJLR. Horsley "Speeches
and Dialogue in Acts" NTS 32 (1986) 609-14. On the speech in particular see F
Neirynck "Ac 1036-43 et l'Evangile" ETL 60 (1984) 109-17.
12 Bruce in Banks (ed.) Reconciliation 56.
13 M Dibelius "The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography" (1949) in his Studies
in the Acts of the Apostles (ed.) H Greeven (London: SCM, 1956) 138-85.
14 Dibelius Studies 110.
15 See also Best Disciples 181.
 IV
Jesus the Exorcist

§ 15 Historical Method

So far we have done two things. In chapter II we set out the background
against which we can view the Gospel material relating to Jesus as an
exorcist. Then, in the last chapter, we attempted to identify and set aside
probable Christian redaction in the principal data relating to Jesus the
exorcist. In turn, we were able to attempt to reconstruct the earliest re-
coverable reports of this aspect of the ministry of the historical Jesus. In
order to do this we often had to address the inseparable question of
historicity so that in some cases we have already drawn conclusions on the
questions of historicity.
Nevertheless, our task now is to focus on the question of historicity.
We need to subject these reconstructed reports to historical critical exam-
ination to see what data, not as yet discussed, may have originated from
the earliest reports of those who witnessed the ministry of Jesus. So, an
important question we must now discuss is, What criteria can we use to
help identify probable authentic historical tradition in the Jesus stories?
There has been a great deal of discussion about the recovery of the
sayings of the historical Jesus. This discussion has given rise to a series of
well known, often discussed and variously modified, so-called "criteria" for
identifying such sayings. Dennis Polkow has rightly suggested a hierarchy
of criteria. (1) First, discounting redaction and (2) tradition. Secondly,
authentic material must pass the test of the primary criteria: (3) dis-
similarity,1 (4) coherence and (5) multiple attestation. Then, the secondary
criteria can be applied to material: (6) Palestinian context, (7) material

1 This criterion has been most widely used. See GA. Evans "Authenticity Criteria in
Life of Jesus Research" Christian Scholar's Review 19(1989) 6-31; CA. Evans Life of
Jesus Research: An Annotated Bibliography (Leiden: Brill, 1989) 107-8; Hollenbach
BTB 19 (1989) 15-16. We can note a modification of the criterion of dissimilarity or
discontinuity by Turner Historicity 74. He says:
"Where there is an overlap of interest between the Gospels and early Church, but
a marked difference in the scale of treatment, we can be reasonably sure that we
are on firm historical ground."
He goes on:
"Instances might be the Church, or the community of the disciples, and the
passages which bear upon our Lord's Mission to the Gentiles."
 §15 Historical Method 131

consistent with the style, form, function and content of Jesus' ministry and
(8) scholarly consensus.2 These are so-called "criteria" for, as Ben F. Meyer
pointed out to me in private correspondence, they are merely patterns of
inference or indicators of historicity.
In the present study, our concern is not with the authenticity of the
sayings of Jesus but with the historicity of narratives or reports of his
activities. So far, little specific work has been done on tools for this task
in the context of the search for the historical Jesus.3
In the search for and reconstruction of authentic sayings of Jesus it is,
at least theoretically, possible to recover if not the ipsissima verba then at
least the ipsissimus sensus of Jesus.4 However, with narrative material we
can never recover or recreate the underlying event in its complex entirely,
that is lost to us in the irrecoverable past In the stories we can never
penetrate beyond the dimension and limits of interpretation and the
selective reporting of those who first related an alleged event. We are
restricted to judging whether or not, and in what way, the earliest re-
constructable report, or event-description, might reflect an event in the life
of historical Jesus.5
Nevertheless, taking into account the difference between sayings and
narrative material and the varying value of the criterion, the same criteria
can be used as tools to test the historical veracity of narrative material.

2 D. Polkow "Method and Criteria for Historical Jesus Research" in K i l Richards (ed.)
SBLSP (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 336-56. Cf. R. Latourelle "Authenticité historique
des miracles de Jésus: Essai de criteriologie" Gregorianum 54 (1973) 225-62; R U Stein
"The 'Criteria' for Authenticity" in R.T. France and D. Wenham (eds.) Gospel Per-
spectives I (Sheffield: JSOT, 1980) 225-63; ME. Boring "Criteria of Authenticity. The
Lucan Beatitudes As a Test Case" Forum 1 (1985) 3-38; revised as "The Historical-
Critical Method's 'Criteria of Authenticity': The Beatitudes in Q and Thomas as a Test
Case" in C.W. Hedrick (ed.) The Historical Jesus and the Rejected Gospels Semeia 44
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 9-44; G £ Twelftree "EI AE . . . E r Q EKBAAAQ TA
AAIMONIA. . ." in Wenham and Blomberg (eds.) Gospel Perspectives 6, 370 and
Blomberg "Concluding Reflections on Miracles and Gospel Perspectives" in Wen-
ham and Blomberg (eds.) Gospel Perspectives 6, 445-49; Evans Jesus Research 100-
112. See the discussion "Objectivity and Subjectivity in Historical Criticism of the
Gospels" by B.F. Meyer in his Critical Realism and the NT (Allison Park: Pickwick,
1989) 129-45.
3 Though see Mussner Miracles 27-39; R. Pesch Jesu ureigene Taten? Ein Beitrag zur
Wunderfrage (Freiburg: Herder, 1970) and F. Mussner "Ipsissima facta Jesu?" TRev 68
(1972) cols. 177-85.
4 Cf. Vermes Judaism 81:
"As for the famous ipsissima verba, a quest for these presupposes a degree of re-
liability in gospel tradition that modern research simply cannot justify. . . But is it
not possible nevertheless to grasp at the very least something of a master's teach-
ing? I would suggest that we can manage to perceive his ideas, the ipsissimus sensus,
even without the actual words in which they were formulated".
5 Cf. KD. Betz: "What then is the miracle story? The miracle story is neither the
miracle itself nor talk about the miracle but a narrative with the special assignment
132 IV Jesus The Exorcist

For example, the criterion of multiple attestation can be used.6 If it can be

shown that a type or genre of activity of Jesus — such as his reported
association with women or his table fellowship with outcasts — is attested
in more than one of the Gospel traditions then the probability that this
kind of activity was part of the ministry of the historical Jesus is
considerably enhanced (further, see 2 below). Of course, other criteria will
need to be brought to bear on particular narratives, or parts thereof, to
test their individual reliability. Apart from the careful use of these criteria
I would suggest that there are others that we may use.
The place to begin is with Ernst Troeltsch, whose essay "Líber his-
torische und dogmatische Methode in der Theologie" (1898) remains a
starting point for a discussion of the problem of increasing our knowledge
and understanding of the past.7 In this piece Troeltsch set out three
principles of historical method. First, the principle of criticism or method-
ological doubt (pp. 731—2) which means that the conclusions of a his-
torian cannot be seen as absolute but are only, to a greater or lesser
degree, probabilities, always open to further questioning and revisioa 8 The
second principle, which we will discuss in a moment, is that of analogy (p.
732). There is also, thirdly the principle of correlation or causation (p. 733)
by which a historian supposes that every event has an identifiable cause or
series causes.9

of serving as a kind of language envelope for the transmission and communication of

the 'unspeakable' miracle event" "The Early Christian Miracle Story: Some Obser-
vations on the Form Critical Problem" in R.W. Funk (ed.) Early Christian Miracle
Stories Semeia 11 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978) 70.
Over against M. Mandelbaum, The Anatomy of Historical Knowledge (Baltimore
and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977) and, e.g. L.O. Mink "Narrative
Form as a Cognitive Instrument" in R A Canary and H. Kozicki (eds.) The Writing of
History (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978) 129-49, D. Carr "Narrative and
the Real World: An Argument for Continuity" History and Theory 25 (1986) 117-31
and Time, Narrative and History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986) argues
for the narrative character of human experience, both individual and social, so that a
narrative account is not so utterly different in form from a series of events, nor is
historical narrative condemned to misrepresent or transform events it depicts. Rather,
narrative must be regarded as an extension of the primary features of events or event
series. See also B. Hardy Towards a Poetic of Fiction: An Approach through
Narrative" Novel 2 (1968) 5-14; P. Munz The Shapes of Time (Middletown: Wesleyan
University Press, 1977); F. Olafson The Dialectic of Action (Chicago and London: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 1979); J. Passmore "Narratives and Events" History and
Theory 26 (1987) 68-74; AP. Norman "Telling it like it was: Historical Narratives on
their own Terms" History and Theory 30 (1991) 119-35.
6 See the list in Stein in France and Wenham (eds.) Gospel Perspectives I, 255 n. 13
for those who refer to this criterion.
7 E. Troeltsch Gessammelte Schriften 4 vols. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1913) II, 729-53.
8 Cf. Van A. Harvey The Historian and the Believer (London: SCM 1967) 14.
9 Further see M Bloch The Historian's Craft (Manchester University of Manchester
Press, 1954) chap. 5; E.H. Carr What is History? (London: Macmillan, 1961) chap. 4 and
 § 15 Historical Method 133

L It is to Troeltsch's second, and fundamental, canon of analogy that we

turn to provide us with a valuable tool for our subsequent inquiries.
Troeltsch explains:
"Analogy with what happens before our eyes and what is given within ourselves is the
key to criticism. Illusions, displacements, myth formation, fraud, and party spirit, as we
see them before our own eyes, are the means whereby we can recognize similar things
in what tradition hands down. Agreement with normal, ordinary, repeatedly attested
modes of occurrence and conditions as we know them is the mark of probability for
the occurrence that the critic can either acknowledge really to have happened or leave
on one side. The observation of analogies between past occurrences of the same sort
makes it possible to ascribe probability to them and to interpret the one that is
unknown from what is known of the other."10

This principle has been taken up and restated by other historians. For
example, Marc Bloch puts it: "In the last analysis, whether consciously or
no, it is always by borrowing from our daily experiences and by shading
them, where necessary, with new tints that we derive the elements which
help us to restore the past."11
However, this principle has been severely criticized. As Troeltsch
expounded it the principle of analogy required that there be a "fun-
damental homogeneity" (Gleichartigkeit) of all historical events (p. 732).
Pannenberg has explained that, for Troeltsch this means that "all differ-
ences should be comprehended in a uniform, universal homogeneity."12
However, this means that the historian's world-view dominates that of the
past Yet, it is most probable that no historical event can be contained,
without remainder, by a contemporary or ancient analogue nor that a
historian's knowledge and present experience contains all the possibilities
of human existence.13

P. Gardiner The Nature of Historical Explanation (Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1961) Part I1L
10 Troeltsch Gesammelte Schriften II, 732, quoted in W. Pannenberg Basic Questions in
Theology I (London: SCM, 1970) 43-4.
11 Bloch Craft 44. Cf. D. Hume, "The maxim by which we commonly conduct ourselves
in our reasonings is that the objects of which we have no experience resemble those
of which we have. . ." On Human Nature and the Understanding ed. with a new
introduction by A. Flew (London: Collier Macmillan, 1962) 12L Cf. also W. Dilthey,
"If I am to see [a past humanl . . as a person, to understand his mental life in its
continuity and coherence, I must trace in his experience the lines of connection
with which I am familiar in my own. I can do this in proportion as the con-
sciousness of my own mental structure is present in and governs my understand-
ing of his."
Gesammelte Schriften 12 vols. (Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner and Gdttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1958) VII, 214. From Harvey Historian 98.
12 Pannenberg Questions I, 46.
13 Cf. Pannenberg Questions I, 45-6. Cf. his Jesus - God and Man (London: SCM, 1968)
109, ". . . historical inquiry always takes place from an already given context of
meaning, out of a preunderstanding of the object of inquiry, which, however, is
modified and corrected in the process of research on the basis of the phenomena
examined."
134 IV Jesus The Exorcist

This brings us to the important point that a distinction is to be drawn

between the positive and negative use of the principle of analogy.14 A
positive use of this tool means that if an analogue can be found for the
historical event in question then the historian's verdict can be in favour of
its historicity. On the other hand, however, if no contemporary analogue
can be found, the strict or negative use of the principle of analogy means
that the historian will reject the historicity of the reported event. But, this
is illegitimate for it supposes that there is no variety in history; that
analogous events must be precisely the same in all details.15 This negative
use of the tool is also illegitimate for, again, it supposes that the historian
has at hand all possible and complete analogies and that the world-view of
the historian is to determine the past and dominate his understanding of
it 16
Rather, to rely on Pannenberg again, "to the extent that a datum of
tradition bursts the known possibilities of comparison, it remains opaque
even for the historian who, among all men, is equipped with extra-
ordinary eyepieces for what has been."17
In other words, and in relation to our present enterprise, the canon of
analogy is useful to us in establishing the probable historicity of a
reported event in Jesus' ministry of exorcism only when we have an
analogue at hand. If the analogue is not precise, and there are remainders,
we shall be obliged to examine these further, but not to reject out of hand
either the reported event or the remainders. Also, if no analogue —
contemporary or ancient — can be found, judgement must be reserved and
other canons of authenticity applied to the report. It is to these we now
turn.
2. If an activity of Jesus which we are investigating is referred to,
indirectly or incidentally, we may have a pointer to historical data. Arthur
Marwich stated it in this way: "On the whole it can be said that a primary
source is most valuable when the purpose for which it was compiled is at

14 On what follows see the discussion by T. Peters "The Use of Analogy in Historical
Method" CBQ 35 (1973) 480 and Pannenberg Questions I, 44-50.
15 Cf. E. Meyer "[History writing] is also engaged with typical forms, to be sure, but
predominantly and in the first instance with the varieties" in Pannenberg Questions I,
46 n.87.
16 Cf. RM. Frye "A Literary Perspective for the Criticism of the Gospels" in D.G. Miller
and D.Y. Hadidian (eds.) Jesus and Man's Hope 2 vols. (Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh
Theological Seminary, 1971) II, 199:
"The barbarian blindly asserts the primacy of his own temporal or cultural pro-
vincialism in judging and understanding and interpreting all that occurs, and the
learned barbarian does precisely the same thing, but adds footnotes."
See also H.G. Gadamer "The Continuity of History and the Existential Moment"
Philosophy Today 16 (1972) 230-40, esp. 238.
17 Pannenberg Questions I, 50.
 §15 Historical Method 135
the furthest remove from the purpose of the historian."18 That is, we have
a criterion of incidental transmissionAgain, for example, if the parable
of the Strong Man in the Beelzebul Controversy pericope can be shown to
be authentic we have an incidental reference to Jesus being an exorcist
3. From what we said above, if a class or category of sayings has been
established as belonging to the bedrock of historical material then reported
activities which cohere with this (while not automatically, without further
discussion, thereby established as authentic) can at least be given the
benefit of the doubt in relation to historicity. For example, in relation to
our theme, if some or all of the sayings that are now found in the Beel-
zebul Controversy pericope can be shown, most probably, to have come
from the authentic Jesus tradition then we are predisposed to consider
more favourably the historicity of an exorcism story in the Gospel
tradition than if we were unable to find an authentic saying of Jesus that
assumed that he was an exorcist20 So, we have the criterion of coherence
with reliable sayings material.
4. The witness of extra-canonical material can, with care, be used to
help test the historicity of events behind Gospel narratives. Thus, for ex-
ample, Jesus' choosing disciples is supported by Jewish traditions (b.Sanh.
43a).21
5. Finally, we can take as historically reliable those reports, like the
baptism of Jesus and the crucifixion of Jesus which, at least in the early
stages of the transmission of the tradition, would have been embarrassing
for the early Church to transmit
It is with these principles of historical method in mind that we set out
now to sketch a picture of the historical Jesus the exorcist.

18 A. Marwick The Nature of History (London: Macmillan, 1970) 136.

19 Marwick History 136, draws attention to Henry Guerlac's distinction between the
"intentional record" and the "unwitting testimony" of official records and private
correspondence. (See H. Guerlac "Some Historical Assumptions of the History of
Science" in A.C. Crombie (ed.) Scientific Change (London: Heinemann, 1963). See also
JX>. Milligan 'The Treatment of an Historical Source" in History and Theory 18 (1979)
184.
20 Cf. Pesch Jesu ureigene Taten? 25, 147, 151, 153-4. Matt lZ43/Luke 1124-6 assumes
the notion of exorcism but not that Jesus was an exorcist.
21 See G J i Twelftree "Jesus in Jewish Traditions" in D. Wenham (ed.) Gospel Per-
spectives 5 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984) 289-341.
 § 16 Was Jesus an Exorcist?

The fundamental question which we have so far left in abeyance, but

which only now we have sufficient evidence to answer, is whether or not
the historical Jesus was in fact an exorcist1
To the extent that exorcism is the expelling of evil spiritual beings
from people and, therefore, for some, an incredible form of healing, an
answer to this question will depend on the predisposition of the twentieth
century reader towards accepting reports of miracles as part of the
tradition of the historical Jesus. We need to discuss this issue briefly, for a
number of contemporary and older students of the historical Jesus wish to
delete reports of the supernatural from the Jesus traditioa2 In countering
this view, and so being open to permitting reports of miracles to be part
of the Jesus tradition, we need to question two views in particular.
First, we must call into question the view expressed by Hume. He said
that miracles "are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and
barbarous nations . . ."3 There is plenty of evidence, to which I have drawn
attention elsewhere that, in antiquity, the miraculous was by no means
unquestionably accepted.4 Yet, R.M. Grant has argued that the first century
AD was a period in which credulity increased. However, some of Grant's
evidence is questionable.5 For example, in Antiquities 2.167—70, Josephus
says that the miraclulous promises made by messianic prophets shortly
before the Jewish revolt were surely not characteristic of the age as a
whole. Also, as A.E. Harvey mentions, the note by Pliny in Natural

1 On what follows see also Dunn and Twelftree in Churchman 94 (1980) 211-15, and an
earlier version of some of the material in this section in Twelftree in Wenham and
Blomberg (eds.) Gospel Perspectives 6, 361-400.
2 E.g. W. Bousset Kyrios Christos (New York and Nashville: Abingdon, 1970) 100; M
Grant Jesus (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1977) 39. See the discussion in J.
Engelbrecht "Trends in Miracle Research" Neotestamentica 22 (1988) 139-61.
3 Hume On Human Nature (ed.) Flew 123. Cf. RJ. Sider "The Historian, The Miraculous
and Post-Newtonian Man" SJT 25 (1972) 309-19; M Maher "Recent Writings on the
Miracles" New Blackfriars 56 (658, 1975) 165-74; R. Young "Miracles and Credulity"
RetS 16 (1980) 465-8; D. Odegard "Miracles and Good Evidence" RelS 18 (1982) 37-46.
4 See Twelftree Christ chap. V. Cf. Harvey Constraints 101-2 who draws attention to
other primary evidence. Contrast Best Disciples 179.
5 See Harvey Constraints 102 n. 2L
 §16 Was Jesus an Exorcist? 137

History 31.18—24 ("in Judaea rivus sabbatis omnibus siccatus"), "is prob-
ably no more than a slightly fanciful report of the well-known phe-
nomenon of an intermittent spring, of which Jerusalem afforded a notable
example."6 Thus, the miracle stories cannot be dismissed simply because
they are viewed as arising in a more credulous world than our own.
Secondly, we must call into question the general point that because of
the milieu of the origin of the Jesus tradition it was inevitable that leg-
endary stories would adhere to the Jesus tradition.7 It is noticeable that
although Jesus lived among contemporaries who were credited with
miraculous powers, the tradition of miracles surrounding Jesus is of a
different order from other ancient miracle traditions. For example, in
contrast to the Gospel traditions, in Jewish traditions miracle workers
were not credited with curing lameness or paralysis.8 Also, the Jewish
traditions know nothing of a rabbi raising the dead.9 Having discussed
points like these Harvey is justified in concluding that, . . the tradition
of Jesus' miracles has too many unusual features to be conveniently
ascribed to conventional legend-mongering. Moreover, many of them
contain details of precise reporting which is quite unlike the usual run of
legends and is difficult to explain unless it derives from some historical
recollection; and the Gospels themselves . . . show a remarkable restraint
in their narratives which contrasts strangely with the delight in the
miraculous for its own sake which normally characterizes the growth of
legend."10
So, we return to the question: was Jesus an exorcist? From the sayings
and narrative material in the Synoptic Gospels I have surveyed it would
seem that we could only conclude that exorcism was a part of the
ministry of the historical Jesus. I can now proceed to draw together
evidence that suggests that Jesus was most probably an exorcist, even
though e^opKiaii]*; is never used of him (cf. Acts 19.13).
L As it is easier to establish the historicity of the sayings material in
the Gospels, we shall begin with the sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic
traditions which presume his ability as an exorcist. In the Beelzebul
Controversy pericope (Mark 3.22—7 and Matthew 12.22—30/Luke 11.14—
23, see §10 above), Q and the Evangelists have brought together two
sayings on exorcism. They are, the saying that Jesus exorcised by the
Spirit of God (Matthew 12.28/Luke 11.20) and the parable of the Strong

6 Harvey Constraints 102 a 21.

7 I have taken up this point from Harvey Constraints 99f.
8 Harvey Constraints 100; cf. Smith Parallels 81-4.
9 Cf. Bultmann History 233.
10 Harvey Constraints 100. Cf. W. Kirchschläger "Wie über Wunder reden?" BLit 51 (1978)
252-4.
138 IV Jesus The Exorcist

Man (Mark 3.27/Matthew 12.29; and Luke 11.21f. [?QD. Luke 13.22 has the
warning to Herod, "Go tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and
perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course
. . .'"" These sayings and the Beelzebul charge, which must be posited
among the indisputably historical elements of the Jesus tradition, only
make sense in the light of Jesus being an exorcist; they presuppose a
ministry of exorcism.12
2. In chapter III we have been able to show that in the Synoptic
traditions there are exorcism stories legitimately associated with the
historical Jesus (Mark 1.21—8, the demoniac in the Capernaum synagogue;
5.1—20, the Syrophoenician woman's daughter, 9.14—29, the epileptic boy
and Matthew 9.32—3/12.22/1222/Luke 11.14, the dumb demoniac).
But what about Luke's story of the healing of Simon's mother-in-law in
Luke 4.38—9? Luke says that Jesus "rebuked the fever and it left her"
(eneiiiJTiaev x© jiupexcp kcxi acprjicev auxrjv, 4.39).13 Yet, a glance at a
Synopsis reveals that Luke's source for this story, Mark L29—31,14 has only
"he came and took her by the hand and lifted her up, and the fever left
her." In other words, Luke's "exorcism" story at 4.38—9 has its origin only
in his own editorial work.
As we said in §5 above, we must also leave aside from consideration
the story in Luke 13.10—17 of the "woman who had a spirit of infirmity"
(yuvr] ttveu[_ia e^ouaa aoGeveiac;). Although some kind of "evil" spirit is
considered to be the cause of the illness, the features of the story are so
different from the traditional exorcism stories that Luke is unlikely to
regard this as an exorcism story.15 We are left, then, with four major
stories and the brief one associated with the Beelzebul Controversy which
have the origin of at least their core in the ministry of the historical Jesus.
3. In the Synoptics and Acts there are also brief generalizing summaries
of Jesus' ministry which show that the early Church assumed that he was
an exorcist (Mark 1.32—4/Matthew 8.16—17/Luke 4.40-1; Mark 1.39/Mat-
thew 4.24/Luke 4.44; Mark 3.7-12/Matthew 4.24-5; 12.15-16/Luke 6.16-
19; 4.41; see §14 above). In Acts 10.38 Luke mentions Jesus "healing

11 Further, and on the historical reliability of these sayings, see §10 above and Twelftree
in Wenham and Blomberg (eds.) Gospel Perspectives 6, 364-5. Cf. Dunn Jesus 44 and
H. Koester Introduction to the NT 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress and Berlin and New
York: de Gruyter, 1982) II, 79.
12 Cf. Latourelle Miracles 167-8.
13 On Jesus standing over the woman see Twelftree in Wenham and Blomberg (eds.)
Gospel Perspectives 6, 394 n. 17.
14 Schramm Markus-Stoff 85-91. On Luke's intention in this pericope see Twelftree
Christ 104.
15 See Twelftree in Wenham and Blomberg (eds.) Gospel Perspectives 6, 394 ns. 11 and
18.
 §16 Was Jesus an Exorcist? 139

everyone under the power of the devil" However, the result of our
investigation was that none of this material can be shown to have most
probably originated in the life of the historical Jesus. What these particular
data show is that at least the early Church believed Jesus to have been an
exorcist
4. Looking outside the New Testament there is further evidence to be
noted which assumes that Jesus was an exorcist.
(a) Names, often of those considered to have been or be powerful
exorcists, were used by other exorcists in their incantations.16 In the New
Testament era the name of Solomon was probably that most widely used
by exorcists (see Pseudo-Philo LAB 60, Josephus Ant. 8.46—9). In Anti-
quities 8.42—9, Josephus illustrates the important implication of using the
"name" of another exorcist. He begins this story by considering Solomon's
prowess in wisdom, cleverness, musical compositions and ability to com-
pose incantations and forms of exorcism. So, to prove Solomon's ability in
"the art used against demons" (Ant. 8.45) Josephus goes on to tell the story
of Eleazar using Solomon's name in an exorcism.
Extra biblical material also shows that Jesus' name was thought to be a
powerful element in incantations for exorcisms. In Contra Celsum, Origen
says of the Christians: ". . . they do not get the power which they seem to
possess by any incantation but by the name of Jesus . . ." (1.6; cf. L67). The
magical papyri also make use of Jesus' name in its formulae: "I adjure you
by the god of the Hebrews Jesu, . . ." (PGM IV.3019f.; cf. IV.1227). To a
lead tablet from Megara R. Wiinsch supplies a lacuna to restore the name
of "Jesus".17 Also, Jewish healers took up Jesus' name into their incanta-
tional repertoire. This is plainly evident in that the rabbis prohibited
healing by Jesus' name.18
Even in the New Testament there is evidence of such practices. In
Mark 9.38 (/Luke 9.49) John comes to Jesus and says, "Teacher, we saw a
man casting out demons in your name . . . " In Acts 19.13 the sons of Sceva
attempt to perform an exorcism with the incantation, "I adjure you by the
Jesus whom Paul preaches." We could perhaps add Matthew's charac-
terization of false prophets who say, "Lord, Lord, did we not . . . cast out

16More widely on the use of Jesus' name in ancient magic see Aune ANRW 11232
(1980) 1545-9. See also S.V. McCasland By the Finger of God (New York: Macmillan,
1951) 110—1L
17 See Eitrem Notes 9 and notes.
18 Cf. t. Hui. 222U j. Sabb. 14.4.14d; j. 'Abod. Zar. 22, b.'Abod. Zar. 27b. On the use of
Jesus' name by Jewish exorcists see D. Chowlson "Das letzte Passahmahl, Christi"
Mémoires de Tacad. imp. des sciences de S. Pétersbourg VII, 41, 1, Petersburg, 1882,
100-107, cited by Fridrichsen Miracle 170 n. 29. On the use of Jesus' name in magic
bowls see Geller JJS 28 (1977) 149-55.
140 IV Jesus The Exorcist

demons in your name, and do many might works in your name?"

(Matthew 122).
The New Testament also shows the Christian community using Jesus'
name in its exorcisms. The Seventy (Two) return with joy saying, "Lord,
even the demons are subject to us in your name!" (Luke 10.17). Acts 16.18
portrays Paul casting out a spirit with the words, "I charge you in the
name of Jesus Christ to come out . . ." And, though later, the longer
ending of Mark is also evidence that the early Church used Jesus' name in
its exorcisms: "And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my
name they will cast out demons . . . " (16.17).
And, finally, on the use of the "name" of Jesus, we can note that later
in the post-apostolic Church Jesus' name was still being used as an
effective means of casting out demons. For example, Arnobius says that
Jesus' name "when heard puts to flight evil spirits" {Adv. Gent. 1.46).19
Therefore, probably one of the strongest pieces of evidence that the
historical Jesus was thought to be an exorcist is the variety of material
showing that Jesus' name was being used by other exorcists.
(b) Apart from mentioning the use of Jesus' name in incantations there
are instances where Jesus is referred to which might betray a tradition
relating to Jesus as an exorcist. The rabbis preserve such a tradition in
b. Sanhedrin 43a: "Jesus was hanged on Passover Eve. Forty days pre-
viously the herald had cried, 'He is being led out for stoning because he
has practised sorcery . . . ' "
As I have argued elsewhere, this tradition need not have originally
referred to Jesus of Nazareth.20 Nevertheless, as we have just noted, in that
Jesus' name was forbidden by the Jews to be used in healing it is possible
evidence that Jesus was considered to be a powerful healer and exorcist
(t. Hul. 222-3; j. Sabb. 14.4; j. lAbod. Zar. 2.2; b. lAbod. Zar. 27b).
Also, Origen quotes a saying of Celsus which may betray a tradition
that Jesus was thought to be an exorcist: "He was brought up in secret and
hired himself out as a workman in Egypt, and after having tried his hand

19 Cf. Justin Dial. 303; 76.6; 85.2; Apology 2.6. The topic of exorcism in the post-
apostolic period is beyond the scope of this present study. See W M Alexander
Demonic Possession in the NT (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902) 129-233; A. Harnack
The Mission and Expansion of Christianity I (London: Williams and Norgate, 1908)
126-46; Wm.W. Everts "Jesus Christ, No Exorcist" BS 81 (1924) 355-62; J.S. McEwin
"The Ministry of Healing" SJT 7 (1954) 133-52; W. Michaelis "Exorzismus" RGG II,
833-4.
20 Twelftree in Wenham and Blomberg (eds.) Gospel Perspectives 5, 319-21. I no longer
think that b. Sank. 43a "is probably an echo of the charge laid against Jesus by the
Pharisees (sic.) preserved in Mark 3.22" Dunn and Twelftree Churchman 94 (1980) 213.
 §16 Was Jesus an Exorcist? 141
at certain magical powers he returned from there, and on account of those
powers gave himself the title of God" (CC 1.38; cf. I.60).21
Even though these pieces of evidence from b. Sanhedrin 43a and Ori-
gen are too late to be of direct value to us they indicate a continuing
tradition that Jesus was thought of as having had considerable success in
the control of demons. This tradition was fostered by the ongoing debate
between Jews and Christians.
So far I have ignored the testimony of the Johannine material. The
Fourth Gospel, epistles and Apocalypse of John say nothing about exor-
cism nor of Jesus being an exorcist In a moment we will draw together
what is an impressive amount and range of kinds of evidence that shows
Jesus was most probably an exorcist. In the light of this evidence it does
not seem reasonable to suggest that the author(s) of the Johannine
material knew nothing of the tradition that Jesus was an exorcist. Rather,
the Johannine literature probably suppresses or ignores this tradition. Can
this be explained?
It cannot be that John was embarrassed about portraying Jesus as a
man of his time, using the healing techniques of his contemporaries.22 For
John is happy to include other techniques familiar to other healers: healing
from a distance (4.46—54) and the use of spittle (91—7).23
On the other hand, a number of aspects of Johannine theology have
probably contributed to the suppression of Jesus' association with exor-
cism. First is the Johannine notion of the function of Jesus' miracles. The
end of an earlier addition of the Gospel than we now have spelt out the
Johannine understanding of the role of the miracles of Jesus as follows.
"Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not
written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his
name" (20.30—1). In other words, for John, the miracles are considered so
to reveal the identity of Jesus that the readers would conclude that he was
the Christ So, not only did John choose spectacular miracles, but miracles
— like the turning of water into wine — which were thought to be the
work of God. By contrast, to associate Jesus with the relatively common
healing of exorcism performed by many other healers would have ap-
peared banaL
A second factor which may have contributed to the Johannine material
not mentioning Jesus being an exorcist may be linked with the playing

21 See also Pislis Sophia 102555, 258; 130.332-5; Hippolytus Refutatio 715, 20 and K.
Berger "Die königlichen Messiastraditionen des Neuen Testaments" NTS 20 (1974) 10 n. 38.
22 So Taylor Mark 17L
23 See §17 below and Twelftree Christ chap. IL On what follows also see Twelftree
Christ 88-90. Cf. Kee Miracle 23L
142 IV Jesus The Exorcist

down of the theme of the kingdtim of God. In the Synoptic Gospels,

exorcism and the kingdom of God are so closely associated that for John
to exclude one probably meant that he felt it necessary to exclude the
other.
Thirdly, in the Synoptic Gospels the defeat of Satan is linked with Jesus'
exorcisms. In John the defeat of Satan is linked with the cross (cf. John
14.30, 1611). This shift in Johannine theology probably carried with it the
need to remove reference to exorcisms, which other Christians had
associated the defeat of Sataa Probably for these reasons the Johannine
material suppresses the tradition that Jesus was an exorcist.
The evidence we have been looking at in this section, which suggests
that Jesus was an exorcist, supports our conclusions throughout chapter III
that we are obliged to place the stories of Jesus as an exorcist within the
traditions of his earthly life. In other words, we are required to agree with
the consensus of scholarly opinion that the historical Jesus was an exor-
cist,24 but, also, that "any historical picture of Jesus that does not include
his activity as exorcist will be a distortion."25

24 E.g. Strauss Life 415-37, esp. 436; Richardson Miracle 68-74; Käsemann in Essays 39-
40; Robinson New Quest chap. VI; Fuller Miracles chap. 2; Perrin Rediscovering 65;
O. Betz What Do We Know about Jesus? (London: SCM, 1968) 58; Hahn Titles 292;
Jeremias Theology 86-92; Böcher Christus 166-70; G. Vermes Jesus the Jew (Glasgow:
Fontana, 1976) 58-65; Dunn Jesus 44; Koester Introduction II, 78-9; Best Disciples 18L
Eitrem Notes 20, cf. 57, who, in defining an exorcist on the basis of the use of
opiat^u oe, suggests that as Jesus does not use the term he was not an exorcist. This,
however, is far too narrow a definition of an exorcist (see chap. II above).
25 Achtemeier CBQ 37 (1975) 49L Contrast Pesch, Jesu ureigene Taten? 17-34, who argues
that while Jesus' own words and Jewish literature testify to Jesus being an exorcist,
the Gospel exorcism stories are so influenced by early Church interests that they
cannot be used to prove that Jesus was an exorcist.
 § 17 Jesus as an Exorcist1

In this study we are trying to make a contribution to our understanding of

the historical Jesus; to sketch a picture of the historical Jesus as an
exorcist As a first step we have been able to establish that the early
Church maintained a tradition of Jesus being an exorcist. An examination
of the data also shows that the historical Jesus was an exorcist with a high
reputation.
In the light of the preceding chapter we can now draw together those
elements in relation to Jesus and exorcism in the Gospel traditions which
we found to be probably historically reliable and rightly belong to the
tradition of the historical Jesus. We are now in a position to answer the
principal motivating question of this book: If Jesus was an exorcist what
did those who saw him at work report of his techniques as an exorcist?

1. The Demoniacs
To begin with, the reported identity of the demoniacs with whom Jesus
came into contact may help us see how Jesus might have been viewed by
his contemporaries. Also, knowing the identity of the demoniacs will con-
tribute to our understanding of the focus of Jesus' ministry.
It is currently popular to argue that possession and mental illness was
"caused, or at least exacerbated by social tension" and was "a socially
acceptable form of oblique protest against, or escape from, oppres-
sion."2 Thus, demoniacs are seen to be socially rootless people, driven to
the margins of society by the social and economic crises in Pales-
tine.3 However, an examination of the Gospel data modifies this view of

1 Cf. Twelftree in Wenham and Blomberg (eds.) Gospel Perspectives 6, 368-83.

2 Derrett Man (ILS.) 14 (1979) 288, citing R Bietenhard "Die Dekapolis von Pompeius bis
Traian: ein Kapitel aus der neutestamentlicher Zeitgeschichte" ZDPV 79 (1963) 24-58
and S.T. Parker "The Decapolis Reviewed" JBL 94 (1975) 437-41; P.W. Hollenbach
"Jesus, Demoniacs, and Public Authorities" JAAR 49 (1981) 575; Theissen Followers Part
Two. Cf. R. Otto The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man (London: Lutterworth,
1943) 43, "a particularly strong wave of demonism had overflowed the world of Pal-
estine" quoted with approval but with no evidence by Theissen Miracle 250.
3 Cf. Theissen Followers 36 and also previous note.
144 IV Jesus The Exorcist

the demoniacs with whom Jesus dealt. This data, being transmitted quite
incidentally (see §15 above), provides us with reliable historical material.
The demoniac in the Capernaum synagogue (Mark-1.21—8) is described
as having an unclean spirit. We suggested above (§6) that the chaotic and
unpredictable character of demoniacs could mean that at times the man
showed no adverse symptoms of his conditioa Or, the demon only re-
vealed itself when confronted by a spiritual enemy. In any case, the Gospel
tradition portrays a man, with no previous symptoms of having an un-
clean spirit, in the mainstream of Jewish society and participating in the
religious life of his community.
The story of the Gadarene demoniac (Mark 5.1—20) reveals a different
picture; he lived on the margins of society among the tombs, perhaps
living in the burial caves (see Numbers 19.11, 16; llQTemple 48.11—13;
49.5—21; 50.3—8 and Acts of Andrew 6; Jerome Letter 10813). To be
"unclean" meant he would have been thought to be rejected by God (cf. m.
Kelim; Isaiah 35.8), unable to enter the Temple or participate in worship or
religious meals.
The crying out and bruising himself with stones may have originated in
a mourning ritual which had got out of hand.4 This is a distinct possibility
in that the story has its setting among burial tombs. That there had been
unsuccessful attempts to restrain the Gadarene demoniac (Mark 5.3—4)
shows that one way violent demoniacs were dealt with was by chaining
them. This may also be a reference to previous unsuccessful attempts by
other exorcists, for this shackling or hobbling has parallels in the magic
bowls.5
Not all demoniacs were cut off from society. The epileptic boy (Mark
9.14—29) appears to have remained with his family. He also appears to
have been sufficiently controllable for him to accompany his father to see
the disciples of Jesus.
The Syrophoenician woman's demonized daughter also remained in a
family situatioa However, the woman does not bring her daughter out of
the home. Can we speculate that the girl was a danger to the public, or
too sick to move or terrified of leaving home? The woman, being
Hellenized, may have been from the leading stratum of society6 — prob-
ably by no means on the margins of society — and found her daughter's
sickness an embarrassment, for the demon-possessed were the focus of
ridicule (cf. Philo In Flaccum 36, 40). And, if being cared for at home is a

4 See Derrett Man (xis) 14 (1979) 287.

5 See the references in MJ. Geller "Jesus' Theurgie Powers: Parallels in the Talmud and
Incantation Bowls" JJS 28 (1977) 141-55.
6 Cf. Theissen ZNW 75 (1984) 202-25.
 §17 Jesus as an Exorcist 145

sign of wealth,7 we perhaps have here, as in the story of the epileptic boy,
evidence that these families may have had financial means above the
average.
From this cursory investigation, we can see that the demoniacs with
whom Jesus came in contact cannot all be said to have come from the
margins of Palestinian society. There was a man, normally showing no
symptoms of his condition, living in the mainstream of his society and
taking part in the religious affairs of his community, a girl and a boy,
living with' their, perhaps, wealthy parents, as well as the preternaturally
powerful man abandoned to the tombs on the edge of his community.
With this rapge of sufferers it is unlikely that Jesus' contemporaries would
have seen any special focus in this part of his ministry.
From our examination of the Jesus stories we can see that the reports
of observers contained a number of features of his techniques as an exor-
cist

2. Exorcism at a Distance
What can we say about the historicity of the story of the Syrophoenician
woman's daughter (Mark 7.24—30), an exorcism from a distance? First,
there is nothing in the pericope that necessitates a healing from a distance
— the dauther could have accompanied the woman, perhaps on a stretcher
(cf. Mark 2.3 and 9.14—29). Secondly, there is nothing in the pericope that
dictates the need for a particular type of healing — in this case an exor-
cism. However, verse 30, which mentions the demon having gone, is not
generally thought to be the product of Christian redaction8 and we
suggested that verse 25, which sets the scene, is probably authentic.
Thirdly, other stories of this kind can be cited One in particular is from
the Talmud. It is similar to the healing of the Centurion's boy (Matthew
8.5- 13/Luke 71-10).
"It happened that when Rabban Gamaliel's son fell ill, he sent two of his pupils to R.
Hanina ben Dosa that he might pray for him. When he saw them, he went to the
upper room and prayed. When he came down, he said to them,
'Go, for the fever has left him.'
They said to him,
'Are you a prophet?'
He said to them,
'I am no prophet, neither am I a prophet's son, but this is how I am blessed: if my
prayer is fluent in my mouth, I know that the sick man is favoured; if not, I know
that the disease is fatal.'

7 Hollenbach J AAR 49 (1981) 571, citing G. Rosen Madness in Soceity. Chapters in the
Historical Sociology of Mental Illness (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968,
reprinted 1969) 64, 69, 125-35.
8 Cf. Pryke Style 16, 143.
146 IV Jesus The Exorcist

They sat down, wrote and noted the hour. When they came to Rabban Gamaliel, he
said to them,
'By heaven! You have neither detracted from it, nor added to it, but this is how it
happened. It was at that hour that the fever left him and he asked us for water to
drink' " (b. Ber. 34b).9

This story from the Talmud and Mark 7.24—30 are clearly indepen-
dent,10 yet come from the same milieu. In this connection van der Loos
cites a story of a woman who dreamed that her daughter had been healed
in the temple of Aesculapius at Epidaurus.11 However, this story has few
contacts with the New Testament story. Another story that does have
closer links with the Mark 7 story is one from Philostratus' Life of
Apollonius 3.38. No literary links are to be found between this and the
Jesus story, but they do both have in common the motif of healing at a
distance. We can conclude that the phenomenon was clearly at home in
both a Greek and a Jewish milieu and therefore this technique of Jesus'
does not place him specifically against either background. We can be rea-
sonably confident then that Jesus, like other exorcists of his period, was
known as an exorcist able to heal from a distance.12

3. Initial Dramatic Confrontation

In the very brief story associated with the Beelzebul Controversy there is
no mention of any confrontation between Jesus and the dumb demoniac
(Matthew 9.32—3/1222/Luke 11.14). However, the other four major exor-
cism stories relate an initial dramatic confrontation between Jesus and the
demoniac, or, in the case of Mark 7.25, between Jesus and the sufferer's
mother.
In Mark L23 the man screams out (aveKpa^ev) when he meets Jesus in
the Capernaum synagogue so that it is suddenly obvious that he is a de-
moniac. And, in Mark 9.20, on seeing Jesus, the demon threw a boy into a
convulsion, so that "he fell on the ground and rolled about, foaming at the
mouth." In Mark 5.6—7, the Gadarene demoniac ran, fell on his knees in
front of Jesus (jipoaeKuvr)aev auto) and shouted out when he saw Jesus.
In the fourth story it is the sufferer's mother who encountered Jesus.
According to Mark, she came and fell at Jesus' feet (itpooeiteoev Jtpoc,
touc, no5ac, autou, 7.25).

9 From Vermes Judaism 8.

10 Cf. Fiebig Jüdische Wundergeschickten 22.
11 R. Herzog Die Wunderheilungen von Epidauros (Leipzig: Deitrich, 1931) 17 in Loos
Miracles 330. Cf. Kee Miracle chap. 3.
12 On the probable historicity of the story of the Synophoenician woman's daughter see
also S. Legasse "L'épisode de la Cananéenne d'après Mt 15,21-28" BLE 73 (1972) 21-4;
Mann Mark 319; cf. Drewermann Markus. I, 483-92.
 §17 Jesus as an Exorcist 147

We are suspicious at least of the Christian interpretation of the actions

of these two characters.
In relation to avaxga^eiv (Mark 5.7) we can note that the word has a
religious significance in the Greek world,13 but only in relation to the
demonic. The Greeks and the Romans generally felt it barbaric and
unworthy of the gods.14 So, we can infer nothing in the use of the word
itself in Mark save that, as far as Mark is concerned, we are dealing with
the demonic. In the LXX avccKpa^eiv is used especially in the context of
crying or calling on God in some individual or national emergency.15 In
contrast, the New Testament does not use avaKpa^eiv in this sense, save,
it might be argued, in Mark 1.23/Luke 4.33. So we can detect no religious
motif in its use in Mark 5.7.
However, the situation is different with npooKuveTv. npooicuveTv, to
fall on one's knees or to worship, is used of the mocking worship of Jesus
by the soldiers (Mark 15.19).16 n p o a n u i i e i v , to fall down at another's feet,
is also used to denote worship. For example, in Luke 5.8, Simon Peter's
confession of Jesus as Lord is accompanied by a falling at Jesus' feet.
Mark only uses the word here in 7.25, at 3.11, where demons fall down or
worship Jesus the Son of God, and in 5.33, of the woman who touched the
hem of Jesus' garment coming in fear and trembling and falling at Jesus'
feet. These latter two verses are often considered to be redactional.17 Thus,
it is possible that either Mark or his predecessors introduced the "worship"
interpretation into what might have happened in the dramatic confron-
tation between Jesus and the demoniacs.
Nevertheless, we still have to examine the possibility that on meeting
Jesus the demoniacs cried out and fell (i.e. Jiinxeiv) to the ground.
Not surprisingly, each of the verses mentioning the dramatic confron-
tation, bears the stamp of Mark's authorship. However, the evidence is
probably not sufficient to indicate that the material came entirely from his
hand.18
In fact, there are reasons for thinking that the early Church did not
need to introduce the element of an initial dramatic confrontation into the
stories of Jesus. On the one hand, when examining the story of the de-
moniac in the synagogue (Mark 1.21—8, see §6 above) we were able to
conclude — in so far as the first three Evangelists represent the interests

13 Grundmann TDNT III, 898.

14 Grundmann TDNT III, 899.
15 Grundmann TDNT III, 899.
16 Cf. H. Greeven TDNT VI, 763.
17 See those listed by Pryke Style 14.
18 In more detail see Twelftree in Wenham and Blomberg (eds.) Gospel Perspectives 6,
37L
148 IV Jesus The Exorcist

of the early Church — that it is quite unlikely that the early Church in-
troduced the consternation of the demoniacs into the form of the stories
of Jesus.
On the other hand, the historical reliability of this feature in the story
is greatly enhanced by the existence of ancient as well as twentieth
century analogues. From Philostratus' Life of Apollonius 4.20 we have a
report of a youth who exhibits symptoms of demon-possession when in
the presence of Apollonius.19 There are also contemporary examples of the
so-called demonic presence or activity in a person only becoming evident
when confronted by the name of Jesus. One story of a woman with falling
spells has the line . . when the name of Jesus or Christ were mentioned
she would immediately go into a trance." Then, in another modern report,
it is said that . . the moment the name of Jesus was mentioned, he went
into another coma, his legs shot from under him, and he lay spread-eagled
and inert on the floor."20
Finally, here, we can make the point that the case for inauthenticity of
the initial dramatic confrontation rests on literary or oral dependence on
an established form,21 but evidence is against precisely such a verbal de-
pendence.
So, to return to our question, Does the reported consternation go back
to the accounts of those who witnessed the historical Jesus the exorcist at
work? From the evidence we have examined it is probable that, like his
contemporaries, Jesus the exorcist was seen to evoke a disturbance in the
demon(iac)s who confronted him.

4. The Words of the Demon(iac)s

In Mark 5.20 the initial confrontation between Jesus and the demoniac is
not accompanied by any speaking on the part of the demoniac. In the
brief story associated with the Beelzebul Controversy (Matthew 9.32—3/
12.22/Luke 1L14) we know nothing of any exchange between Jesus and the
demoniac. In Mark 725—6 the woman falls at Jesus' feet and begs Jesus to
heal her daughter. And, in the remaining two stories the distress felt by
the demon(iac) in the initial dramatic confrontation is the vocalized:
"What have we to do with you, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to
destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God!" (Mark 1.24) and

19 See also Lucian Philops. 16; (cf. 31>, Philostratus Life 3.38; 4.20; (cf. Acts of Peter 2.4.11;
Acts of Andrew 13 [Hennecke II, 403] Acts of Thomas, 5.44f; Acts of John T h e
Destruction of the Temple of Artemis" 40); see also Lucian Disowned 6; b. Pesah
112b-113a.
20 Quoted respectively in more detail in G J i Twelftree "The Place of Exorcism in
Contemporary Exorcism" St. Mark's Review 127 (1986) 25 and Twelftree Christ IL
21 Kertelge Wunder 52.
 §17 Jesus as an Exorcist 149

"What have I to do with you, Jesus, son of the Most High God? I adjure
you by God not to torment me" (Mark 5.7).
In dealing with the first of these passages we dismantled the hypothesis
that these exclamations were attributed to the demons in an attempt to
defend Jesus from the accusation of being in alliance with Beelzebul (§10
above). We need to ask, What was the content of the utterances of the
demon(iac)s?
In the last chapter we established the historicity of Jesus being ad-
dressed by the demons as Jesus of Nazareth (Mark 1.24), Son of the Most
High (God) (Mark 5.7), The Holy One of God (Mark 1.24), and that the
demons used the "/ know" (Mark 1.24), "/ adjure" (Mark 5.7) and "What
have I to do with you" (Mark 1.24; 5.7) formulae.
It remains for us to examine the demoniacs' use of the phrase Son of
God (Mark 3.11 and 5.1)P We must all but ignore Mark 3.11 (and parallels)
for it comes from what is generally recognized to be an editorial sum-
mary (see §14 above).23. What we need to note is that at least the
Evangelists thought that the demons addressed Jesus as "the Son of God".
However, we must examine Mark 5.7 more closely and ask the question,
did the demons address Jesus the exorcist as Son of God?
Because it was not a Jewish designation for the hoped-for bearer of
salvation, Kummel says that it is "historically extremely unlikely that Jesus
was addressed by demon-possessed men as 'Son of God'."24 Kummel as-
sumes that the title has an Hellenistic origin.25 But, can we assume that the
title in Mark 5.7 originally had deliberate messianic connotations, and is
the title Hellenistic in origin?
Recent New Testament researsch26 clearly shows that the father-son
language and the term "son of God" are quite at home in a Palestinian
setting.27 In fact, Hengel concludes his survey of Hellenisitc material, in
relation to the search for the origin of the title "Son of God" in New

22 The volume of literature on "Son of God" is overwhelming. Much of the material is

collected in the following; TDNT VIII, 334; ThWNT X/2, 1282f; DNTT III, 665f.; see
also "Sohn Gottes" in RGG (3rd. ed.) VI, 118-20 and M Hengel The Son of
God (London: SCM, 1976>, Harvey Trial 39-44 and JD.G. Dunn Christology in the
Making (London: SCM, 1980).
23 E.g. see Taylor Mark 225; Nineham Mark 112; Schweizer Mark 78ff; Guelich Mark I,
142
24 W.G. Kümmel Theology of the NT (London: SCM, 1974) 74.
25 Kummel Theology 76.
26 Notably K. Berger "Zum traditionsgeschichtlichen Hintergrund Christologischer Hoheits-
titel" NTS 17 (1970-1) 422-4; Vermes Jesus 206-10. See also Vermes Judaism 11.
27 Vermes Jesus 205-10; JJS 23 (1972) 28-50 and 24 (1973) 51-64; cf. Flusser Jesus 98ff.;
Hengel Son 42 n.85; JD.G. Dunn Unity and Diversity (London: SCM, 1977) 45 and
notes.
150 IV Jesus The Exorcist

Testament Christology, by saying that the results are entirely unsatis-

factory. 28
If we survey the use of the term "Son (of God") in the Old Testament
and Judaism an important dimension of this word (p/12) emerges.29 To
quote Hengel,
"In contrast to 'huios' it not only (or even primarily) designates physical descent and
relationship, but is a widespread expression of subordination, which could describe
younger companions, pupils and members of a group, membership of a people or
profession, or a characteristic. In this extended sense it was also used in a number of
ways in the Old Testament to express belonging to God

Hengel has in mind three ways. First, there were the members of the
heavenly court. In Daniel 3.25, Nebuchadnezzar sees a figure "whose
appearance is like a son of the gods" in the fiery furnace.31 Secondly, as in
Exodus 422—3, God's people Israel is addressed as "Son of God". Thirdly,
the Davidic King, after Egyptian models, was called "Son of God" (cf. 2
Samuel 712-14).32
Moving to the rabbinic literature we find material that relates to a
particular group of men ("Men of Deed") which shows that some of the
holy men were understood to be designated "son" by God and addressed as
such by him. This evidence has been collected by Vermes (see notes 26
and 27 above) and can be summarized as follows.
Hanina ben Dosa, for example, was designated or proclaimed "son of
God" by a heavenly voice. And, Rabbi Meir is actually called "Meir my
son" by the Holy One himself (b. Hag. 15b). Further, according to Rab, the
great Babylonian teacher and collector of Galilean traditions, the following
comment was heard day after day during the life of Hanina ben Dosa:
"The whole world draws its sustenance because [of the merit] of Hanina
my son and Hanina my son suffices himself with a kab of carobs from
one Sabbath eve to another" (b. Ta'an. 24b; b. Ber. 17b; b. Hul. 86a).
A prayer of Honi the Circle-Drawer also shows that the title "son"
characterized the holy individual's relationship with God. "O Lord of the
world, your children have turned their faces to me, for that I am like a
son of the house before you" (m. Ta'an. 3.8).
In the context of this present study it is important to note that this kind
of divine communication was also heard by the demons: "They hear
(God's voice) from behind the curtain . . ." (b. Hag. 16a). So we hear of

28 Hengel Son 41.

29 Such a survey has been done before on more than one occasion; e.g. E. Schweizer (et
al.) TDNT VIII, 340-55; and recently Hengel Son and Dunn Christology chap. IL
30 Hengel Son 21, Jus emphasis.
31 Hengel Son 21f.; G. Fohrer TDNT VIII, 347f.
32 Hengel Son 22-3.
 §17 Jesus as an Exorcist 151

Satan or Agrath, the Queen of the demons, saying to Hanina, "Had there
teen no commendation from heaven, Take heed of Hanina and his
teachingf I would have harmed you" (b. Pesah. 112a, quoted §3 above).
Thus, although in the rabbinic material the demons do not actually refer
to rabbis as "Son of God", what evidence there is in this literature in-
dicates that it was a hasid's standing with God, characterized as sonship,
that particularly concerned the demons.
The use of "Son of God" in association with a person's standing with
God is clear in the Wisdom of Solomon.
"(The righteous man) professes to have knowledge of God,
and calls himself a child of the Lord . . .
and boasts that God is his father.
Let us see if his words are true,
and let us test what will happen at the end
of his life;
for if the righteous man is God's son, he
will help him . . (213, 16b-18a).33

Thus, again "Son of God" is connected with, or even denotes, a special re-
lationship with God.
This same motif is clear in a fragment from the Qumran material The
pertinent lines of 4QPsDan A' read as follows.
"[But your son] shall be great upon the earth, [O King! All (men) shall make [peace],
and all shall serve [him. He shall be called son of] the [G]reat [God], . . . He shall be
hailed (as) the Son of God, and they shall call him Son of the Most High . .
As this fragment is poorly preserved it is not possible to say to whom the
third person singluar masculine refers.35 Nevertheless, these lines are exam-
ples of "Son of God" being used to denote a character having a special
relationship with God. We can also note that "Son of God" appears as
synonymous or at least a parallel designation to "the Most High" (cf. Mark
5.7).
What this evidence shows is, first, that so far as the geo-cultural
categories are valid, the designation "Son of God" seems to have been at
home in Hellenistic-Judaism as well as Palestinian-Judaism. Secondly, we
see that one of the important functions of the title was to signify the close
relationship of the righteous man to God. It could also, denote a person

33 RSV translation. Cf. Matt 4.6/Luke 410-1L

34 Tentative translation by LA. Fitzmyer "The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the
Study of the NT" NTS 20 (1973-4) 393.
35 See the discussion in Fitzmyer NTS 20 (1973-4) 39Z Dunn Christology 47 places Mark
311 and 5.7 together as demonic confessions. However, we have seen 311 is probably
entirely rewritten by Mark so that only 5.7 can be said to be a demonic confession.
Nevertheless, Dunn is right to say that it "would seem to imply recognition simply of
one specially commissioned or favoured by God without necessarily evoking the idea
of a divine being sent from heaven."
152 IV Jesus The Exorcist

considered to be operating in the sphere of God, particularly in re-

lationship to his dealings with evil spirits.36 Thirdly, in the light of the
evidence from Qumran it may well have been a Jewish messianic title.
This last point would suggest that the very early Church may have
thought it appropriate to introduce this "messianic" title into the words of
the demons. However, the early churches do not seem to have made much
use of the title "Son of God" as a confession.37 Hebrews L5 suggests that
the early Church took over the association of Psalm 2.7 and 2 Samuel 714
in reference to the exalted Jesus38 — rather than the pre-Easter Jesus. That
is, it denotes an "adoptionist" Christology39 rather than a birth or incar-
nation Christology. The second point that Dunn makes is that, "If the
confession of Jesus as Son of God plays little role in the witness of the
earliest Christians it certainly came to full flower within the widening
mission of Hellenisic Jewish Christianity "40
These two points — that the use of the title was relatively late, and that
it was of particular interest to the Hellenists, suggest that the title may not
have been added to the words of the demons by the earliest Church. But
when used by the demoniacs it characterized Jesus' standing with God, not
his messiahship or ontological sonship.41
On the other hand, it is more than likely that the earliest Church did
not need to introduce the appellation into the traditioa If we keep in
mind that the words of the demons in Mark are defensive words that
include the name, character and origin of the opponent, then, along with
what we have just said about the "Son of God", it is particularly
appropriate in designating the sphere in which Jesus operated as an exor-
cist That is, the demons did not supernaturally recognize Jesus.42 Rather,
he was seen to be an exorcist in the Jewish tradition where healers such
as Jesus often relied on "God" as a source of power-authority. So, in turn,
the demons attempted to disarm Jesus by exposing his allegiance to God.
We can conclude that the words "Son of God", in all probability, belong to
the reliable historical tradition of Mark 5.7.

36 Vermes Jesus 206-10.

37 Dunn Unity 45.
38 Dunn Unity 45.
39 Dunn Unity 45.
40 Dunn Unity 46, his emphasis.
41 Cf. the statement by Harvey ". . . the phrase 'Son of God' probably meant no more
than a righteous and innocent man who had perhaps achieved an unusual degree of
piety, and there is no convincing evidence that it had come to have any further
meaning by the time of Christ" (Constraints 163). See also Dunn in n. 27 above.
42 E.g. L. Morris The Gospel According to St. Luke (London: IVP, 1974) 109 and 156;
Maynard NTS 31 (1985) 584 "every synoptic use of this idiom [ T i e|ioi Kai ooi"]
involves the recognition of the divine nature of Jesus by demon or by persons
possessed by demons" (his emphasis).
 §17 Jesus as an Exorcist 153
5. Jesus' Words of Exorcism43
From the discussions in the last chapter we were able to establish that the
words of Jesus the exorcist to the demons included, "Come out . . ." (Mark
1.25; 5.8; 9.25); "Be quiet" (Mark 1.25>, "What is your name?" (Mark 5.9);
"(I) command you . . ." (Mark 925); ". . . and no longer enter into him"
(Mark 9.25). On these words of Jesus a number of points emerge.
First, it is generally held that Jesus used no formulae to effect his
exorcisms. For example, E Stauffer put it; "There are no magic formulae
in the Gospels. The most common means of healing is Jesus' word of
power."44 If what we have been arguing is correct then this view is
incorrect We have seen that Jesus did use words and phrases or parts of
incantations or formulae which would have been used, at least in
situations requiring preternatural control and would have been readily
recognized by his contemporaries as such. To quote David Aune: "The
great gulf which some New Testament scholars would place between 'the
powerful word of the Son' and 'magical incantations' is simply non-
existent 45 The short authoritative commands of Jesus to demons in the
Gospel narratives are formulas of magical adjuratioa" 46 Whether or not it
is correct to call these words or incantations "magical" we shall have to
inquire in the next chapter. For the moment we can note that it is plain,
from the evidence, that Jesus was a man of his time in at least using
recognizable formulae or incantations in his commands to the demons.47

43 In more detail see Twelftree in Wenham and Blomberg (eds.) Gospel Perspectives 6,
378-81
44 E. Stauffer TDNT III, 210; see also, e.g. W. Grundmann TDNT II, 302; McCasland
Finger 110-15: " . . . he cast out demons by his personal command, not by means of
any kind of formulae, incantations, ritual or magical objects" (112); Taylor Mark 176;
E. Fascher Die formgeschichtliche Methode (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1924) 127f; S.E.
Johnson The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Black, 1960) 48; Latourelle Mir-
acles 167.
45 Aune ANRW 1123.2 (1980) 1532 here cites E Stauffer in TDNT II, 626 as an example.
46 Aune ANRW 11232 (1980) 1532. In a note at this point Aune mentiones O. Böcher
Das Neue Testament und die dämonischen Mächte (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk,
1972) 33ff. appropriately describing Jesus' commands to demons as Wortzauber. See also
R Remus " 'Magic or Miracle"? Some Second-Century Instances" SecCent 2 (1982) 138:
"To say that the Jesus of the Synoptics worked his wonders simply by a word is
erroneous. Many of them simply happen, and in others he employs manipulations and
material objects."
47 On Jesus' wider healing technique and its relation to so called "magic" see Hull
Magic and Aune ANRW 11232 (1980) 1537 who, rightly, says in his conclusion: "Un-
fortunately, the term 'magic' itself has been a red herring in a great deal of the
scholarly discussion." He goes on to say of his own work, "We have used the term
without any pejorative connotations, referring only to the pragmatic and religiously
deviant features of magic as a necessary and universally present substructure of re-
ligious systems" (p. 1557).
154 IV Jesus The Exorcist

Secondly, associated with this is the question of the extent to which

Jesus' words as an exorcist are parallaled in other literature. Barrett says
that the charge to silence in Mark 1.23 seems to have no parallel.48 Indeed,
in lines that were quoted in chapter II above, some ancient exorcists
clearly had great difficulty in getting the demons to speak (PGM
XIII.242ff.). Yet, Jesus seems to have experienced no such difficulty; in the
earliest recollections of Jesus' exorcistic ministry demoniacs were partic-
ularly vocal in his presence (Mark 1.23—5; 5.7—9; [cf. 3.11D.
However, although Jesus' charge to "silence" involves an element of the
sense "be silent/keep quiet," the implications involved in the use of the
word are clearly much stronger and broader than this, and best understood
in Mark 1.25 as "be bound" or "be muzzled" (see §6 above). Thus, Barrett
is incorrect to say that Jesus' charge in Mark 1.23 is unparalleled (see n. 48
above).
Thirdly, it is clear from our interpretation in the light of the context of
Jesus' words "What is your name?" (Mark 5.9) that, although it may have
unpalatable christological implications for some, Jesus was not initially
successful in all his healings. We have the two-part cure of the blind man
in Mark 8.22—6 as supporting evidence for our case. Thus, as I have
suggested before, by the time Jesus had asked the question in Mark 5.9, he
had already commanded the demon to come out of the man. But in re-
sponse the demon had, rather than submitting, tried to fend off Jesus'
attack. So apparently, being initially unsuccessful, Jesus attempts another
way of overcoming the demon; asking its name.49

6. The Demons' Plea for Leniency

In Mark 5.10—12 the demons plead for leniency when it is reported that
they have been overpowered by Jesus. "And he begged him greatly not to
send them out of the country. Now there was there on the mountain a
great herd of pigs feeding, and they begged him saying, 'Send us into the
pigs so that we can enter into them.'"
In extra biblical material, the earliest extant example of this feature of
an exorcism story is in 1 Enoch 12—14. Azazel and his cohorts are seized
with fear and trembling on hearing of their impending doom. Azazel asks
Enoch to plead their case before the Lord of heavea However, the peti-
tion is not granted. Another example is in Jubilees 10 where Mastema, the
chief of the evil spirits, makes a plea for mercy. This time the request is
granted. In the light of these examples, and there being no theological
interest in the motif in Mark (contrast Matthew 8.9; Luke 8.31), we have

48 Barrett Spirit 57.

49 See further, Twelftree in Wenham and Blomberg (eds.) Gospel Perspectives 6, 379.
 §17 Jesus as an Exorcist 155

already suggested (§7 above) that this plea for leniency was part of the
original report of Jesus' exorcism.

7. Transfering Demons
We noted in §7 that it is sometimes said that the pigs episode was the
proof offered by Jesus for the success of his exorcism.50 However, arguing'
against this view I have suggested that the following three points need to
be considered. First, the demons were probably thought to have been
transferred from the man to the pigs and then to the sea. Secondly, it was
sometimes thought appropriate to transfer the demons from the sufferer to
some object like a pebble or piece of wood or a pot or some water in
order to effect a cure. These objects, thought to contain the demons, were
thrown away or destroyed to effect and perhaps signify the demon's
departure from the situation.51 Then, thirdly, the proof of the cure in the
story in Mark 5 is not the destruction of the pigs but the people seeing
the cured man "sitting there, clothed and in his right mind" (verse 15b).
Thus, rather than as a proof of cure, the pigs episode was probably
understood as an integral part of the cure.52

8. The Violence of Jesus' Exorcisms53

Despite the gentleness with which the life of Jesus is often characterized,
we have considerable violence mentioned in the reports of Jesus as an
exorcist The drowning of the pigs in Mark 511—13 is perhaps the best
example. In Mark 126 the demon is said to convulse the man and in Mark
926 the demon also apparently convulsed the boy and left him as dead.
We can give two reasons why this aspect of the reports of Jesus'
exorcisms is most probably historically reliable. First, there are stories
outside the New Testament showing similar violence, yet they are suf-
ficiently different to show that there is no dependence on them by the
New Testament writers. For example, the demon cast out by Eleazar upset
a bowl of water
"Then wishing to convince the bystanders and prove to them that he had this power
[of exorcism], Eleazar placed a cup or foot basin full of water a little way off and
commanded the demon, as it went out of the man, to overturn it and make known to
the spectators that he had left the man" (Ant. 8.49).

50 See, e.g. Bultmann History 225; Dibelius Tradition 87-8.

51 Twelftree in Wenham and Blomberg (eds.) Gospel Perspectives 6, 399 n. 80 and §7
above.
52 Twelftree in Wenham and Blomberg (eds.) Gospel Perspectives 6, 382 and §7 above.
53 Bonner HTR 36 (1943) 47-9 and T h e Violence of Departing Demons" 11TR 37 (1944)
334-6. In the second article Bonner cites a modern example. See also Twelftree
Christ 11-12.
156 IV Jesus The Exorcist

Also, the demon Apollonius exorcised departed with violence.

"Now when Apollonius gazed on him, the ghost in him began to utter cries of fear and
rage, such as one hears from people who are being branded or racked; . . . Apollonius
addressed him with anger, as a master might a shifty, rascally, and shameless slave and
so on, and he ordered him to quit the young man and show by a visible sign that he
had done so. 'I will throw down yonder statue,' said the devil . . . But when the statue
began by moving gently, and then fell down, it would defy anyone to describe the
hubbub which arose thereat . . ( L i f e 4.20).

The other reason we can give for this part of the reports of Jesus'
exorcisms being most probably historically reliable is that Mark shows no
consistent use of, nor interest in, this violence. Thus, in L26 the convulsion
occurs as the demon leaves; in the story of the Gadarene demoniac the
story begins with the description of violent symptoms of the sickness but
the later violence is not related to the sufferer but the drowning of the
pigs. The story of the Syrophoenician woman's daughter contains no ele-
ment of violence; in chapter 9 the whole story of the possessed boy is
couched in violence; violence in the encounter as well as in the healing.
Conculsions. In this section we have begun to gather together what can
be gleaned from the Gospel traditions about the historical Jesus as an
exorcist We can see that the demoniacs he healed were not all from the
perimeter of society. Like other exorcists of his time Jesus healed at a
distance, there was an initial dramatic confrontation between Jesus and the
demoniac which gave rise to a conversation in which the demons tried to
defend themselves and Jesus commanded the demon to leave the sufferer.
We noted that it cannot be said that Jesus did not use so-called "magical"
incantations but that his words of command were recognizable formulae
or incantations. We also noted, despite possible unpalatable christological
implications for some, that Jesus was not always initially successful
During the exchange between the demon(iac)s and Jesus the demon(iac)s
were said to plead for leniency. We cannot escape the fact that some of
Jesus' exorcisms were characterized by violence. We turn now to discuss
features of the reported technique of Jesus that were distinctive.
 § 18 Distinctive and Unique Features of Jesus' Methods

In the light of the material presented in chapter II there seem to be some

aspects of the contemporary exorcistic technique that Jesus did not use.

1. Absence of Mechanical Devices

A feature common to many other exorcist's technique was the aid of
some apparatus, device, or feature of speech. In the ancient Babylonian
texts hair, knots, water, branches of tamarisk, meteorites and pottery were
used in association with the healing rite to expel demons. In the ancient
Egyptian papyri human milk and fragrant gum, for example, were said to
be used. In Tobit 8.3 burning incense caused the demon to flee. In
Jubilees 1010 and 12 "medicines" are used, and in Genesis Apocryphon 20
Abraham lays hands on Pharaoh. In Josephus' writing, Eleazar uses a
finger ring containing a pungent root, and a bowl of water. In another
story, Josephus tells of David using music to charm away an evil spirit In
the rabbinic literature there is evidence that material aids were par-
ticularly abundant in Jewish exorcisms — amulets, palm tree prickles,
wood chips, ashes, earth, pitch, cumin, dog's hair, thread, and trumpets.
Lucian of Samosata tells of exorcists' threatening the demons and vising
iron rings. The magical papyri also witness to the use of a wide variety of
technical aids in expelling demons. For example, amulets, olive branches,
oil from unripe olives, mastiga plants, lotus pith, marjoram, and special
sounds produced by the exorcist are mentioned.
All this seems extremely remote from "Be bound, and come out of
him" (Mark 1.25) or "Dumb and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of
him and no longer enter him" (Mark 9.25).1 We have argued that the
destruction of the pigs properly belongs to the authentic tradition of the
historical Jesus. However, the pigs are not used to expel the demons, but
to provide somewhere for the demons to go after they had been expelled.
Although the use of technical devices of one kind or another seem to
be the most prominent method of exorcism in the ancient world — even

1 Cf. Hull Magic 68.

158 IV Jesus The Exorcist

among the rabbis — Jesus cannot be said to be alone in his simple verbal
technique. Although the tone of his voice and the gaze of his eyes was
important to Apollonius' success, he did use only words to effect the
exorcism in Life 4.20. A more important parallel which does not permit
us to see Jesus' verbal technique as unique is from a Jewish milieu. As we
noted above, Rabbi Simeon is said to have cast out a demon from a girl
simply by calling out — "Ben Temalion, get out! Ben Temalion, get out!"
Nevertheless, despite these two parallels, the impression remains that
even if it was not unique, Jesus' simple unaided words of command to the
demons stand out as particularly characteristic and distinctive of his re-
ported method.2
But could this characteristic of Jesus' method be a construct of the early
Church in that it sought to set Jesus over against the techniques that
pervaded the era? Probably not. In other healings Jesus is said to have uti-
lized means other than mere words.
To heal the deaf mute (Mark 7.33), the blind man near Bethsaida (Mark
8.23) and the man born blind (John 9.6) Jesus is said to use spittle as part
of his healing procedure. There is ample evidence showing that the use of
spittle was part of the healing technique of the ancient world. It is used,
for example, in the Babylonian texts,3 in the magical papyri 4 and in
Pliny.5 And, importantly, the rabbis prohibit its use.6 Thus, so far as I can
see, against Calvin, Fenner, Strack and Billerbeck and van der Loos,7 there
is nothing to separate Jesus' use of spittle from its use in the ancient
world, or that he or the Gospel writers thought he was using it any
differently from anyone else. So, in this aspect of his healing technique,
the earliest Church was clearly not endeavouring to remove or isolate
Jesus from his milieu.
The use of his hands and the laying on of hands were clearly
characteristics of Jesus' healing ministry.8 This also was part of the healing
technique of the Jews as, for example, the story of Abraham's cure of
Pharaoh in the Genesis Apocryphon 20 illustrates. This healing story is an

2 Cf. R. Latourelle "Originalité et Fonctions des miracles de Jésus" Gregorianum 66

(1985) 641-53.
3 F.W. Nicholson T h e Saliva Superstition in Classical Literature" Harvard Studies in
Classical Philology 8 (1897) 23-40 and n. 1; also Hull Magic 76-8; Loos Miracles 306-13.
On the Babylonian texts in particular see A. Jeremias Babylonisches im NT (Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1905) 108; Eitrem Notes 46.
4 E g PGM IIL420.
5 Pliny Nat. Hist 28.37.
6 See b. Seb. 15b (cf. L.B. Blau Das altjüdische Zauberwesen [Strasbourg: Trübner, 1898]
68). The Essenes did not permit spitting, Josephus War 2.8.
7 See Loos Miracles 310 and notes.
8 See E. Lohse TDNT IX, 431-2; Aune ANRW 11232 (1980) 1533.
 §18 Distinctive and Unique Features of Jesus ' Methods 159

exorcism, yet the early Church did not introduce the method into the
exorcism stories of Jesus.9 In the light of this it is hard to see why the
early Church would want to delete it if it was already part of the tech-
nique of the historical Jesus the exorcist.10
In the Gospels we have very few examples of Jesus' ministry of
exorcism so we may not be able to draw an absolute conclusion. Never-
theless, from the evidence we have, Jesus does not seem to have used
mechanical aids. So, the characteristically simple, unaided, verbal technique
Jesus is said to use in his exorcisms is probably not a construct of the
early Church,11 and should be posited among the authentic reflections of
the historical Jesus.
If we note which healings in our period rely on "aids" and which do
not, it is immediately obvious that the cultic or incantational tradition is
saturated with aids, medicines, and devices whereby the generally un-
known exorcist appeals to sources of power-authority beyond himself.
What Jesus, Apollonius and some of the rabbis have in common, besides
their reputed ability to heal without tangible aids, is that their power-
authority base does not appear to be other than their own personal force
(see §3 above). It is to this that we now turn.

2. No Explicit Prayers or Power-Authority Invoked

One of the pervading characteristics of the exorcisms which we surveyed
in chapter II above was the exorcist's making plain, in the preliminaries of
the exorcism rite, by what authority he operated. That is, the exorcist
either invoked the aid of a source of power-authority or aligned himself
with some higher power in order to effect the submission of the demon.
In the Ebers Papyrus from ancient Egypt the healer or magician began
with the announcement of his source of power-authority by declaring the
origin of himself and his technique and accompanying remedies. The

9 Jongeling (et al.) (Aramaic Texts L 99 n.22) are incorrect when they say "the practice
of laying on of hands as an act of exorcism is well attested in the New Testament,
cf. especially Mark V.23. . ." because Mark 5.23 is not treated as an exorcism and
lQapGen is our only other piece of evidence. Cf. Aune ANRW 11232 (1980) 1533, "In
Hellenistic traditions, touch as a healing rite is used by the gods in legends and
stories, but only very rarely by human miracles workers." Aune notes that the few
examples O. Weinreich cites are not earlier than the third century AD. O. Weinreich
Ant ike Heilungswunder (Giessen: Tôpelmann, 1909) 45-8.
10 On Jesus "sighing" see Loos Miracles 325.
11 Some of the Apologists tried to make a case for the authenticity of Jesus' miracles on
the grounds that he used no aids or medicines at all; see the literature cited by
Fridrichsen Miracle 89ff. and Loos Miracles 305f_ The suggestion by E.R. Micklem in
Miracles and the New Psychology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1922) 105, that
Jesus sometimes used oil in his healing is without foundation.
160 IV Jesus The Exorcist

Babylonian texts also show that the exorcist began by announcing himself
as the agent of a god.
"I am the sorcerer - priest of Ea,
I am the messenger of Marduk;
To revive the ( ? ) sick man
The great lord Ea hath sent me."12

The persistence of this practice is demonstrated by its occurrence in the

magical papyri (e.g. PGM IV.3019).
It has also become clear that a frequent source of power-authority was
sought in the use of powerful names. For example, as we have noted, one
of the most commonly used names in this period seems to have been
"Solomon".
Not only was the origin of the exorcist's powers and the names invoked
of significance but, as we have noted in chapter II, the essence of the
power-authority was to be found in the spells or incantations and medi-
cines themselves. This is the case in the Babylonian, ancient Egyptian,
magical papyri, Tobit, Jubilees and rabbinic material.
Sometimes where there is no evidence of a power-authority being
located in a higher power upon which the exorcist called, in the use of a
strong name, or in a particular incantation, the exorcist is said to pray as
part of the healing technique. The Qumran scrolls portray Abraham as
praying for the Pharaoh in order to expel the evil spirit (lQapGen 20).
Hanina ben Dosa, though using no incantations, prays (b. Ber. 34b; cf. b.
Ta'an. 24b).13 A striking exception to this is the story we related above of
Rabbi Simeon exorcising a demon from the Roman Emperor's daughter
with a simple command. Another exception to this pattern is the tradition
about Apollonius who neither prays nor exhibits any reliance upon an
exterior power-authority, but is an effective exorcist by reason of his
personal force alone ( L i f e 4.20). But, the general picture remains: exorcists
of the period conducted their healing using a conspicuous or recognizable
power-authority, incantations or prayers.
With this in mind we can look at the words and techniques of Jesus as
an exorcist (Mark 125; 5.8ff; [7.29]; 925).
(a) Jesus does not appear to call on any source of power-auihority
This is more than likely a clear reflection of Jesus' actual practice. First, in
view of Matthew 1228/Luke 11.20 — where Jesus confesses to operate by

12 Thompson Devils I, 13, Cf. XXV.

13 Cf. Honi and Nakdimon in relation to rain making. See Fiebig Jüdische Wunder-
geschichten 16ff_
14 Cf. Aune ". . . there is no evidence to suggest that Jesus himself invoked the name of
God or any other powerful names in the rituals which he used to effect exorcisms
and healings" ANRW 11.232 (1980) 1545 who also cites Eitrem Notes lOf.
 § 18 Distinctive and Unique Features of Jesus' Methods 161

power-authority of the Spirit of God, and Mark 3.28 — where the saying
about the Holy Spirit is linked with the question of Jesus' source of
power-authority — it is indeed surprising that those responsible for the
transmission of the Jesus material did not reflect this in the exorcistic
words of Jesus. That is, if the early Church was attempting to accom-
modate Jesus to the techniques of other exorcists, we might have expected
Jesus to be depicted as saying something like, "I adjure you by God (or
the Spirit of God) . . ." But we do not.15 Second, we have already estab-
lished the probable historicity of the Beelzebul charge (Matthew 12.24/
Luke 1115/Mark 3.22 see §10 above). This charge is more readily
understood if, in fact, Jesus did not make clear his source of power-
authority. 16 So, the evidence suggests that, as part of his technique, Jesus
did not intimate that he relied on any outside power-authority — not even
on the Spirit of God.
(b) A coordinate of this point is that Jesus did not use any "powerful
name" as a power-authority or component of his technique. That is, for
example, he does not use the name of God as other Jews did (cf. PGM
IV.3019) or the Spirit of God as we might have expected if the tradition
was seeking to conform Jesus' technique to the saying in Matthew 12.28/
Luke 11.20. It cannot be argued that the early Church was attempting to
distance Jesus from his contemporary healers for they have retained his
exorcistic words which were formulae familiar in the world of incanta-
tions (see §17 above).
(c) Thus, as we have seen, Jesus used words or incantations which were
of a piece with his environment. To this extent we should ask if it was in
these incantational words and phrases that the early Church or Jesus
thought was the locus of the effect of his exorcisms.
With respect to the early Church it seems plain that it did not see Jesus'
words themselves as holding the key to his successful healings. If they did
see Jesus' words as the significant factor in his exorcisms then it is sur-
prising that they did not emulate them in their own healing ministry.
What the early Church does, as is illustrated by Acts 16.18, is use quite
different wording (jiagaYyeXXco aoi rather than say ejuxaaoco aoi as in
Mark 925) and take up using a "powerful name" — "Jesus Christ". The
most important indication that the early Church did not place any
particular significance on Jesus' actual exorcistic words, and that it did not
see Jesus placing any special emphasis on them, is to be found in the brief

15 Dunn and Twelftree Churchman 94 (1980) 214-15.

16 Cf. Vermes Jesus 64. We cannot agree with Vermes that Jesus was accused be-
cause he never invoked any human source for, even as Vermes notes (p. 66), some
rabbis exorcised demons without invoking an authority.
162 IV Jesus The Exorcist

allusions to Jesus' exorcisms where no "words" are recorded. It is simply

stated that he cast out a demon (e.g. Matthew 12.22/Luke 1114). Though
the number of examples is not great, this conclusion is further confirmed
in that, though the Synoptic tradition preserves special words of Jesus in
relation to other healings — taXtGa koujjl17 (Mark 5.41) and ecpcpa-
0a 18 (Mark 7.34), perhaps for the purpose of guiding Christian healers19 —
it does not seek to do so in relation to the exorcism stories.
If Jesus felt he was relying on the force of his incantations to bring
about the subjugation of the demons, that is, if the particular form and
content of the words was of vital importance, it is surprising that the for-
mulae display such divergence of form and content This is noticeable
when we set out Jesus' exorcistic words.
"Be muzzled and come out of him" (Mark 125).
"Come out unclean spirit from the man!" . . . "What is your name?" (Mark 5.8-9).
"Dumb and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him and no longer enter him"
(Mark 925).

We do not need to include Mark 7.29 in this list, for it is not a

command to the demon. The form of the first command (1.25) is a binding
followed by a direction; the second (5.8—9) has a direction, an address, and
then a subjugating question; and the third (9.25) has an address, a binding,
and two directions. Thus, there is no consistency in representing any form,
save that each has the minimal command involving some kind of sub-
jugating word — different in each case, and the directive — which is
consistently represented as "Come out!" This variety does not seem to
indicate any particular interest in using a correct formula save that in so
far as an exorcism is involved, the words obviously require that the
demon is overpowered and expelled.
(d) It has just been noted how important prayer was in some traditions
of exorcism — notably the Jewish milieu. Others have shown how impor-
tant prayer was for Jesus.20 A considerable amount of this importance has
probably to be attributed to the early Church. Luke in particular seems
intent on enhancing Jesus' prayer life.21 Regardless of the extent of the
historical core here it is significant to notice that at no point does the

17 Str-B II, 10.

18 Str-B II, 17f. See also M Black "E<I><I>AQA. . ." in Descamps et de Halleux (eds.)
Melanges Bibliques 57-60.
19 Aune ANRW II.23.2 (1980) 1534-5 and n. 126. Though against Aune, it is to be noted
that the tradition has not preserved formulae in the "original" language for exorcism.
20 See, e.g. Fiebig Jüdische Wundergeschichten 72; J. Jeremias The Prayers oj Jesus (Lon-
don: SCM, 1967) 72-8; Dunn Jesus 15-21 (and notes).
21 P.T. O'Brien "Prayer in Luke-Acts" TynBul 24 (1973) 111-27; S i Smalley "Spirit,
Kingdom and Prayer in Luke-Acts" NovT 15 (1973) 59-71; cf. also Dunn Jesus 17 and
n. 23; A.A. Trites "Some Aspects of Prayer in Luke-Acts" in P.J. Acthemeier (ed.) SDLSP
 §18 Distinctive and Unique Features of Jesus' Methods 163

tradition seek to attribute or report the practice of prayer to any part of

Jesus' exorcistic technique even though prayer was apparently used in
early Christian healing (James 5.14—15; cf. Mark 9.29).22 The only occasion
when prayer is attributed to Jesus as part of, or associated with his
"healing" techniques, is in the raising of Lazarus in John 11.41—2. But, the
prayer is not really part of the healing for Jesus utters no request; he gives
thanks for already being heard.23 Jesus is portrayed as not needing to
make a request in prayer.24 Rather, the prayer is for the bystanders, so that
they may see the glory of God in the miracle.25 So, in view of the
importance of prayer in contemporary Jewish healings and the Gospel
traditions' agreed importance of prayer for Jesus, the technique of
exorcism — unaccompanied by prayer — is best taken as faithfully reflect-
ing Jesus' healing procedure.
To conclude this point; one of the outstanding characteristics — though
we cannot claim it to be entirely unique — is that Jesus invoked no
power-authority, and neither saw any particular significance in his incan-
tations nor used prayer as part of the healing of demoniacs.

3. Oki^CO

A third element of contemporary exorcistic technique that Jesus did not

use was the word oqki^co (Aramaic = WEf). The use of this word could
have been treated under the last section, but its reported absence from
Jesus' words addressed to the demons is potentially of such significance
that it deserves separate treatment. So far as I can see from our discussion
above (§7), in connection with incantations or spells, opid^co means "to
charge", "adjure", or "bind someone by another being". This meaning is
clear in Mark 5.7: "/ adjure by God, do not torment me," and in Acts
19.13: "/ adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches" (cf. 1 Thessalonians
5.27).2<
In the light of this it is indeed surprising that, in the transmission of the
Jesus stories, opia^co did not find its way into the material on the lips of
Jesus. The use of a form of oqki^m in 1 Thessalonians 5.27 shows that the
early Church did not totally object to its use. OgKi^co is used in relation to

(Missoula: SBL, 1977) 59-77 and A A Trites "The Prayer-Motif in Luke-Acts" in C.H.
Talbert (ed.) Perspectives on Luke-Acts (Danville: Association of Baptist Professors of
Religion and Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1978) 168-86.
22 Cf. Aune ANRW 11.23.2 (1980) 1533.
23 Bultmann John 407-8.
24 Cf. C.K. Barrett: "In view of the complete unity between the Father and the Son
there is no need for uttered prayer at all" John 402.
25 B. Lindars The Gospel of John (London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1972) 40L
26 See §7 n. 51 above.
164 IV Jesus The Exorcist

an invoked power-authority, and the Synoptic tradition has it in Matthew

12.28/Luke 1L20 that such an invoked power for Jesus' technique was the
Spirit of God. That the tradition did not translate this across into the
incantations used by Jesus would seem to be an indication, again, of the
reliability of our knowledge of the incantations used by Jesus.
The use of opia^co in exorcistic formulae is part of the practice of
invoking a superior power to carry out the wishes of the exorcist Jesus
apparently neither acknowledged the use of a source of power-authority
nor used the accompanying OQKI^OJ or its equivalent. Instead, and in line
with this convention of Jesus' is the congruous appearance of eyeo/'iK in
his incantation at Mark 9.25. The emphatic iyco/'lK21 is relatively
infrequent on the lips of Jesus in the Synoptics,28 and it is not consistently
used in the words of Jesus to the demons (only at Mark 9.25). This
suggests that the early Church is not responsible for it in Mark 9.25. The
use of eyci) was not a feature of the contemporary incantations of
adjuration 29 and so it is possible that its use by Jesus is of some signifi-
cance in understanding him as an exorcist (see §29 below).

4. No Proofs
The question of whether or not Jesus the exorcist's technique involved
seeking proof of success hinges on the nature of the "pigs episode" in
Mark 5. IIJ discussing that passage it was argued that the destruction of the
pigs was to be seen not as proof of success, but as an integral part of the
cure. The seeking of a proof would decidedly enhance the reputation of
Jesus and it is perhaps surprising that the tradition did not either maintain
this element in the stories of Jesus, or add it if it was not already there.
Since the tradition shows no interest in so doing and since Mark 5.11ff. is
not a "proof" we shall take it that this element was not part of Jesus' tech-
nique.
So, in contrast to his contemporary exorcists, Jesus used no mechanical
devices (apart from the pigs in Mark 5), no explicit prayers or invoked
power-authority, no powerful name, and no proofs.
There are two natural conclusions that we should draw from these last
three sections. That is, first, in declaring no reliance on a power-authority,
and not using OQKI^CO or proofs, but in simply ordering the demon out

27 On which see E. Schweizer Ego Eimi (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965) 18f\;
Jeremias Theology 250-5.
28 Stauffer TDNT II, 348 (quoted §10 above). On eyo in the Synoptics see Howard Das
'Ego'.
29 In fact, so far, I have been unable to find any examples that parallel its use in Mark
9.25.
 § 18 Distinctive and Unique Features of Jesus' Methods 165

(once using the emphatic "I"), and then in saying that his power-authority
was the Spirit/finger of God, Jesus' technique of exorcism, if not inno^
vative, would have at least been very conspicuous. Secondly, Jesus
believed that while he was operating out of his own resources, at the
same time, he believed that it was God who was to be seen as operative
in his activity.
 § 19 Miracle and Message in Jesus' Ministry

Our task here is to analyse the relationship between the exorcisms and
preaching ministry of Jesus.
In the Gospels there is an intimate relationship between the activities of
Jesus and his preaching. There is no doubt that much of this picture is the
result of the activity of the Evangelists and their predecessors. This
relationship is apparent in the work of the Evangelists on a number of
levels. On a very basic level, miracles and message are said to be con-
ducted in association with each other. For example, Matthew says, "And he
went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the
Gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every infirmity
among the people" (Matthew 4.23/Mark L39).1 On another level the mat-
erial is actually grouped so that the teaching and miracles are associated.
For example, in the two cycles, Mark 4.35—6.44 and 6.45—8.26, there are
included, in rough parallel, sea miracle, preaching, healings, and a feeding.2
And, the first part of Mark's Gospel is so structured that Jesus' pro-
clamation of the kingdom (1.14—15) is followed and elaborated by a
healing (1.21—8).3 On yet another level the miracles are related in order
that a particular point can be made either by, or in relation to, Jesus. Thus,
in Mark 4.41 the miracle is related primarily so that the point can be
made, "Who then is this . . .?" And, in Mark 9.28—9 (the disciples' question
about their failure as exorcists), it is clear that one of the reasons why the
preceding miracle story has been related is so that the Evangelist can
incorporate some teaching of Jesus on prayer. Finally, we can note another
level of this relationship: on occasions miracle and message are so woven
together that they form a single fabric as in Mark 2.1—12 and 3.1—6, but
especially in the Fourth Gospel (e.g. John 9.1—41).4

1 See also Mark 121-2/Luke 431-2; Mark 61-6/Matt 13.53-8/Luke 416-30.

2 See Achtemeier JUL 89 (1970) 265.
3 X. Léon-Dufour The Gospels and the Jesus of History (London: Collins, 1968) 123.
4 Further on miracle and message in Mark see R.T. France "Mark and the Teaching of
Jesus" in France and Wenham (eds.) Gospels Perspectives I, 109-11 Cf. also Mark
814-21
 § 19 Miracle and Message in Jesus ' Ministry 167

This intimate relationship between miracle and message portrayed in

Jesus' ministry is also found reproduced in the mission of the disciples. In
Mark 3.14—15 the disciples are "sent out to preach and have authority to
cast out demons" (cf. 6.12). In Luke 10.9 the command to the disciples is,
". . . heal the sick . . . and say to them, The kingdom of God has come
upon you . . . ' " (cf. Matthew 10.1, 7/Luke 9.2).
In spite of all this, it is important to inquire whether this relationship
between "word and action" is to be traced back to the historical Jesus, or
whether it is a conception which has its origin in the early Christian
community. Our most productive way forward is to note some sayings of
Jesus where his proclamation and activity are presumed or related, and
also to notice those stories where miracle and message are interwoven in
the very structure of the story.
There are four sayings in particular that merit attention; the Spirit/
finger saying (Matthew 12.28/Luke 11.20), the parable of the Strong Man
(Mark 3.27/Matthew 12.29/Luke 11.21—2), the reply to John the Baptist
(Matthew 11.5/Luke 7.22), and the judgement on Chorazin and Bethsaida
(Matthew 1121-3/Luke 10.13-15).
We have already discussed and upheld the authenticity of the first three
logia. On the third, the judgement saying of Matthew 1L21—3/Luke
1013—15,5 Bultmann says that it is a product of the community since it
looks back on Jesus' activity as something already completed and pre-
supposes the failure of the Christian mission in Capernaum.6 Also,
Kàsemann says that the Revelation of John demonstrates that these kind
of curse and blessings are among early Christian forms of prophetic
proclamation and that this particular passage is one of them, and it recalls
the Christian formulation of Matthew 122—V However, there is a
minimal link with Matthew 7.22—3 ("mighty works"), and the "curse and
blessing" form in Revelation does not have the pairing of "curse and
blessing" (cf. Revelation 8.13) nor the parallelism evident in Matthew
1121—3. The passage does presuppose the failure of mission, but the towns
mentioned are not determinative of the tradition, and the post-Easter
Church, at least as reflected in documents produced in the second half of
the first century, show no interest in Chorazin.8 And, notably, this form is

5 Apart from the literature cited below see Fridrichsen Miracle 75f.
6 Bultmann History 112, though, in contrast, see his Jesus and the Word 124.
7 Käsemann in NT Questions 100.
8 W. Grundmann Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1963)
211; cf. E. Neuhausier Anspruch und Antwort Gottes (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1962) 200f_
168 IV Jesus The Exorcist

to be found in the Wisdom material.9 Finally, there is evidence in the

passage that the tradition comes from an early Aramaic source.10
It seems best to suppose that the tradition behind Matthew 11.21—3/
Luke 1013—15 is to be traced back to the historical Jesus. Mussner goes so
far as to say that, "If there is one pre-Easter logion, then it is the lament
of Jesus over these three cities of his native Galilee!"11
These four sayings that originate from the ministry of the historical
Jesus associate miracle and mission. In Matthew 12.28/Luke 11.20 Jesus
makes a direct connection between his exorcisms and the coming of the
kingdom of God — the essence of his proclaimed message (cf. Mark 114—
15)12. Mark 3.27/Matthew 1229/Luke 1L21—2 gives the exorcisms of Jesus
a wider significance than the mere casting out of unclean spirits, viz. the
very downfall or destruction of Satan and his kingdom. And we have seen
(§10 above) that the establishment of the kingdom of God is directly
related to the downfall of the kingdom of Satan. And, Matthew 11.21—
3/Luke 1013—15 links the mighty miracles with a characteristic of Jesus'
proclamation — that men should repent (cf. Mark 114—15).13 Matthew
11.4/Luke 7.22 brings the words and deeds of Jesus together as aspects or
characteristics of the eschatological age.
Two miracle stories in particular are interwoven with Jesus' teaching
and preaching.
First, Mark 2.1—12 (/Matthew 91—8/Luke 517—26), the story of the
paralytic and his four friends. Here the combination of teaching and
miracle may be the result of the amalgamation of what were once
separate traditions.14 Thus, all we can confidently conclude is that the early
Church saw an indivisible link between what Jesus was doing and what he
was saying.
Secondly, Mark 3.1-6 (/Matthew 12.9—14/Luke 6.6—11), the story of the
man with a withered hand. This narrative is the last of a block of three
conflict stories (Mark 2.18—3.6). Bultmann thinks that the origin of the
controversies over the Sabbath usually cannot be put any earlier than the
debates in the early Church.15 On the other hand, the early Church did not

9 K. Berger NTS 17 (1970-1) 10-40, cf. D. Hill "On the Evidence from the Creative Role
of Christian Prophets" NTS 20 (1973-4) 271-4 and JD.G. Dunn "Prophetic T - Sayings
and the Jesus Tradition: The Importance of Testing Prophetic Utterances Within Early
Christianity" NTS 24 (1977-8) 181f.
10 Jeremias Promise 50 n. 1; see also Jeremias Theology 10f„ 15f, and 19.
11 Mussner Miracles 2L
12 Cf. Perrin Kingdom and Jeremias Theology 31-5.
13 Jeremias Theology 152-6.
14 Taylor Mark 191f; Schweizer Mark 60. Anderson Mark 98f.
15 Bultmann Jesus 14; cf. History 12 and notes.
 § 19 Miracle and Message in Jesus ' Ministry 169

face conflict with the Jews about Sabbath healings.16 The saying of Jesus
in verse 4 is the centre of the story. As it is both harsh and not decisive
for the early Church's abandonment of the seventh day observance it is
probably an authentic saying of Jesus.17 And, as the saying presupposes a
specific act like the one described,18 we will take the saying and its present
setting as authentic.
What does this story tell us about Jesus' link between his miracles and
preaching? In short, the healing and the teaching are of a piece in Jesus'
radical rejection of the rabbinic Halakah on the Sabbath which prevented
people from fulfilling God's commandment to love (cf. Mark 227).19 And,
we may go on to conclude that the integral relationship between "word
and action" can be traced to the ministry of the historical Jesus.
Having established that a relationship between miracle and message
goes back to the historical Jesus we can now focus attention on the
nature of that relationship with respect to the exorcisms of Jesus.
The relationship has often been characterized by the word "sign". That
is, the miracles have little or no intrinsic significance but point beyond
themselves to something more important — the message of the coming of
the kingdom.20 We need only mention two examples of this view.21 Rid-
derbos says that Jesus' miracles serve only as proofs of Jesus' power, a
view that Luke took up.22 Fridrichsen gives pride of place to Jesus'
message, with the miracles accompanying and confirming the pro-
clamatioa 2 3 Bultmann also sees the miracles, especially the exorcisms, as
signs of the dawning of the coming kingdom.24 There is no doubt that this
view was held by at least some sectors of the early Church represented in
the New Testament, the most important being John's Gospel which
understands Jesus' miracles as authenticating Jesus and his message. For
example, . . even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that
you may know that the Father is in me and I am in the Father" (10.38; cf.

16 Schürmann Lukas. I, 309f; cf. Marshall Luke 234.

17 Anderson Mark Ulf.; W. Scott in DNTT III, 408. Cf. Jeremias Theology 6 and 208ff.
18 Anderson Mark 112.
19 See Jeremias Theology 208ff_
20 Cf. Sevenster cited by Loos Miracles 281; Kallas Significance 77.
21 For other examples see Loos Miracles 280-6. Also E. Schweizer Jesus (London: SCM,
1971) 43; M. Grant Jesus 33 and n. 18; Aune ANRW 11232 (1980) 1533.
22 Ridderbos cited in Loos Miracles 282
23 In Loos Miracles 282.
24 Bultmann Jesus Christ and Mythology 12f; also cited by Hiers SJT 27 (1974) 37,
see 38 for mention of others who hold these views; also Kee Origins 62; Koester
Introduction II, 79; R. Leivestad Jesus in His Own Perspective (Minneapolis: Augs-
burg, 1987) 125; HJC Nielsen Heilung und Verkündigung (Leiden and New York: Brill,
1987).
170 IV Jesus The Exorcist

2.23; 4.54; 1218; 20.30).25 In Acts the miracles of Jesus are mentioned only
twice (222 and 10.38), and in each case the miracles are seen as signs
authenticating Jesus' mission.
When we examine the four sayings of Jesus which we have mentioned
above, the picture is significantly different. In the judgement saying
(Matthew 11.21—3/Luke 1013—15) the relationship between miracle and
message is not clear, all that is said is that the miracles are expected to
bring about repentance. This could be construed to mean that Jesus saw
his miracles as authenticating his mission. But, over against this we should
set three traditions that relate Jesus' refusal to give a sign; Mark 811
(Matthew 16.1—4), Q (Matthew 12.39/Luke 11.29) and the Gospel of
Thomas 91.26 This is strong evidence against the view that Jesus used his
miracles to authenticate his mission (cf. Matthew 4.3/Luke 4.3). In reply to
John the Baptist (Matthew 11.5/Luke 7.22) the miracles and the message
are equated, they are equally part of a whole; they are both events of the
New Age. In the parable of the Strong Man (Mark 3.27/Matthew 12.29/
Luke 1L21—2; see §10 above), the exorcisms do not illustrate the message
of the downfall of the kingdom of Satan, but themselves constitute that
very downfall. And, in the Spirit/finger saying (Matthew 12.28/Luke 11.20),
Jesus says that the exorcisms themselves are the coming of the kingdom.27
Therefore, the exorcisms are not, as Otto Betz thinks, preparatory to the
coming of the kingdom.28 They do not illustrate, extend, or even confirm
Jesus' preaching. In the casting out of demons, the mission of Jesus itself is
taking place, being actualized or fulfilled. In short, in themselves the
exorcisms of Jesus are the kingdom of God in operation.29

25 Cf. Hiers SJT 27 (1974) 37f„ and note Fridrichsen Miracle 63-72.
26 I take it that the Gospel of Thomas is independent of the synoptic tradition. See the
discussion in, e.g. B. Chilton "The Gospel According to Thomas as a Source of Jesus'
Teaching" in Wenham (ed.) Gospel Perspectives 5, 155-75. It is interesting to note
that in b.B. Mes. 59b there is a legendary account of a doctrinal argument around the
end of the first century AD between Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and his colleagues
which Vermes relates as follows.
"Having exhausted his arsenal of reasoning and still not convinced them, he
performed a miracle, only to be told that there is no room for miracles in a legal
debate. In exasperation he then exclaimed: 'If my teaching is correct, may it be
proved by HeavenT Whereupon a celestial voice declared: 'What have you against
Rabbi Eliezer, for his teaching is correct?' But this intervention was ruled out of
order because in the Bible it is written that decisions are to be reached by ma-
jority vote" (Vermes Jesus 81-2).
27 R J l Hiers The Kingdom of God in the Synoptic Tradition (Gainesville: Florida Uni-
vesity Press, 1970) 63. Cf. Borg Conflict-. ". . . Jesus' exorcisms were the Kingdom of
God manifested within the world of history" (253).
28 O. Betz "Jesu Heiliger Krieg" NovT 2 (1958) 128-9. Cf. Hiers SJT 27 (1974) 35-47.
29 Cf. Yates ITQ 44 (1977) 44 and Leivestad Jesus 106-7. See also Hunter Work 83;
 §19 Miracle and Message in Jesus ' Ministry 171

It is this conclusion and this dimension to Jesus' exorcisms, more than

anything else, which sets him out over against his background and en-
vironment Even if every other aspect of Jesus' technique may have had at
least a faint echo in other material, it is this indivisibility of miracle and
message which reveals the exorcisms of Jesus to be especially unique.
Jesus' exorcisms were not simply "healings" but were the coming of the
kingdom of God.30 We will take up this point in chapter VI when we
discuss Jesus' self-understanding in relation to his exorcisms.

Kee Medicine 73. Cf. G X Stanton Jesus of Nazareth in NT Preaching (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1974):
"Jesus' proclamation and his actions and conduct were linked inseparably; his
teaching was not merely a series of prophetic propositions illustrated by his
actions and conduct, for the latter were as much 'message' as his words. Similarly,
as has been emphasised recently, Jesus' parables were intended neither to convey
timeless truths, nor to illustrate the proclamation of Jesus; they themselves were
'message' " (175).
Cf. Borg Conflict 253.
30 On the "sign" value of miracles in Plutarch see Kee Medicine 88-94 and in the phar-
isaic traditions, Kee Miracle 70-3, 155.
 § 20 Conclusions

The whole of this chapter has been a gathering of results from the
previous two chapters. We have tried to draw a picture of Jesus as an
exorcist.
From this chapter we are left in no doubt that the historical Jesus was
an exorcist Even with the case in Mark 5, where Jesus was not imme-
diately successful, the biblical and extra-biblical material leaves us in no
doubt that Jesus was an extraordinarily powerful and successful exorcist
We are left in no doubt that he was a "man of his time". We can see that
the twentieth century notion that Jesus healed with a "mere word" is an
oversimplification, even misrepresentation, of Jesus' healing procedure. He
was an exorcist who used words or incantations, all of which would have
been readily recognized by those around him. On one occasion Jesus even
used a herd of pigs as part of his technique.
In his treatment of "The Form and History of Miracle Stories," Bult-
mann dealt with the ancient material that bears a resemblance to elements
in the Synoptic miracle stories.1 What Bultmann was attempting to show
through these "parallels" was that the early Christian oral tradition was
dependent on Jewish and Hellenistic folk traditions for its stories and
miracle motifs.2 While such a situation may, for some, reduce the "culture-
shock" between first and twentieth century Christianity, this historical and
hermeneutical contortion is unacceptable for it needs to be stated
categorically that Bultmann's is an unproved case. The most important-
factor which Bultmann failed to take into account was that evidence
which he produced to show that folk stories and miracle motifs had come
into the oral tradition on the exorcism of demons is later than the
formation of the Synoptic traditioa So, over against Bultmann, it is just as
likely and reasonable to suppose that folk traditions and miracle motifs
have made their way from the early Christian tradition to these traditions.

1 Bultmann History 218ff; Dibelius Tradition 133ff_

2 Bultmann History 240.
 §20 Conclusions 173

This was one of the results, in part, of Goodenough's majestial work.3. In

this and the last chapter, our study militates against the notion of an
accretion of elements of miracle traditions onto the Synoptic tradition
from outside.
In many ways, Jesus as an exorcist was a very ordinary exorcist;
demons were distressed and threatened by his presence, there was a
struggle between demon and exorcist, there were familiar incantational
exchanges between Jesus and the demon(iac)s, and we know of one oc-
casion when Jesus healed a demoniac from a distance. On the other hand,
there were aspects of Jesus' exorcism which, although not unique, stand
out as particularly characteristic of his procedure. Unlike probably most
exorcisms of the era, no mechanical aids were used, such as special
artifacts or the laying on of hands. Jesus neither used nor offered proof of
his cures — save the evidence of the healed demoniacs (Mark 5J.5). In
contrast to others, he did not even declare the source of his power-
authority, not even that he was dependent upon the Spirit of God.
Thus, what begins to mark out Jesus' exorcistic ministry from the
technique of his fellows is that not only did he claim no outside aid for
his success, but, also, he seems to have consciously emphasized that his
resources were none other than his own person ("I . . ."). We can agree
with Hengel where he says:
". . . where the problem of the small significance which attaches to the Spirit in the
case of Jesus is concerned, we should have to consider whether the reason for its rare
appearances in the original tradition is that Jesus did not need to have to resort to the
Spirit as an intermediary, given his unique claim to authority, drawn as it was from
the immediacy of his relation to God."4
Although in historical investigation it is hazardous to claim something
as unique, it appears that Jesus' giving his exorcisms a dimension of sig-
nificance beyond the mere healing of demented individuals was just that
Jesus was the first one to link the relatively common phenomenon of
exorcism with eschatology. Though Jesus is not unique in combining the
role of teacher and exorcist.5 Jesus stands out in his era as one who not
only relied on his own resources for success in exoricsm, but at the same
time claimed that in them God himself was in action and that that action
was the coming of God's eschatological kingdom.

3 Goodenough Symbols II, 173ff. and 191.

4 Hengel Charismatic Leader 63; cf. R. Pesch "Zur theologischen Bedeutung der 'Macht-
taten' Jesu. Reflexionen eines Exegeten" TQ 152 (1972) 203-13. See also E. Fuchs, "Jesus
dares to make God's will effective as if he himself stood in God's stead." Quoted by
Hengel Charismatic Leader 68; see also 87.
5 Contra R. Kampling "Jesus von Nazaret - Lehrer und Exorzist" BZ 30 (1986) 237-48.
174 IV Jesus The Exorcist

The historical Jesus the exorcist does indeed come to us as One

unknown, as a stranger to our time.6 But, we must not excise that
strangeness from the historical Jesus. How important it is then, that we
should go on to discover how his contemporaries assessed him and inter-
preted this dimension of their Jesus. For thereby we twentieth century
Christians may understand him better and find a way to begin to under-
stand and interpret Jesus the exorcist for our time.

6 Cf. Schweitzer Quest 399 and 40L

 V
As Others Saw Him

§ 21 Introduction

We are now in a position to explore the ways in which people in the first
century responded to Jesus the exorcist This is, in a sense, secondary to
our purpose of recovering the historical Jesus the exorcist. However, if we
can gain at least some impression of the early responses to and assess-
ments of this aspect of Jesus' ministry it will, in turn, help to fill out our
picture of Jesus the exorcist
The most readily available materials to recover possible responses to
Jesus are the writings of the early Church. From these we are able to
realize not only the responses to Jesus by the early Church, but behind
these interpretations and responses, we may also be able to recover some
of the initial responses to Jesus' exorcisms by the original audiences. Apart
from the New Testament, there is other literature which acknowledges
Jesus to be an exorcist and we will not ignore this in an attempt at
salvaging early responses to Jesus' exorcistic ministry.
It needs to be stressed that, in the first place, we are conducting a
historical inquiry and so we are not asking how we in the twentieth
century should understand or categorize Jesus the exorcist but how those
of his era responded to, and understood him.
In order to do this we shall, first, analyse the Gospel material relating to
Jesus' exorcisms to see what it can tell us about his audience's response to
him Secondly, with the aid of extra-biblical material, we will critically
examine some of the suggestions as to how people in the first and second
centuries assessed or categorized Jesus the exorcist.1

1 Cf. Borg Theology Today 45 (1988) 280-92 and BJ. Lee The Galilean Jewishness of
Jesus (New York: Paulist, 1988).
 § 22 Jesus' Audience

If we scrutinize the Gospel material relating to Jesus the exorcist four

broad categories of response are preserved (1) It is often said that Jesus'
exorcisms moved the observers to fear and amazement (Mark L27/Luke
4.36; Mark 514/Matthew 8.33/Luke 8.34; Matthew 12.23/Luke 11.14). (2) On
occasions the tradition proposes that, as a result of Jesus' exorcisms, some
bystanders declared him to be mad and demon-possessed (Mark 321, 30,
[John 7.20; 8.48; 10.20]). (3) Some said that it was by Beelzebul that he cast
out demons (Mark 3.22/Matthew 1224/Luke 11.15) and (4) others are said
to conclude that Jesus the exorcist was the Messiah (Matthew 1223). Our
task now is to assess the historicity and meaning of the Gospel records at
these points. We will deal with the first two points here and, because of
their significance, the other two points we will take up in separable sec-
tions below.
L Fear and amazement as a response to Jesus' exorcisms (Mark
1.27/Luke 4.36; Mark 5.14/Matthew 8.33/Luke 8.34; Matthew 1223/Luke
1114). This is sometimes thought to be a stereotyped closing motif in the
miracle stories.1 When we were dealing with Mark 1.27 in chapter III we
were able to cast some considerable doubt on this assumption, but we
were unable to decide on the historicity of this element in the Gospel
stories.
A way forward in approaching this problem is to ask if there could
have been anything in Jesus' exorcisms that might have created fear or
amazement in the bystanders.
(a) In relation to Mark 1.27 — "And they were all amazed" — Taylor
admits that 0a^peco is remarkable since the Jews were not unfamiliar with
exorcism. But, Taylor goes on to suggest that, "the astonishment is due to
the fact that Jesus casts out the unclean spirits with a word, without the
use of magical formulae . . ."2 Taylor's idea that Jesus' technique consisted
of a mere word may come from Matthew 8.8/Luke 7.7 where the cen-
turion asks Jesus to "say a word" so his boy will be healed (cf. Matthew

1 See those cited in Loos Miracles 131ff. and Theissen Miracle 69-71.
2 Taylor Mark 176. Taylor also quotes Fascher Die formgeschichtliche Methode 127f_
 §22 Jesus'Audience 177

8.16 and Luke 4.36). But, in the last chapter, we have already shown that
Jesus did use "magical formulae" or "incantations" in his exorcisms.
(b) We have also shown (chap. IV) that Jesus' virtual lack of the use of
mechanical aids in his exorcisms was not a feature deleted from the
traditioa We have seen that although healing by words alone was most
probably not unique to Jesus, it seems to have been sufficiently extra-
ordinary that it may have been the cause of some amazement to those
who witnessed his exorcisms. The same could also be said on the brevity
of his healing technique.
(c) In Mark 514 the drowning of the herd of pigs is said to cause the
herdsmen to flee. As the pigs episode properly belongs to this exorcism
story it is not surprising that this exorcism should produce such a response.
However, the mention of fear at this point may, as we saw (§7 above), be
redactional.
(d) Though Jesus' methods have parallels, we have seen in the last
chapter that there are very few reports in the literature of similar healings.
It could be, then, that the crowd had not seen such an exorcist or one with
such success.
In conclusion, we can see that like any exorcism, those of Jesus would
have caused fear and amazement in the observers not least because, at
times, they had extraordinary features.
2. Mad and demon-possessed (Mark 3.21, 30; [John 7.20; 8.48; 10.20]). As
his introduction to the Beelzebul Controversy Mark has "those with him"
(oi nap' auxou) say that Jesus was "beside himself" (ei-eatr|).3 Whether
"those with him" were the friends or family of Jesus need not detain us,
though Mark clearly intended the phrase to mean "family" (see 3.31).4 That
this charge goes back to the life situation of Jesus is quite probable for it
is hardly a charge that the Church would introduce into the traditioa In
fact, Matthew (12.22; cf. 46ff.) and Luke (11.14; cf. 8.19ff.) suppress the
incident (see §10 above). Our confidence in the historicity of the charge is
further increased when we take into account the independent tradition of
John 10.20 where Jews are said to charge Jesus with being mad (|iaivetai).
But, did this charge in Mark 3.21 originally have any connection with
Jesus' activity as an exorcist? The Fourth Gospel, though containing no
exorcism narratives, preserves the charge of madness. However, John con-

3 R Wansbrough suggests that it was the crowd that was "out of control" ("Mark 3.21
- Was Jesus out of his Mind?" NTS 18 [1972] 133f.). But Kpaxiioai can hardly mean
"calm down". Cf. Dunn Jesus 384 n. 115; D. Wenham "The Meaning of Mark 3.21"
NTS 21 (1974-5) 295f; Nkwoka Biblebhashyam 15 (1989) 205-21, considers this passage
to contain a misplaced charge of fanaticism.
4 E. Best "Mark 3.20, 21, 31-35" NTS 22 (1975-6) 309-19; Guelich Mark I, 172.
178 V As Others Saw Him

sistently shifts all criticism away from the activity of Jesus to his teaching
and so we cannot be sure of the value of his testimony on this point.
We are left with Mark. The Beelzebul Controversy is obviously related
to Jesus as an exorcist. It is fairly certain that the accusations in 319b—21
were in the position Mark now has them. In the first place, although these
verses display a Markan hand,5 Q (Matthew 12.22—3/Luke 1114) has a
miracle as the introduction to the Beelzebul Controversy. Second, when we
note that the Markan account of the Beelzebul charge (322) is one of
demon-possession (see §10 above) — so severe that it is most probably
authentic — and that demon-possession was thought to be equivalent to
being mad6 we can see why 3.21, 22 (and 30) were brought together even
if they were not originally part of the same report.
We need to consider why Jesus' observers charged him with being
possessed and, in his exorcisms, acting as a tool of Satan (Mark 322/
Matthew 12.24/Luke 11.15).
It cannot be that Jesus was accused of being in league with Satan
because he did not reveal his source of power-authority or be exorcising
"in the name of" say, "God". From rabbinic traditions we know of another
Jewish exorcist who did not declare his source of power-authority yet was
not ousted from the community (Rabbi Simeon in b. Me'il. 17b).
An answer to our question may come if we look more widely across
Jesus' ministry to indications of difficulties Jesus may have had with the
religious authorities.
(a) Later we will be suggesting that Jesus may have been considered as
something similar to one of the hasidic charismatics (see §26 below). In
the past it has been argued that these charismatics were strict Pharisees.7
More recently it is being recognized that the hasidim were highly in-
dividual and sometimes, indeed, opposed to that generally prevailing and
not to be identified with the Pharisees.8 Vermes says that there are two
reasons for this tension between the charismatics and institutional Judaism.
First, the hasidim refused to conform in matters of behaviour and
religious observance.9 From what we know of Jesus from the Gospels his
behaviour and religious observance were not entirely conventional For

5 See Pryke Style 12. Cf. Best NTS 22 (1975-6) 309f.

6 Anderson Mark 121; John 10.20; (Acts 12I5f.). In Josephus Ant. 6168 Saul, who had had
a demon which was charmed away, is said to have been "restored to himself". See also
Vermes Jesus 64-5.
7 E.g. A. Büchler Types of Jewish-Palestinian Piety (London: Jews College, 1922) 264.
8 S. Safrai "Teaching of Piestists in Mishnaic Literature" JJS 16 (1 and 2, 1965) 15-33.
Cf. Flusser Jesus 56; Neusner Traditions III, 314, also cited with approval by Vermes
Jesus 80 and nni09, 110.
9 Vermes Jesus 80; cf. Green ANRW II.19.2 (1979) 625, 646-7 and see Jeremias Theo-
logy 226.
 §22 Jesus'Audience 179
example, Jesus is shown to be in the company of women of ill-repute (e.g.
Luke 7.36—50). Also, Jesus is shown as disregarding Sabbath laws (e.g.
Mark 3.1—5) and standing over against the Mosaic law (e.g. Matthew
5.38—9). In Mark 7.1—23, Jesus is shown to be attacking Pharisaic rules
concerning ritual purity.
Second, the charismatics caused tension because of their sense of un-
restrained authority. To quote Vermes: "The charismatics' informal famil-
iarity with God and confidence in the efficacy of their words was . . .
disliked by those whose authority was derived from established channels."10
As examples of this in Jesus' ministry we can cite the story of the
paralytic being forgiven (Mark 2.1—12) and the story of the cleansing of
the Temple (Mark 11.15-19/Mathew 21.12-17/Luke 19.45-8 and John
2.13—25). Also, in the face of popular expectation, Jesus is said to refuse to
perform miracles to authenticate his status before God (Matthew 12.38—
42/Luke 11.29-32).11
(b) Further, those who responded to Jesus' unauthenticated, or perhaps
self-authenticating call were not even his family but sometimes the
religious, political and social outcasts. Thus, we find part of the back-
ground to the charge in what Kee says: "This prophet, lacking human
credentials or the support of the established structures of society, is a
radical threat to both the religious and social institutions of his culture."12
(c) Jesus was a Galilean. Galileans were an independent, aggressive and
militant people. Josephus said they had "always resisted any hostile

10 Vermes Jesus 80. Cf. Hollenbach JAAR 49 (1981) 577, relying on A. Kiev (ed.) Magic,
Faith, and Healing: Studies in Primitive Psychiatry Today (New York: Free, 1964)
460-2,
. . while most healers are regarded, and see themselves as servants of their
society, a few overstep the bounds of this intergration and become threats to the
stability of their society."
11 It is not that the Messiah was expected to be a wonder-worker or charismatic. (See
Schurer History II, 525 n. 42 "This view [that the Messiah will prove his identity by
means of miracles] is absent from the rabbinic texts. . . the Messiah. . . is never
mentioned anywhere in the Tannaitic literature as a -wonder-worker per se' " (J.
Klausner The Messianic Idea in Israel [1904, New York: Macmillan, 1955] 506).
Rather, it was probably expected that claims of a special relationship with God
required an authenticating sign. See b. Sanh. 98a where R. Jose b. Kisma, a Babylonian
Amora, and his disciples, discuss the sign attending the coming Messiah and b. B.
Mes. 59b where Rabbi Eliezar's teaching is authenticated by a voice from heaven
(quoted §19 n. 26 above). Cf. Matt lL2-6/Luke 7.18-23; Josephus Ant. 20.97 (where
Theudas the false prophet "stated that he was a prophet and that at his command the
river would be parted"); b. Sanh. 93b on Bar Koziba's claim to be the Messiah failing
on the grounds that he could not "judge by the scent". See also AJB. Kolenkow
"Relationships between Miracle and Prophecy in the Greco-Roman World and Early
Christianity" in ANRW 11.232 (1980) 1482-91.
12 Kee Miracle 158.
180 V As Others Saw Him

invasion, for the inhabitants are from infancy inured to war" (War 3.41).13
Vermes tells us that in Jerusalem, in Judaean circles, the Galileans had the
reputation of being unsophisticated. "In rabbinic parlance, a Galilean is
usually referred to as Gelili shoteh, a stupid Galileaa He is presented as a
typical 'peasant', a boor, a 'am ha-arez, a religiously uneducated persoa"14
In line with this we note that in Mark 3.22 the critics of Jesus are said to
be scribes from Jerusalem.
Further to this we may note what Josephus says about the Jesus
movement In Acts 5.34—9 Jesus and his followers are compared to the
popular messianic movements of Theudas and Judas the Galilean.15 In
Josephus, Judas and a Theudas (identified with the Theudas of Acts by
most, though not all scholars16) are roundly condemned. Josephus says that
Theudas is a yor\c, (cheat, rogue or imposter) and he is said to have
deceived (outaidco) people (Ant. 20.97—9). In a section on these subversive
leaders and movements Josephus says of Jesus and his followers: "About
this time there lived (a certain) Jesus, a wise man . . . For he wrought
surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the (unusual)
gladly" (Ant. 18.63f.). And Josephus, reflecting Jewish as well as Roman
establishment views, would most probably have had the Jesus movement
in mind when he says, " . . . I cannot conceal my private sentiments, nor
refuse to give my personal sympathies scope to bewail my country's
misfortunes. For that it owed its ruin to civil srtife, and that it was the
Jewish tyrants (lupavvoi) who drew down upon the holy temple the un-
willing hordes of the Romans . . ( W a r 1.10).11
In the light of his being considered a social and religious deviant, and
leading a potentially subversive movement, Jesus would have been seen as
a radical threat to the establishment. Thus, it is not surprising that Jesus
was alienated by the religious establishment and condemned with the most

13 Note S. Freyne T h e Galileans in the Light of Josephus' Vita" NTS 26 (1980) 397-413
correcting the view that Galilee was the home of militant revolutionaries in the first
century. He argues that Josephus depicts the Galileans as his aggressive militant
supporters whose mission it was to preserve peace in Galilee. Here we can note
Bultmann's conclusion that Jesus was finally crucified as a messianic agitator, Jesus
and the Word 29.
14 Vermes Judaism 5. On the 'am ha-aretz see A. Oppenheimer The 'Am Ha-aretz: A
Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period
(Leiden: Brill, 1977).
15 On the question of "How Revolutionary Was Galilee?" see the chapter of that title in
S. Freyne Galilee From Alexander the Great to Hadrian (Wilmington: Glazier and
Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980) 208-55.
16 See Bruce Acts (1952) 147 and Haenchen Acts 252.
17 Further on these passages and their reconstruction see Twelftree in Wenham (ed.)
Gospel Perspectives 5, 289-308.
 §22 Jesus'Audience 181

cutting criticism: he was not from God but, in his exorcisms, was acting as
an agent of Beelzebul or Sataa18
In conclusion, the original observers most probably accused Jesus the
exorcist of being a religious deviant: demon-possessed and motivated by
Satan.19 Although the charge of being a religious deviant is equivalent to
being motivated by Satan we cannot be sure that, as an exorcist, Jesus was
considered mad. We have also seen that his exorcisms caused his audience
to experience fear and amazement.

18 Cf. Vermes Jesus 82: "Since haiakhah became the corner-stone of rabbinic Judaism, it
is not surprising that, despite their popular religious appeal, Jesus, Hanina, and the
others, were slowly but surely squeezed out beyond the pale of true respectability."
Also, Green ANRW 11S92 (1979) 646, "The bulk of the evidence from the first two
centuries shows that charismatic types who claimed miraculous powers were anti-
thetical to and played little role in early rabbinism. God might work miracles, but
early rabbis could not."
19 This conclusion is in line with J.Z Smith's research in ANRW IL16.1 (1978) 429:
"I shall propose as an initial interpretation of the demonic the sort of model
raised to recent prominence by Mary Douglas and others concerned with issues of
taxonomy: that negative valence is attached to things which escape place (the
chaotic, the rebellious, the distant) or things found just outside the place where
they properly belong (the hybrid, the deviant, the adjacent)."
Here Smith cites M Douglas Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of
Pollution and Taboo (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970) and among others, R. Bulmer
"Why is the Casswary not a Bird?" Man (ns.) 2 (1967) 5-25.
 § 23 Messiah?

Did the exorcisms of Jesus lead his observers to conclude that he was the
Messiah?1 Although this question really belongs in the previous section,
because of its importance for Christology and Christian theology we will
treat it separately. Old Testament passages such as Isaiah 32.1—20 can
hardly be thought to raise the expectation that the Messiah would be an
exorcist However, the question of whether or not Jesus' exorcisms were
proofs of his messiahship is brought into focus by Matthew 12.23 which
specifies the crowd's response to Jesus' healing a demoniac as, "Can this be
the Son of David?"2
However, when we examined the Beelzebul Controversy pericope, (§10
above) we concluded that this acclamation by the crowd had its origin in
Matthew's redactional activity. Therefore, it would be natural to conclude
that Jesus' exorcisms did not, at least for the crowd, demonstrate or prove
his messiahship. However, the matter cannot be left there for Matthew
might be reflecting an earlier tradition about such a response to Jesus.
Also, the work of a number of scholars suggests that the messianic hopes
of the time involved an expectation that the Messiah would cast out
demons.3 So, the question remains open, Did his exorcisms lead Jesus' au-
dience to conclude that he was the Messiah?
A possitive reply to this question could be based on two points.
First, it is suggested that there was a hope that the Messiah would deal
with evil spirits and it is assumed that Jesus' exorcisms would be seen as

1 For discussion of messianic expectations in the first century AD see Leivestad

Jesus chap. 5; J. Neusner, WÜ. Green and EÜ. Frerichs (eds.) Judaism and their
Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge, UK and New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1987>, LM. Zeitlin Jesus and the Judaism of His Time
(Cambridge, UK: Polity, 1988) 38-44.
2 On the equation of "Messiah" and "Son of David" in the Gospels see G.F. Moore
Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era 2 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1946) II, 329 and notes; R.H. Fuller The Foundations of NT Chris-
tology (London and Glasgow: Collins/Fontana, 1969) lllf_ See also Mark 311.
3 Str-B IV, 534f; Russell Method 287; Barrett Spirit 57ff; P. Volz Die Eschatologie der
jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Hildesheim: Olms, 1966) §31;
Schürer History II, 526-9; Sanders Jesus 161
 §23 Messiah? 183

the fulfilment of that hope (see n. 2 above). The evidence that can be
cited is Testamentt of Levi 18.11f.; Testament of Judah 25.3; Testament of
Zebulon 9.8; Testament of Dan 5.10f.; Testament of Reuben 610—12; As-
sumption of Moses 10.1, 3; Sifra Leviticus 26.6; Pesiqta Rabbati 36; 1
Enoch 10.4 and 55.4.
Secondly, with Matthew 12.23 in mind — "Can this be the Son of
David?" — and in view of the tradition of Solomon's expertise in combat-
ing demons, it can be seen how "Son of David" might have been thought
a particularly appropriate title for the Coming One in this context. To this
we can add that the title "Son of David" comes from the very earliest
traditions and was little used outside Palestine.4 And, despite the uncertain
history of the title prior to the Christian era,5 there is some evidence that
it was in use among the rabbis in the late first century.6
What are we to make of this evidence? Did his exorcisms show that
Jesus was the Messiah?
First, we can consider the use of "Son of David" in connection with
exorcism. To our knowledge, the title "Son of David" occurs for the first
and only time in pre-Christian literature in Psalms of Solomon 17.21(23):
"raise up for them their king, the son of David."7 In the passage
17.21(23)—46, which is based on 2 Samuel 7,8 the hope is expressed that
God will raise up a king who will, for example, throw off alien domi-
nation, recapture Jerusalem and purify it of the heathen, and rule in purity
and righteousness. But, no mention is made of exorcism or even dealing
with demons. The Dead Sea document 4 QFlorilegium (4Q174), a collection
of midrashim on some eschatological texts from the Old Testament,
mentions the "shoot of David" (111). However, neither exorcism nor the
defeat of evil spiritual beings are mentioned as a role for this figure.
There may be a slight association seen between this figure and the
destruction of evil for in 1.7—9, 2 Samuel 7.11b ("And I shall give you rest

4 Burger Davidssohn 41 On Matthew's use of the title see Ji). Kingsbury Structure 99—
103 and literature cited. See also B.M. Nolan T h e Figure of David as a Focus for the
Christology of Matthew" Scripture Bulletin 12 (1981) 46-9 and W.R.G. Loader "Son of
Daivd, Blindness, Possession, and Duality in Matthew" CBQ 44 (1982) 570-85; DJ.
Verseput "The Role and Meaning of the 'Son of God' Title in Matthew's Gospel"
NTS 33 (1987) 532-56; J. Bowman "David, Jesus the Son of David and Son of Man"
Abr-Nahrain 27 (1989) 1-22.
5 D.G Duling 'The Promises to David and their Entrance into Christianity - Nailing
Down a Likely Hypothesis" NTS 20 (1973-4) 68f_
6 Klausner The Messianic Idea 392.
7 Dalman Words 317; Fuller Christology 33; Str-B I, 525. The Pss. Sol. are to be dated
mid first century BC; O. Eissfeldt The OT: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 1965)
613 and R3. Wright in OTP 2, 640-L
8 Dalman (Words 317) says that the actual designation is probably dependent upon such
passages as Isa 9.5 (LXX); 11.10; Jer 23.5; 33.15.
184 V As Others Saw Him

from your enemies") is interpreted as the Lord, who in the eschaton, gives
rest from all the sons of Belial.9 The rabbinic material10 also does not link
the often mentioned figure, Son of David, with exorcism or dealing with
Satan and the demons.
If we look at this from the other side we see that the expectation that
the Messiah would do battle with evil spirits does not involve the term or
title "Son of David". The title is used in conjunction with the control of
demons in the Testament of Solomon (e.g. 1.5—7). However, this has been
so thoroughly reworked by a Christian hand that it cannot be used to
establish the nature of the pre-Christian messianic hope. Thus, the certain
pre-Christian use of the title in a messianic context is not related to exor-
cism nor dealing with demons.
It should not surprise us that in the Jewish literature of the New
Testament era the "Son of David" figure was not expected either to be an
exorcist or at all directly involved in the defeat of evil For, at least in
rabbinic Judaism, interest was directed not so much on the person and the
tasks of the eschatological figure as on the fact that the eschaton comes in
and through him.11
As we have noted, the title is used frequently in Jewish literature from
the Psalms of Solomon on, so it cannot be seen as a peculiarly Christian
designation.12 But, the association of the title with a therapeutic Messiah
does seem to be a Christian innovation preserved in the Matthean tra-
dition (Matthew 9.27; 12.23; 15.22; 20.30, 31). The innovative association of
"Son of David" with exorcism probably came about because, as LAB 60
adumbrates and the whole of the Testament of Solomon makes explicit,
the title "Son of David" was the one available messianic title that had
strong healing connotations.13 So, in short, prior to its use in Christian
circles "Son of David" was not connected with the Coming One's expected
dealings with Satan and the demons and, thus, evidence in this area does
not support the possibility that Jesus' observers would have immediately
responded to his exorcisms with the acclamation of Matthew 1223.
Second, in trying to discover whether or not Jesus' exorcisms showed
his audience he was the Messiah, we should examine the literature which
has been cited as evidence that the expected Messiah would deal with

9 For a detailed treatment of this text see GJ. Brooke Exegesis at Qumran:
4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (Sheffield: JSOT, 1985).
10 Cited by Dalman Words 317; Str-B 1,525 and Bousset and Gressmann Die Religion 226-7
11 Cf. Lohse TDNT VIII, 481.
12 Pss. Sol. 17 (cf. Sir 47J1; 1 Macc 2.57); Dalman Words 317; Fuller Christology 33 and
see n. 8 above.
13 Cf. Duling HTR 68 (1975) 235-52
 §23 Messiah? 185

Satan and his minions to see if it involved an expectation that the Messiah
would be an exorcist.
L It is to be noted that much of the evidence comes from the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. In using this material as part of the
background of Christian origins, some care must be exercised for it has
long been accepted that the Testaments have undergone Christian inter-
polations.14 There is at present considerable debate over the origins of the
Testaments which was inaugurated primarily by de Jonge's work.15 This
debate need detain us only in so far as it alerts us to the necessity of
examining each of the passages from the Testaments, cited early in this
section, to see whether or not the pertinent lines have a Christian origin.
Testament of Reuben 610-12.
"Draw near to Levi in humility of your hearts in order that you may receive blessing
from his mouth. For he will bless Israel and Judah, since it is through him that the
Lord has chosen to reign in the presence of all the people. Prostrate yourselves before
his posterity, because (his offspring) will die in your behalf in wars visible and
invisible. And he shall be among you an eternal king"

We should exclude this passage from the evidence, for its reference to
dealing with Satan and the demons is not plain. In any case, the section
6.5—12 looks like a later addition16 and the awkward reference in verse 12
to an eternal king dying in wars visible and invisible quite probably refers
to Jesus.
Testament of Levi 1811b—12
T h e spirit of holiness shall be upon them.
And Beliar shall be bound by him.
And he shall grant to his children the authority to trample on wicked spirits."
The whole of this chapter, which has some agreements with the Testa-
ment of Judah 24, is probably a hymn which glorifies Christ.17 Also, verses
6—7 appear like a description of Jesus' baptism.

14 See references given by RFX). Sparks' review of M de Jonge The Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of Their Texts, Compositon and Origin (Assen: Van
Gorcum, 1953) in J TS 6 (1955) 287. Quotations from the Testaments are from OTP I
15 de Jonge Testaments. On the present debate see J. Becker Untersuchungen zur Ent-
stehungsgeschichte der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen (Leiden: Brill, 1970>, M. de
Jonge "The Interpretation of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in Recent
Years" in M. de Jonge Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Pariarchs: Text and
Interpretation (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 183-92; HD. Slingerland The Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical History of Research (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977) esp.
chap. V t M de Jonge "The Main Issues in the Study of the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs" NTS 26 (1980) 508-24; H.W. Hollander and M de Jonge The Testaments of
the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary. (Leiden: Brill, 1985>, M de Jonge "The Testa-
ments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Christian and Jewish. A Hundred Years After
Friedrich Schnapp" NedTTs 39 (1985) 265-75.
16 de Jonge Testaments 37.
17 de Jonge Testaments 89; cf. M Black "Messiah in the Testament of Levi xviii" Exp-
Tim 60 (1948-9) 322.
186 V As Others Saw Him

"The heavens will be opened,

and from the temple of glory sanctification will come upon him,
with a fatherly voice, as from Abraham to Isaac.
And the glory of the Most High shall burst forth upon him.
And the spirit of understanding and sanctification shall rest upon him <in the water>"
(cf. Mark L10-11).
Verse 3 — "And his star shall rise in heaven like a King" — is prob-
ably a reflection of Matthew 22. Verse 12b — "And he shall give
authority to his children to tread upon evil spirits" — can be compared
with Luke 10.19. The origin of verse 12a — "And Beliar shall be bound by
him" — is dificult to judge. If it is compared with Matthew 12.29/Luke
1121, where Jesus binds the Strong Man, then perhaps verse 12a could well
have a Christian origin. However, although Beliar is a relatively late title
for Satan,18 it does have a brief pre-Christian history (e.g. Jubilees 16.33).19
On balance, I think that it is difficult to see the passage as certainly being
pre-Christian, even though it contains an older term.
Testament of Judah 25.3b.
"There shall no more be Beliar's spirit of error, because he will be thrown into eternal
fire."

The reference to a spirit of deceit or error (itveU[xa nXavric) is remi-

niscent of 1 Timothy 4.1 and 1 John 4.6. The idea of the destruction of
Satan by casting him into the fire forever may reflect Matthew 8.29 (cf.
Luke 12.5). Thus, we have little confidence in the pre-Christian origin of
these notions here. In any case, there is no reference to a specific indi-
vidual being involved nor that exorcism was thought to be the way in
which Beliar would be defeated.
Testament of Zebulon 9.8.
"And thereafter the Lord himself will arise upon you, the light of righteousness with
healing and compassion in his wings. He will liberate every captive of the sons of men
from Beliar, and every spirit of error will be trampled down. He will turn all nations
to being zealous for him. And you shall see <God in human form>, 20 he whom the
Lord will choose: Jerusalem is his name."

The treading upon spirits of deceit probably reflects Luke 10.19—20 (cf.
Mark 16.18; see also on Testament of Judah 25.3b above). That God will be
seen in the fashion of a man probably comes from a Christian hand
(though see Erza 1.26). That the reference to the defeat of Beliar is in the

18 The earliest occurrences being Sib. Or. 3.63, 73, about mid-second century BC. (JJ.
Collins "The Provenance and Date of the Third Sibyl" Bulletin of the Institute of
Jewish Studies 2(1974) 1-18. Cf. G A Barton ERE II, 459. W. Bousset ERE I, 587ff^
RJL Charles The Revelation of St. John 2 vols. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1920) II,
71ff; K. Galling RGG (3rd ed.) I, 1025f- W. Foerster TDNT I, 607.
19 See previous note and Eissfeldt The OT 615ff. and literature cited.
20 ev oxTlnaxx avOptwtou is found in only one manuscript (M de Jonge Testamenta XII
Patriarcharum [Leiden: Brill, 1964] 46).
 §23 Messiah? 187

context of probable Christian material reduces our confidence in its

pre-Christian origin.
Testament of Dan 510-lla.
"And there shall arise for you from the tribe of Judah and (the tribe of) Levi the
Lord's salvation.
He will make war against Beliar;
he will grant the vengeance of victory as our goal.
And he shall take from Beliar the captives, the souls of the saints; . . . "
Once again we should probably attribute the second and succeeding
lines of verses lOf. to a Christian writer. For, as de Jonge says:
". . . after the usual 'and for you the salvation of the Lord will arise from the tribes of
Judah and Levi', there follows immediately: 'and he will wage war against Beliar. . .'
This is the beginning of a Christian passage dealing with the Messiah."21
Thus, in conclusion, little confidence can be placed in any of the
references from the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs for portraying
pre-Christian messianic hopes. Nor is there always an understanding that
an individual would be responsible for the destruction of Beliar.
2. 1 Enoch 55.4, part of the Similitudes of Enoch, contains a reference
to the final judgement
"You would have to see my Elect One, how he sits in the throne of glory and judges
Azaz'el and all his company, and his army, in the name of the Lord of the Spirits."

Since none of chapters 37—71 were found at Qumran there has been, until
recently, some doubt about the early date of this material. However, the
consensus of opinion now is that the Similitudes are Jewish and date from
the first century AD.22
In the final judgement the Elect One or Messiah sits in judgement of
Azazel and the fallen angels. However, again, there is no suggestion that
exorcism would be involved. Therefore, we could not conclude from this
text that the Messiah was expected to be an exorcist.
3. We need also to consider Strack and Billerbeck's citation of Sifra
Leviticus 26.6 and Pesiqta Rabbati 3623 in relation to the pre-Christian
tftessianic hope entailing the defeat of Satan and his demons.
"R. Shim'on said: When is God honoured? At the time when there are no Mazziqin
[demons] at all, or at the time when there are Mazziqin but they can no longer do any
harm? So says Ps. 92J: A Psalm, a song for the Sabbath day, that is for the day that
brings the Mazziqin in the world to rest so that they do no more harm" (Sifra Levi-
ticus 26.6).

21 de Jonge Testaments 87, his emphasis; cf. 92.

22 J.T. Milik (ed.) The Books of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976) 91; M A Knibb T h e
Date of the Parables of Enoch: A Critical Review" 'NTS 25 (1979) 345-9; cf. C.L.
Mearns "The Parables of Enoch - Origin and Date" ExpTim 89 (1977-8) 118f; E. Isaac
in OTP 1, 7 and Charlesworth in Princeton Seminary Bulletin 6 (1985) 10Z
23 Str-B IV, 527, followed by Barrett Spirit 59 from where the quotations below have
been taken.
188 V As Others Saw Him

"When he [Satan] saw him [the Messiah], he trembled and fell on his face and said:
Truly this is the Messiah, who one day will hurl into Gehinnom me and all the angel
princes of the peoples of the world . . ." (Pesiqta Rabbati 36).
However, neither of these references can be admitted as evidence of the
nature of the pre-Christian hope. The former reference can come from no
earlier than the middle of the second century AD24 and the Pesiqta Rab-
bati is dated between the fourth and ninth centuries.25
4. We are left then with only the Assumption of Moses 10.1, 3 as a pos-
sible useful reference.
"Then his kingdom will appear throughout his whole creation.
Then the devil will have an end.
Yea, sorrow will be led away with him . . .
For the Heavenly One will arise from his kingly throne.
Yea, he will go forth from his holy habitation with indignation and wrath on behalf of
his sons."
However, we must also discount this passage. In verse 1 the hope —
"And then Satan shall be no more" — is related not to the work of any
individual messianic figure but states what will happen when the Lord's
kingdom shall appear. Verse 3 does mention an individual ("the Heavenly
One") but he is not related to the destruction of Satan and he is not a
human figure but God himself (cf. 10.7). In 9.1 there is a hero, Taxo, who
seems to precede the appearance of the kingdom, but his task is not part
of either the establishment of the kingdom or related to the destruction of
Satan. His task is simply to exhort his hearers to good works; perhaps a
preliminary to the coming of the kingdom (9.7; 101). Thus, as far as we
can see, the author of the Assumption of Moses would certainly not be
looking for a Messianic figure who would do battle with Satan, let alone
be an exorcist 26
5. Finally, we can consider 1 Enoch 10.4 where Rapheal is told to
"Bind Azaz'el hand and foot (and) cast him into the darkness.1"
Here God's representative is involved, but exorcism is not mentioned This
is an example from the literature of the period in which the "Messiah"
was not indispensable to the eschatological kingdom, and "Messiah" and
"Messianic concepts" are not always found together.27
The conclusion we should draw from our examination of this material
is that in pre-Christian literature there seems to be no connection between

24 The rabbi mentioned (Simeon) is from the second century as Barrett (Spirit 59) notes.
25 See Schürer History I, 97; cf. EncJud 13, 335.
26 In this category we should include T. Jud 253 and 4QFlor L7 which also see the
demise of Satan as part of the new state of affairs rather than the work of a parti-
cular individual.
27 See Russell Method 309 and 285.
 §23 Messiah 189
a messianic individual and his specific battle with Satan and the demons
through the ordinary act of exorcism. So, it is difficult to see Jesus' ob-
servers connecting what was a common occurrence in their day with Jesus
being self-evidently the Messiah.
I am not concluding that, in general, it was not possible for Jesus'
audience to come to the conclusion that he was the Messiah. That is a
different question. But, I am concluding that for the observers of Jesus as
an exorcist there is little to suggest that they would have so assessed him
and his significance. They had no immediately adequate frames of re-
ference from which to draw such a conclusion.28 When Barrett says: "The
argument of Jesus, . . . that his exorcisms were a sign of the proximity of
the kingdom of God, would be perfectly comprehensible even to those
who disagreed with its assumption,"29 he is correct in so far as such an
explanation of the significance of exorcism may have been comprehen -
sible. For, as we saw in §3 above, the Qumran community associated
David with the dealing with demons. But, we must dissent from his view
that Jesus' exorcisms were a sign (see §19 above) and the implication that
such an interpretation of the exorcisms was self-evident 30 Indeed, if Jesus
was, in his exorcisms, self-evidently the Messiah then it is difficult to
explain why the Fourth Evangelist does not make use of what would
potentially be a useful component in his Gospel.31

28 Sanders Jesus 170, ". . . the miracles themselves, . . . do not push us further towards
the view that Jesus was an eschatological prophet. There is nothing about miracles
which would trigger, in the first-century Jewish world, the expectation that the end
was at hand."
29 Barrett Spirit 59.
30 Cf. Leivestad Jesus 74-5.
31 Contrast Harvery Constraints: " . . . we may say that such was the sense of enslave-
ment to the spirit-world felt by so many of his contemporaries that Jesus could
hardly have been acknowledged as their saviour had he not seemed to have struck a
decisive blow against this redoubtable enemy" (118).
 § 24 Magician?

In this section we will discuss a presentation of the view that Jesus was
seen as a magician.
We do not need to enter the full debate on the definition of magic and
the relationship between miracle and magic.1 It will sufffice to note, for
the moment, that the difficulty in defining magic and its relation to
miracle is that views and definitions are almost as various as the cultures
which have faced the problem. For example. Lucian of Samosata attacks
Peregrinus and Alexander of Abonuteichos as false prophets, for they are
accepted by the unlearned yet are, in his opinion, really charlatans and
sorcerers (ybr\c, KCU t e x v i t r ^ , Peregrinus 13; cf. Alexander 1, 2). This-
shows, at least, the similarity of message and technique between those
considered "magicians" and those considered to be representing true re-
ligioa
Further, it is recognized, by Lucy Mair for example, that an absolute
distinction between magic and miracle is difficult to draw.2 As an
example, she notes that Durkheim wants to draw a distinction between
magic and religion on the grounds that magic has no Church and is
practiced by individuals for the benefit of other individuals. But, this
definition takes no account of beneficent magic performed on behalf of
the community.3 In the light of her discussion, Mair says that, as a general
rule, "The efficacy of magic may be thought to depend essentially upon
the correct treatment of substances used (including words spoken over

1 See the summary discussion by Aune ANRW 11232 (1980) 1510-16 and Garrett
Demise 11-36. See also M. Marwick Witchcraft and Sorcery: Selected Readings (Har-
mondsworth: Penguin, 1970). Cf. the amusing story of a Ju-Ju man of Kumamu in
West Africa explaining the difference to Gregory Dix, in his Jew and Greek: A Study
in the Primitive Church (Westminster Dacre, 1953) 93.
2 L. Mair An Introduction to Social Anthropology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) 225. See
also GP. Corrington "Power and the Man of Power in the Context of Hellenistic
Popular Belief" in Richards (ed.) SBLSP (1984) 259-60; E.V. Gallagher Divine Man or
Magician? Celsus and Origen on Jesus (Chico: Scholars Press, 1982) 48-9.
3 Mair Anthropology 225. Cf. E. Durkheim The Elementary Forms of Religious Life
(London: Allen and Unwin, 1976) 42-7.
 §24 Magician? 191

them) independently of assistance from any supernatural being."4 However,

this is far too simplistic and does not stand in the face of evidence.
We are better served by David Aune's research. At the conclusion of
his discussions he sets out four interrelated propositions which can provide
background to our study.
"(1) Magic and religion are so closely intertwined that it is virtually impossible to
regard them as discrete socio-cultural categories. (2) The structural-functional analysis
of magico-religious phenomena forbids a negative attitude towards magic. (3) Magic is a
phenomenon which exists only within the matrix of particular religious traditions;
magic is not religion only in the sense that the species is not the genus. A particular
magical system coheres within a religious structure in the sense that it shares the f u n -
damental religious reality construction of the contextual religion. (4) Magic appears to
be as universal a feature of religion as devian behavior is of human societies."5

It is Professor Morton Smith's belief that " 'Jesus the magician' was the
figure seen by most ancient opponents of Jesus" and that this picture was
destroyed in antiquity after Christians got control of the Roman empire.6
The most important implication of Smith's book is that he considers
this view of Jesus to be correct, so that not only was Jesus considered to
be a magician, but Jesus actually was a magician in terms of the first cen-
tury understandings of that category (p. 59).7 As Smith's work cuts so
directly across the path of our study we must engage in debate with it.
To support his theory Morton Smith first surveys the reports about
Jesus in the Gospels. Then he looks at the Jewish and pagan material.
These two areas are assessed before returning to the Gospels to see how
the evidence accords with the picture that had emerged so far — that
Jesus was a magician.

4 Mair Anthropology 225. Cf. G. van der Leeuw Religion in Essence and Manifestation
(London: Allen and Unwin, 1938) 423.
5 Aune ANRW 11232 (1980) 1516. See also AB. Kolenkow "A Problem of Power: How
Miracle Doers Counter Charges of Magic in the Hellenistic World" in G. MacRae (ed.)
SBLSP (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976) 105-10; JZ. Smith in ANRW 11.161 (1978) 425-
39; Remus in SecCent 2 (1982) 127-56; H. Remus "Does Terminology Distinguish Early
Christian from Pagan Miracles? JBL 101 (1982) 531-51; R Remus Pagan-Christian Con-
flict Over Miracle in the Second Century (Cambridge, MA: Philadelphia Patristic
Foundation, 1983); G. Luck Arcana Mundi. Magic and the Occult in the Greek and
Roman Worlds (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985) chaps. I
and II; D.E. Aune "The Apocalypse of John and Graeco-Roman Revelatory Magic"
NTS 33 (1987) 481-501; Garrett Demise 4 and note also Herzog Epidauros; "magic is
always other people's faith" (140). Cf. Malina and Neyrey Calling Jesus Names chaps.
2 and 3.
6 M Smith Jesus the Magician (London: Victor Gollancz, 1978) vii, followed recently by
Sanders Jesus 165-9. Cf. Geller JJS 28 (1977) 141-55. In Die Versuchung Christi (Oslo:
Gröndahl, 1924), S. Eitrem proposed that in the Temptation Jesus was being induced
to become a magician. Contrast the critique by HJ. Rose's review of Eitrem in
Classical Review 38 (1924) 213.
7 Pages in parentheses refer to Smith's Magician.
192 V As Others Saw Him

I
The first explicit references to Jesus being a magician are found in later
Christian, Jewish, and pagan material. We shall begin by taking up points
from this material as it is the most important in Smith's case.
1. Two of the early corner-stones in chapter 4 ("What the Outsiders Said
— Evidence Outside the Gospels") of Jesus the Magician are that Pantera,
and its variants, is the "name generally given by Jewish tradition to Jesus'
father,"8 and that Ben Stada, the son of Pantera, is to be identified as
Jesus (p. 47). The key passage, at one time censored from the Talmud, is b.
Sanhedrin 67a.9 Smith gives no evidence as to why any of these names
should be identified with Jesus and his family. However, R. Travers Her-
ford, on this particular point a precursor of Smith, rests the case on a
passage from t. Hullin 2.22—3 which mentions healing "in the name of
Jesus ben Panthera." He says that in the light of these two passages "it is
impossible to doubt that the reference is to Jesus of Nazareth."10 The
considerable evidence against this slim argument is, first, that the title
Jesus ben Panthera is not uncommon in the Talmud,11 and, second, that
Ben Stada lived a century after Jesus.12 Smith, then, has no good reason for
identifying the names of b. Sanhedrin 67a and t. Hullin 2.22—3 with Jesus
and his family. Ben Stada can probably be regarded simply as a false pro-
phet executed during the second century at Lydda.13
The reason why Professor Smith wishes to make these connections is
that the following passage, from b. Sabbat 104b, could then be made to
refer to Jesus: "But did not Ben Stada bring forth witchcraft from Egypt
by means of scratches (in the form of charms) upon his flesh?" Smith says
that this tattooing almost certainly refers to Jesus.14 Then, a little later,
Smith says, "Moreover, Paul claimed to be tattooed or branded with 'the
marks of Jesus,' GaL 6.17 — most likely, the same marks that Jesus had
carried" (p. 48).

8 Smith Magician 46. Cf. R.T. Herford Christianity in the Talmud and Midrash (Clifton,
NJ: Reference Book Publishers, 1966) 35ff.
9 See b. Sanh. 67a (London: Soncino, 1935) 456 n. 5.
10 Herford Christianity 38.
11 RL. Strack Jesus die Häretiker (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1910) chap. IV.
12 b. Git. 90a. Epstein's note to b. Sanh. 67a (London: Soncino, 1935) 457.
13 See the previous note. J. Derenbourg Essai sur Fhistoire et la gèographie de la
Palestine (Paris: Impériale, 1867) 468-71 n. 9; J. Klausner Jesus of Nazareth (New
York: Macmillan, 1927) 21 and notes; cf. esp. Herford Christianity 344ff. and notes and
¡2. Lauterbach "Jesus in the Talmud" in his Rabbinic Essays (New York: K.TAV,
1973) 477. Further see Twelftree in Wenham (ed.) Gospel Perspectives 5, 318-9.
14 Smith Magician 47. His evidence for this is the unsupported statement - "because the
same charges are specified by second century pagan and Christian writers as elements
in the Jewish account of him" (47).
 §24 Magician? 193
For evidence he relies on Lietzmann's note on Galatians 6.17 ("Hence-
forth let no man trouble me; for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus").
In turn, Lietzmann is dependent upon Deissmann's use of the Demotic and
Greek Papyrus J.383. The spell reads:
"Do not persecute me, you there! - I am
nAnmET... m e t o y b a n e z
I carry the corpse
of Osiris and I go
to convey it to
Abydos, to carry it to
its resting-place, and to place it
in the everlasting chambers. Should anyone trouble me,
I shall use it against him."15

In the light of the spell Deissmann says, "One can hardly resist the impres-
sion that the obscure metaphor all at once becomes more intelligible: Let
no man venture kojioix; napexetv for me, for in the Paoxa^eiv of the
marks of Jesus I possess a talisman against all such things."16
Whatever we make of Deissmann here, we need to note that he sees it
as a metaphor — and no more}1 There is no evidence that disposes us to
do otherwise. And, Smith produces no evidence that would suggest Paul
thought he was tattooed after the fashion of a magician.
2. Further, in his effort to make Jesus a magician Smith summons
Suetonius and Tacitus to his aid. First he quotes Suetonius' Life of Nero
16.2 — "Penalities were imposed on the Christians, a kind of man (holding)
a new superstition (that involves the practice) of magic." On the use of
maleficus, which Smith here translates as magic, we shall have more to
say in a moment. It is sufficient to note here that this translation is by no
means certain.
Secondly, Professor Smith quotes Tacitus (Annals 15.44.3—8) on the
persecution by Nero. In this passage Tacitus says that the Christians were
convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for "hatred (odium) of
the human race." Of the last phrase Smith says that it "is most plausibly
understood as referring to magic" (p. 15). But, this could only be the case if
one's mind was predisposed to so seeing it. Smith contends that the usual
explanation is inadequate. He says the usual view is,
"that it is an application to the Christians, who were still a Jewish group, of the Roman
belief about Jews in general, is derived from Tacitus' comment on the Jews in Histories
V.5, 'among themselves they scrupulously keep their promises, and are quick to pity
and help [each otherl but they hate all outsiders as enemies' " (p. 51).

15 Cf. Deissmann Studies 354; H. Lietzmann An die Galater (Tübingen: Mohr, 1971) 45f_
16 Deissmann Studies 358, his emphasis.
17 Lietzmann (Galater 45) more reasonably says that 617 is undoubtedly related to 2 Cor
410; Rom 817; Phil 310 and Col 124.
194 V As Others Saw Him

This, he argues, is inadequate because, when speaking of the Jewish hatred

of others, he does not consider it as grounds for total extermination of
them as he does for the Christians. Hence, the Romans' attitude to Chris-
tians must be distinguished from their general view of Jews (p. 51).
Against this we can note two things. First, in the Annals, Tacitus is not
levelling charges against the Christians. He is attempting to give reasons
why Nero should have persecuted the Christians. And, further, it does not
seem that odium was a legal charge.18 Secondly, Smith fails to note that
the term "hatred of the human races" certainly is used in antiquity as
grounds for Jewish persecution.19 There is, then, no reason at all why we
should assume that in the use of the phrase, "hatred of the human race",
Tacitus thought that the Christians were guilty of anything different from
the Jews.
But, we need to question Smith's statement that "hatred of the human
race" is a charge appropriate to magicians as popular imagination con-
ceived them (p. 52). It is not absolutely clear, but it seems that Smith
wishes to equate "hatred of the human race" with cannibalism, which he
adequately shows was thought in antiquity to be associated with magic,
magicians and witches. However, Smith has offered no evidence that we
should make the prior connection between "hatred of the human race" and
cannibalism. Thus, there is no need to see more in the phrase than Frend's
definition: "It involved not so much the desire to do personal damage but
to turn one's back on obligations to one's fellow men, and it was regarded
as a characteristic Jewish fault."20
3. Next among Smith's witnesses is Pliny the Younger and his letter to
Trajan.21 The section of the letter that is of interest here is Pliny's hearing
of Christian apostates: "that it was their habit on a fixed day to assemble
before daylight and sing by turns a hymn (carmen) to Christ as a god."
The operative word here is carmen. Sherwin-White has reviewed the
possible interpretations and he says,
"The short answer is that carmen dicere is ordinary Latin for to sing a song or to
intone verses . . . It is true that carmen may mean the set formula of, for example, an
oath, . . . and carmen dicere might mean an invocation as in a magical rite. But the
normality of the phrase from the pen of a literary man, the contrast with maledicerent
christo in S.5, and the conjunction of quasi deo, all favour the original interpretation as
a hymn of praise."22

18 WHC. Frend Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (Oxford: Blackwell,
1965) 174 n. 5L
19 Frend Martyrdom 162 and footnotes.
20 Frend Martyrdom 162.
21 Pliny Utters X:96.
22 AJ*I. Sherwin-White Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1966) 704f_ Sherwin-White is interacting principally with C. Mohlberg, CC.
Coulton and H. Lietzmann with regard to early Christian liturgical practices.
 §24 Magician? 195

Smith calls Sherwin-White's treatment a "whitewash" (p. 180). However,

as he offers no evidence to counter Sherwin-White's conclusions it seems
reasonable to conclude that Pliny is not here referring to magical incan-
tations or spells, but to the Christians' hymns.
4. With the Dialogue with Trypho, by Justin Martyr, reference to a
charge of magic is at last clear. Smith (pp. 55 and 81) focuses his argument
on the word nXavoi; (pp. 55 and 81). This, as we shall see, is indefensible,
for jiXavoc, was by no means a synonym for "magician" (see section III.2
below). This is clear in Dialogue 69 where Justin distinguishes between the
terms — "For they dared call him a magician and a deceiver of the
people." Strangely, Smith relegates reference to his potentially important
passage to a footnote.23 Justin is noting that a Jewish opinion of Jesus was
that he was a (layot;. Two important points need to be mentioned. First,
that this charge of magic is from those who wish to discredit the re-
putation of Jesus, and second, that Justin is at pains to refute the charge as
being false. Here we see that the charge of being a magician is a social
classifier so that "your magic is my miracle, and vice versa."24
5. Smith is also correct in seeing a contrast between the work of Jesus
and the work of magicians as lying behind a fragment of an otherwise
unknown Apologist Quadratus which is preserved by Eusebius.25 The frag-
ment reads,
"But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were true, those who were
cured, those who rose from the dead, who not merely appeared as cured and risen, but
were constantly present, not only while the Saviour was living, but even for some time
(ejri ypovov iicctvov) after he had gone, so that some of them survived even till our
own time" (HE 432-, cf. Irenaeus Adversus Haereses 2323-4 and Smith p. 55).
However, we can go beyond Smith's "contrast" and see here a refu-
tation by Quadratus of a charge of magic against Jesus. The two com-
ments made on the last point apply: the charge of magic is being made by
opponents of mainstream Christianity, and the charge is roundly refuted.
6. The next major witness for Professor Smith's case is Celsus (CC 1.6,
28, [cf. 381 68). Again, the evidence is clear that Celsus did consider Jesus
to be one who practised magic (yorixeia). For example, Celsus says, " . . . it
was by magic that he was able to do the miracles which he appeared to
have done . . ." (CC 1.6). And, u. . . because he was poor he hired himself
out as a workman in Egypt, and there tried his hand at certain magical

23 Smith Magician 180 and see below where Justin is quoted more fully.
24 RJvt Grant Gnosticism and Early Christianity (New York: Harper & Row, 1964) 93.
Cf. A.F. Segal "Hellenistic Magic: Some Questions of Definition" in R. Van den Broek
and MJ. Vermaseren (eds.) Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions (Leiden:
Brill, 1981) 349-75; Remus SecCent 2 (1982) 148-50.
25 See R.M. Grant "Quadratus, The First Christian Apologist" in R H Fischer (ed.) A
Tribute to Arthur Vodrbus (Chicago: Lutheran School of Theology, 1977) 177-83.
196 V As Others Saw Him

powers on which the Egyptians pride themselves . . ." (CC 128; cf. 38 and
68).
Smith rightly recognizes the obvious import of these passages; that
Celsus thought that Jesus was one who practised magic. But, where Smith
goes beyond his evidence is where he suggests that the picture Celsus
gives us may be correct (p. 59).26
Summary. In chapter 4 of his book Professor Smith has been trying to
do two things. Principally he wants to show that Jesus' contemporaries
outside the Gospels thought that he was a magician (pp. 67, 68, cf. 53f.).
The second objective of Smith, which we will leave for the moment, is
that this notion of Jesus being a magician may be the correct view of
him, though Smith gives no evidence.
On Smith's principal objective a number of things should be said. First,
Smith gives the misleading impression that he has reviewed all of the
non-Gospel evidence for the outsiders' image of Jesus (p. 64). But, there is
at least one snippet of information from Suetonius' Claudius 25.4 that
shows that not all references to Jesus can be construed to refer to Jesus
being a magiciaa Suetonius says of Claudius; "He expelled the Jews from
Rome, on account of the riots in which they were constantly indulging, at
the instigation of Chrestus." This reference to Christ — "Chrestus" being a
popular mis-spelling of the name "Christ"27 — is by no means compli-
mentary. However, Suetonius seems to have no wish to give any idea that
Chrestus was a magiciaa 28
Secondly, Professor Smith's case fails to convince us that the Jewish
writers he cites, or Suetonius, Tacitus, or Pliny, thought that Jesus was a
magician.

26 See also S. Benko "Early Christian Magical Practices" in ICR Richards (ed.)
SBLSP (Chico: Scholars Press, 1982) 9-14. Kee, Miracle 268, goes beyond the evidence
in CC in suggesting that the charge of Celsus is close to that of the opponents in the
Gospel tradition in the story of the Beelzebul Controversy (Mark 3.22-3) for Celsus
does not suggest that Jesus is in league with the evil powers. Kee, himself, admits
later that there were not just two but a number of alternative categories in which
miracle-workers could be put.
"In this epoch, both champions and critics of miracle-workers are agreed as to
what the basic issues are: are miracles evidence of divine wisdom and power, of
demonic power and wizardry, or fraud and chicanery?" (Miracle 273).
Further on the second century debate on Jesus see G.N. Stanton "Aspects of Early
Christian-Jewish Polemic and Apologetic" NTS 31 (1985) 377-92, esp. 379-85.
27 See F.F. Bruce Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1974) 21 and MJ. Harris "References to Jesus in Early Classical
Authors" in Wenham (ed.) Gospel Perspectives 5, 353-4.
28 Although Smith has not adequately dealt with Josephus, the problems of the
authenticity of Ant. 18.63-4 make a discussion of the use of the passage here virtually
impossible. P. Winter "Josephus on Jesus" Journal of Historical Studies 1 (1968)
289-302 and in a revised form in Schurer History I, 428-4L See also Twelftree in
Wenham (ed.) Gospel Perspectives 5, 301-8.
 §24 Magician? 197

Thirdly, Smith seems to assume that he is dealing with the views of

Jesus' contemporaries. However, he does not show that the views held by
those he cites were the views of the contemporaries of Jesus. In other
words, charges that phenomena or persons were considered as magical or
magicians need to be historically assayed in relation to their own
life-situation, not evaluated by looking back from later times, as Smith
does.29
Fourthly, the material cited from Justin, Quadratus and Origen clearly
shows that there were those who said that Jesus was a magician and that
his miracles were performed by magic. But, of course, each of these
charges is forcefully rebutted. And it is untenable, in the face of this, and
without other evidence, to say this picture of Jesus was correct. At best,
we are dealing with a second century social classification. To determine
the correctness or relevance of the charge there is no alternative but to
return to the New Testament to see if, from the meagre evidence, we can
come to some conclusioa This we shall do later.

II
Having attempted to show that Jesus' "contemporaries" thought him to be
a magician, Smith goes on, in chapter 5 ("What the Outsiders Meant") to
spell out what these "contemporaries" meant when they con- sidered Jesus
to be a magician. Smith recognizes the difficulty of this task (pp. 68f.) and
acknowledges the need for defining magic in a first century con-
text. 30 However, although Smith gives an adequate general picture of
the various notions of what a first century magician was, he fails to relate
these notions to his evidence in the previous chapter. The result is that, of
the whole spectrum of possible choices (p. 80), we do not know, from
Smith, which one, or more, of these definitions might have been appro-
priate or understood by, say, Celsus or Quadratus' opponents. This also we
shall have to investigate later.

29 Kee Miracle 211 n. 60, makes the same criticism of Smith as well as Hull Magic.
However, on pp. 213-5 Kee comes close to, if not actually making the same mistake.
Segal, in Van den Broek and Vermaseren (eds.) Gnosticism "Its [magic] meaning
changes as the context in which it is used changes" (351).
30 On the other hand, it seems to me that Aune ANRW Ü232 (1980) makes a mistake
when he says that
"The wonders performed by Jesus are magical because they occur within a context
of social deviance in which widely accepted but generally unattainable goals
highly valued in Judaism are thought to be accomplished for particular individuals
through the application of generally successful management techniques" (1539).
For, what Aune has not shown is that Jesus' contemporaries had this view of his
deviance.
198 V As Others Saw Him

III
We can now return to the Gospel material and see what Smith makes of
it. First, in dealing with the Gospels he considers "What the Outsiders
Said."31 He deals with the opinions of various relevant sectors of first
century society; for example, "Common Opinion" (pp. 21ff.) and "Family
and Towns-people" (pp. 28ff.). What Professor Smith does is to catalogue
the opinions of these groups, almost invariably adverse. For example, he
notes the charge of casting out demons by Beelzebul (Mark 3.22/Matthew
12.24/Luke 11.15; p. 81), and that Jesus was said to be a Samaritan (John
8.48; p. 21), and that he had a demon (John 8.48). We now take up these
key items in Smith's argument.
L Smith contends that John 8.48 — "You are a Samaritan and have a
demon" 32 — means that the accusers thought that Jesus was a
magician.33 His reason for arguing this is that " 'had' a demon seemed
sometimes to mean that he was himself possessed, sometimes that he had
control of a demon and could make it do miracles" (p. 77). Smith (pp.
31—2) is correct in noting that e^eiv ("to have"), does, in some cases,
mean to have something under control.34 But, it is doubtful if this meaning
is intended in the New Testament.35 In Greek philosophy and religion,
there are two meanings of "to have". If the demon is for good, it is the
person who possesses it, but in relation to evil spirits it is the person who
is passive in the spirit's possession of him. Turning to the New Testament,
"to have" (e%eiv) does not mean "to have in one's power" or "to possess".
Rather, it expresses a spatial relationship and means "to bear in oneself."34
In the light of this, the accusation that Jesus performed miracles
"because he has Beelzebul" (on BeeA^efiouX e^ei, Mark 3.22) may seem a
difficulty. On the other hand, first, although the concept of the demonic
"to have" is extended, Beelzebul is still no more than the chief
demon.37 Secondly, the reply of Jesus in Mark 3.23, "How can Satan cast
out Satan?" implies not that Jesus is using or manipulating the possessing
power, but the reverse. And, thirdly, in 3.30 Mark ends the section with
the comment — "for they had said 'He has an unclean spirit'." We can

31 Smith Magician 21 (chap. 3).

32 This verse, in a Homily by Abraham, Bishop of Ephesus in the sixth century, is cited
with the addition Kai etc Jiopveiat; yeYevviiaat. J. Mehlmann "John 8.48 in Some
Patristic Quotations" Biblica 44 (1963) 206; cf. 8.41
33 Smith Magician 32, 47f; (n. p. 179), 77, cf. 96f.
34 E.g. Demonsthenes Orations 47.45.
35 To the contrary, without evidence, CJi Kraeling "Was Jesus Accused of Necroman-
cy?" JBL 59 (1940) 154.
36 R Hanse TDNT II, 816-32, esp. 821ff.
37 Hanse TDNT II, 82Z
 § 24 Magician? 199

conclude by repeating that in the Gospels e^eiv does not mean "to have in
one's power" but "to be controlled by", in this case by an evil spirit.
Nevertheless, it is clear that two of the Evangelists feel that Jesus'
contemporaries charged him with having a demon. In the New Testament
world Satan and magic could be associated (e.g. Jubilees 48.9—11; Martyr-
dom of Isaiah 2.4—5; CD 5.17b—19).38 However, what we must decide here
is what 6ai(ioviov e%eiv ("to have a demon") would have meant for the
Evangelists in particular, and why Matthew and Luke do not agree here
with John and Mark.
(i) The point at which to begin is by noting that Matthew and Luke do
not take up Mark's phrases eXeyov jiveujjux aicaGagiov e^ei ("they said he
has an unclean spirit" 3.30) and BeeX£e0oi>X. e%ei ("he has Beelzebul" 3.22).
They alter Mark so that Jesus acts by or in the power of Beelzebul rather
than say Jesus "has" a demon or BeelzebuL We have seen (§10 above) that
Beelzebul was most probably a pseudonym for Satan. Mark is transmitting
the accusation that Jesus was possessed or controlled by Satan and per-
formed his exorcism under his aegis. Such a notion was clearly unaccept-
able to Matthew and Luke.
(ii) In John's Gospel there has been no attempt to hide the accusation
that Jesus had a demon (720; 8.48—52; 1020).
John 8.48 — "The Jews answered him, 'Are we not right in saying that
you are a Samaritan and have a demon?' " (cf. 7.20; 8.52 and 10.20). The
accusation has two elements; first that Jesus is a Samaritan, and then
second, that he has a demon. The first element — "You are a Samaritan"
— has been variously interpreted.39 The best way forward is to note that
John 8.48 supplies only a single reply to the accusation — "I have not a
demon". Consequently, even if the two elements are not exactly
synonymous, an understanding of the second element of the accusation —
"You have a demon" — may clarify the meaning of being called a
Samaritan.
In John 1020 Sai^ioviov e%ei is immediately followed by (aaivetai ("he
is mad"). There is no reason to see the latter phrase as more than sup-
plementing the first so that the two phrases are synonyms.40 Besides this
verse there are four other occurrences of jiaivo^iai in the New Testament.
In each of the cases it characterizes a disbelieved message of good news.

38 Garrett Demise, chap. 1, assumes that an accusation of being in league with Satan is a
charge of being a magician.
39 As a Samaritan, Goet or Gnostic; Bultmann John 299 n. 4; see also J. Bowman "Sam-
aritan Studies I" BJRL 40 (1957-8) 298-308.
40 So, e.g. R E. Brown The Gospel According to John 1 vols. (London: Chapman, 1971) I,
387; Lindars John 365; Barrett John (1967) 314.
200 V As Others Saw Him

First, in Acts 1215 Rhoda is disbelieved (naivi]) when she relates the good
news that Peter is standing at the door. Second, in response to Paul's
defence, Felix says that Paul is mad ((laivfl) to which Paul replies that he
is not mad but speaking the sober truth (Acts 26.24—5). Then, third, in 1
Corinthians 14.23 Paul says that when outsiders hear an assembled Church
speaking in tongues will they not say they are mad (jiaiveoQe)? This is not
strictly or directly good news but is inspired by God and its interpretation
may bring good news (1 Corinthians 14.5c, 13—19). Finally, the verse in
which we are presently interested is a response by some of the Jews,
placed at the end of the Good Shepherd discourse. It is not a response to
Jesus' miracles or activities but to his words, and in particular (as in the
other references to 5ai|ioviov — 7.20, 8.48—9; note 10.20b), a
response to words of Jesus pertaining to his own status and his rela-
tionship to God. As the two parts of the accusation in John 10.20 appear
to be synonymous we can conclude that for John some of the Jews were
characterizing what was for them an unbelievable message.*1
The phrase in 8.48 is the same and the situation is similar to that in
1020. We can then approach 8.48 assuming that 5ai(i.6viov e^eu; could
well have a similar meaning for John. To confirm this we see that the
first element of the 8.48 accusation — "You are a Samaritan" — agrees
with this interpretation. After noting the points of contact and the points
of contrast between Samaritan theology and the Fourth Gospel Bowman
says,
"As to John 8.48 there is sufficient in the Johannine picture of Jesus which would
suggest to Jews that Jesus was not as the scribes and Pharisees if we can judge these
by later Rabbinic writings. His emphasis on faith, on belief instead of fulfilment of
ritual religious acts would seem strange. If there is any historical foundation for the
speeches in John 8 it is not surprising that the Jews regarded him as a Samaritan."42
Bowman is aware that the Jews would not have meant their accusation
literally; it was as if Jesus were acting the Samaritan by putting forth such
unbelievable opinions.43
In Mark, the term "to have a demon" is used in the context of a debate
over Jesus' source of power-authority for his miracles. To his accusers his
miracles appear to be authorized and enabled by Beelzebul. Similarly, in
Matthew 11.18 and Luke 7.33, the term is used in an accusation directed
against the activity of John the Baptist.44 But, in John the charge of having

41 a . Preisker TDNT IV, 36L See also S. Pancaro The Law in the Fourth Gospel
(Leiden: Brill, 1975) 87-101.
•42 Bowman BJRL 40 (1957-8) 306.
43 Bowman BJRL 40,(1957-8) 307-8.
44 The phrase 6ai|i6viov exevv is used by Matthew and Luke only in relation to John
the Baptist's asceticism (Matt 1118/Luke 733) and the Gadarene demoniac (Matt
8.28/Luke 8.27).
 §24 Magician? 201

a demon has been removed from the context of Jesus' activity and is now
to be found in relation to the teaching of Jesus.
We have been trying to show that Smith is mistaken in thinking that
John 8.48 is to be taken as an accusation of magic against Jesus. We have
shown that the charge that he was a Samaritan and demon-possessed
expressed the judgement that Jesus' message was unbelievable.
2. Vital to Smith's programme of trying to show that Jesus was a
magician is his interpretation of a nXavot; as a "magician".45 The mainstay
of Smith's case is an article by Father J. Samain who Smith says has
persuasively argued that in the Gospels itXavoc; means "magician". But, in
fact, what Samain has shown is that although outside the New Testament
jiXavot; can mean magician, one has to determine from the context how
to translate it. Only after this does Samain go on to suggest that the
context, particularly of Matthew 27.63, invites the translation "magician".44
However, Samain says that Jesus was never expressly changed with prac-
tising magic nor being a magician.47
In Greek, an early meaning of JtXavaoo was to "lead astray". The active
sense of "deceit" is late and rare48 — with a shift to its negative aspect.49 It
is this aspect of the word that was taken up into the LXX. This group of
words is used mainly for sins against God and more specifically for
idolatry. And, interestingly, sin is caused not by ungodly metaphysical
forces such as the devil, but by humans, or even by God. Also, the word
group is used in the rejection of false prophecy.50 This glance at the
pre-New Testament use of the nXavaco word group illustrates that there is
neither a direct use of the word in connection with magic, nor is it used
as a synonym for magic.
We can return to Smith and Samain who suppose that the term was
either equivalent to a direct accusation of magic or that it actually means
"magician".51 Their evidence fits into three broad categories. First, there is
the evidence which illustrates the use of the word in the context of early
Christian apologetics in defence of Jesus. Secondly, there is the related
used of the word in pagan condemnation of Jesus. Thirdly, Smith and
Samain have drawn on the use of the word outside the debate about Christ.

45 Smith Magician, e.g. 33, 54, 181.

46 J. Samain "L'accusation de magie contre le Christ dans les Evangiles" ETL 15 (1938)
449-90.
47 Samain ETL 15 (1938) 454.
48 H. Braun TDNT VI, 229; Didorus Siculus Hist. 2J8 (P. London 11.483.19).
49 Plato Republic 444b; Phaedo 81a.
50 Braun TDNT VI, 233.
51 Samain ETL 15 (1938) 456; Smith Magician 33, 174.
202 V As Others Saw Him

It is the latter category of the use of the word that is most useful in
discovering its relationship to such words as yor\c, and cpaQjKXKOi;. But, at
this point Samain has very little evidence. He relies on Josephus' use of
jtXavog Samain says that Josephus puts messianic pretenders among
yoritec, and oi jtXavoi.52 In fact, what Josephus does in using Kkavoc, is to
use it in parallel with, and as a synonym for o anaxcov (cheat, rogue,
imposter). He says: "Deceivers and imposters, under the pretence of divine
inspiration fostering revolutionary changes, they persuaded the multitude
to act like madmen, and led them out into the desert under the belief that
God would there give them tokens of deliverance" (War 2.259). This is of
little help to Samain as Josephus mentions nothing about these people that
would suggest that they were magicians. There is, in Josephus, no need to
translate nXavoc, other than by "imposter" or "deceiver". Even yorp, is best
translated "charlatan" rather than "magician".53
As we have noted above, the jiXavaoo word group, in the transferred
sense in the pre-New Testament period, is used primarily in relation to
erring from right teaching or correct doctrine. It is not, so far as I can tell,
used on its own to described the work of a magician (yoric;). It has this
meaning where it is linked, as it is in relation to the later debate
concerning Jesus, with miracles.
When we turn to examine the use of nXavaco, jtXavri and Kkavoc, in
the New Testament, by or in relation to Jesus, it is never related to
miracles or to the work of Jesus. The jiXavaco group of words always has
to do with being deceived in relation to the truth of the Christian mes-
sage. (The one possible exception to this is Matthew 24.24 — "For false
Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so
as to lead astray . . ." But, even here, it is not the signs and wonders that
are themselves in question but the false Christs and prophets who will do
the leading astray by means of signs and wonders.) I would propose then
that, for the Evangelists, the use of jiXavcx; was not understood as a direct
comment on the way Jesus performed his miracles but reflected what
Jesus' accusers felt: that, in general, Jesus was leading people astray, that he
was socially and religiously unacceptable.
It is only when we move into the second and following centuries that
jiXavoc; was linked with the miracles of Jesus in such a way that makes it
clear that those attacking and rejecting Christianity were rejecting the
validity of the miracles of Jesus. Thus, in talking of the miracles, Eusebius
says he has been

52 Samain ETL 15 (1938) 462.

53 We cannot, then, agree with Aune, ANRW U232 (1980) 1540, that "Samain presents an
iron-clad case for understanding the charge of imposter [Matt 27.63] as an accusation
that Jesus performed miracles by trickery or magical techniques."
 §24 Magician? 203
"arguing with those who do not accept what we have said, and either completely dis-
believe in it, and deny that such things were done by him at all, or hold that if they
were done, they were done by wizardry (yor|Teia) for the leading astray (jt\avT|) of
the spectators, as deceivers (jiXavoi) often do" (Proof of the Gospel 3.4.31).

And, earlier, Eusebius sets the accusation of o JiXavoc; over against the
character and teaching of Jesus in such a way as to give the distinct
impression that those with whom Eusebius was arguing were, in using
jtXavo^, referring to Jesus' miracles.54
Thus, it is necessary to conclude that o JtXavot;, by itself, cannot be
equated with "magician" and that neither Jesus' contemporaries nor the
Evangelists understood o nkavoc, to designate Jesus as "magician". It was
only later, in the second and following centuries, that this word was linked
with, the accusation that Jesus was a "magician".
3. Yet another item in Smith's agenda is to equate kcckojioick; and Ka-
kov itoicov with "magician", so that the accusation by the Jews in John
18.30 — "If this man were not kcckov jtouov, we would not have handed
him over" — becomes a charge of magic.55
This can be dealt with relatively quickly. In citing 1 Peter 4.15,
Tertullian and Cyprian use maleficus for kciicojioick; ("evil doer").56 Smith
then says that maleficus is equivalent to "magician".57 However, as shown
by 1 Peter 2.12 and 14, the normal meaning of k<xkojioi6<; is "evil doer"
and there is no evidence for the use of kcikojioioc; in the sense of
"magician" in Greek legal terminology.58 Also, when maleficus is used,
even if not synonymously, at least in a context where the term • might
carry the idea of "magician" or "sorcerer", its magical connotations are
made explicit in the context by the use of some related or qualifying
word(s). So, for example, in Codex Justinianus, Smith's principal witness,
maleficus is qualified so that it might take the meaning of "magician".
"No person shall consult a soothsayer (haruspex), or an astrologer ' (mathematicus) or
diviner (horiolis). The wicked doctrines of augurs (votes) shall become silent. The
Chaldeans and wizards (magi) and all the rest whom the common people call magicians
(malefici), because of the magnitude of their crimes, shall not attempt anything in this
direction" (Codex Justinianus IXJ8.7).

But, against Smith, it could quite readily be argued that, even in this pas-
sage, maleficus is not a synonym for magic but a generic term used
simply to describe any evil activity.

54 Eusebius Proof 32 and 3.

55 Smith Magician 33 and note p. 174.
56 Tertullian Scorpiace 123; Cyprian Testimonia 337.
57 Smith Magician 174 citing Codex Theodosianus 1X16.4; Codex Justinianus 1X18.7.
58 F.W. Beare First Epistle of Peter (Oxford: Blackwell, 1961) 167; J. Ramsey Michaels 1
Peter (Waco, TX: Word. 1988) 266-7.
204 V As Others Saw Him

Even if Smith's evidence were granted, there is still no evidence to

show that in using maleficus for kcxkojioicn; Tertullian and Cyprian (see
above) understood 1 Peter 4.15 as being a reference to "magician" or
"sorcerer". For, in every other case where I have seen maleficus used, it
demands no other translation than "evil doer". That the sense of "evil
doer" is too vague to be a legal accusation under Roman law is an un-
supportable notion.59 For, apart from the major crimes condemned by
Roman statutes for Italy, governors elsewhere were very largely left to
their own discretion in recognizing crimes and determining their sen-
tences.60
At this point we conclude, in the first instance, that maleficus is a
general term for "evil doer", save where it is qualified to take on a
specific meaning. Thus, in the second instance, we conclude that the use of
maleficus for kchcojíoick; by early Christian writers is not to be taken to
mean that they thought the later term was equivalent to "magic".61
Therefore, finally, the Jews' charge in the Gospels that Jesus is a
kcikov JiouüV cannot be taken as being understood by the Evangelists as a
charge of magic.

IV
There are clear charges of magic in some later literature which we should
examine.62
First, the opponents of Quadratus. In The History of the Church 4.3.2
(quoted above) Eusebius mentions Quadratus, an Apologist during the time
of Hadriaa Quadratus is quoted as saying that the Saviour's works were
always present because they were true (aXriGt)^. That is, those who were
healed were not only seen being healed, or raised from the dead, but
remained present during Jesus' ministry as well as after his departure. The
charge of magic that Quadratus is countering has nothing to do with
methods or motives for healing but with performing acts which give the
impression or appearance of being miracles while in fact they are mere
tricks.

59 Cf. Smith Magician 33.

60 Sherwin-White Letters 699, 782; cf. Pliny Letters X.963; Tacitus Annals 15.44; C Bigg
Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902) 137. See also AJ*J.
Sherwin-White Roman Society and Roman Law in the NT (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1963).
61 Cf. the review of Smith by Frank Kermode in The New York Review of Books XXV
(20, Dec 21st, 1978, p. 58); "It is perfectly plausible that magicians might be referred
to as evil doers. It does not follow that one could not accuse somebody of doing evil
without claiming that he was a magician."
62 For further discussion of anti-magic passages see Fridrichsen Miracle 85-102; Remus
Pagan-Christian Conflict; Gallagher Divine Man.
 §24 Magician? 205

Secondly, the opponents of Justin Martyr. In the Dialogue with Try-

pho Justin quotes Isaiah 35.1—7 and says how Christ fulfils this prophecy.
He
"healed those who were maimed, and deaf, and lame in body from their birth . . .
raised the dead, and cause(d) them to live . . . But though they saw such works they
asserted it was magical art. For they dared to call him a magician, and a deceiver of
the people" (Dial. 69).

This passage is set in the context of a discussion of counterfeit miracles by

the devil. It is over against this that Justin sets the reality of the miracles
of Christ which are, in turn, said to be magical ((pavtaoia) and deceptive.
In this connection Justin is clearly thinking of the questions of the
authenticity or materiality of Jesus' miracles rather than the means by
which they were performed. In any case, more importantly, Trypho's
assessment is of limited value for a study of the historical Jesus, for it
comes a century after the time of Jesus and tells us nothing of the view
of Jesus' contemporaries.
Thirdly, Celsus. The charge of Celsus is that Jesus was the same as those
sorcerers who were trained by the Egyptians. What, says Celsus, charac-
terized the activity of these people was their "displaying expensive
banquets and dining-tables and cakes and dishes which are non-existent,
and who make things move as though they were alive although they are
not really so, but only appear as such in the imagination" (CC L68).
Celsus has in mind the stories of few loaves feeding many people, as
well as Jesus raising the dead. Again, the essence of the charge is that
Jesus' miracles were magical in that they only appeared to take place. And,
indeed, Origen answers the charge along these lines by trying to show that
Jesus used no tricks. In essence, Origen's reply is: Would one whose moral
character was above reproach fabricate his miracles and by these fabri-
cations call people to holy lives?63

V
Summary and Conclusions. It is often thought that if an exorcism does
not involve the use of physical or mechanical aids or incantations then the
healing is not magical. Thus, it is said "the NT miracles of Jesus have no
connexion with magic, or with magic means and processes . . ."M There is

63 Gallagher Divine Man 172, 'The criteria ultimately rests on the shared assumption that
'a god ought to do good for men' ". Kee, Miracle 273, comes to a similar conclusion.
Cf. Eusebius Proof 3.3
64 Grundmann TDNT II, 302. Cf. e.g. W. Kirchschlager "Exorcismus in Qumran?"
Kairos 18 (1976) 52.
206 V As Others Saw Him

a note of desperation here.65 The abhorrence of magic in the Bible is

noted and so, at all cost, Jesus must be absolved from any charge of magic
— magic defined in terms of technique.66 There are two problems or er-
rors here.
First, there is a problem of definition. We have seen that, in relation to
miracles and exorcism, the bald categories of "magical" (= evil)/"non-
magical" (= good), when defined in terms of technique, are not helpful in
understanding the exorcisms in the New Testament era.67
The second problem in the attempt to absolve Jesus from the charge of
magic is one relating to historical method. If we define magic in terms of
technique — physical aids or incantations — it is an error of historical
judgement to say that the techniques of Jesus, in exorcism for example,
have nothing to do with magical processes or that in this way he is quite
unique and separate from his contemporaries.68 We saw in chapters III and
IV above that there is good evidence to say that Jesus' technique as an
exorcist had clear parallels in this so-called "magical" or incantational world.
In our response to Smith we have tried to show that his programme has
failed on at least three counts.
1. Smith has not been able to show that Tacitus, Suetonius or Pliny
thought that Jesus was a magician in any sense.
2. Where the charge of magic is clear — in Justin Martyr, Quadratus
and Celsus — Smith has not taken into account that these opinions are not
from contemporaries of Jesus. He also misunderstands the particular no-
tions of magic involved in these accusations. That is, the substance of the
charge against Jesus did not relate to his having used incantations or
particular methods. This charge comes sometime later, as in Arnobius
Adversus Gentes 1.43. In relation to performing miracles the charge of
"magic" here revolved around two important factors.
First, the life-style of the individual. If as a miracle-worker, the person
was a cheat, liar or murderer (etc.), he was considered to be a magician.69
We can illustrate this further. In Acts 1310 Elymas the sorcerer (o ^ayoO
is attacked by Paul because he is full of deceit and trickery. Also, Lucian
attacks those who took advantage of the itoXXoi by offering false wares
{Philosophies for Sale 2.11—12; see also Philostratus Life 7.39).70 Therefore,

65 See the editorial review of Hull Magic in ExpTim 85 (1973-4) 355f_

66 Cf. Mendelsohn 1DB III, 223ff.; Hull 1 DBSup 312ff_ Further see Remus JBL 101 (1982)
531-5L
67 Contrast Hull Magic chap. IV.
68 E.g. L. Morris The Cross in the NT (Exeter Paternoster, 1976) 56f. and notes.
69 Cf. the categories in Acts 13.10 and see above on Tertullian; also Fridrichsen Mir-
acle 91f_
70 See also Corrington in Richards (ed.) SBLSP (1984) 258-9 and Garrett Demise 4-5.
 §24 Magician? 207

magic is not simply deviant behaviour, as Aune argues, but deviant be-
haviour associated with working miracles which are considered to be
empowered by spiritual forces.71 Secondly, of singular importance was the
authenticity and longevity of the "magician's" results (cf. Quadratus above
and Philostratus Life 8.7). That is, if his work proved to be a fraud he was
deemed a magician.72
3. Smith has also failed to show that charges laid against Jesus in the
New Testament relate to a charge of magic.73 What we have shown is that
what Jesus' contemporary critics were concerned about was not his alle-
giance to any realm of "magic", but that he must have been demon-
possessed, by Satan himself.74 Even though a definition of magic is best
generally approached through the notion of deviance, and Jesus' religious
inclinations were considered deviant, the evidence does not support the
view that Jesus' critics considered this deviance in terms of him being a
magician.
As the second and third century charges against Jesus are quite
different from those reflected in the Synoptics, they are of little value in
understanding how Jesus' contemporaries assessed him as an exorcist. And,
as the Jesus tradition itself cannot support the view that Jesus was charged
with magic, we can take it that it is false to think that Jesus' contem -
poraries considered him to be a magician75 or that the charge that Jesus
practised magic is a motif permeating the Jesus tradition.76 In fact, if the
charge of magic had been known by the Gospel writers we would have
expected them to take the opportunity to spell it out and reject it as they
did with other criticisms of Jesus.

Gallagher Divine Man notes that Celsus contends "that magic is only effective with
uneducated people with those of depraved moral character, which those who have
studied philosophy are impervious to its power since they are careful to lead a
healthy life" (45), cf. CC VL41.
71 Cf. Aune ANRW U232 (1980) 1515.
72 Fridrichsen Miracle 89f_
73 In Strange Tales About Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) P. Beskow, commenting on
Smith's Secret Gospel of Mark, says that it is a riddle
". . . how Morton Smith has been able to derive so many strange ideas from this
brief and not very disturbing text He proclaims four theses based on the support
of this fragment: 1. that Jesus appeared as a magician. . . The odd thing about
Morton Smith's theses is that none of them have (sic) any worthwhile support in
the fragment. Jesus does name a miracle, but there is nothing more magical about
this one than miracles described elsewhere in the Gospels" (103).
74 Cf. Kee Medicine 73, "The Jewish religious leaders, observing his exorcisms, do not
dismiss him as a trickster or as a fake, but infer that he is able to control the
demons because he is in league with their leader".
75 Cf. Winter Trial 144 and especially see the critical review of Smith by J.-A. Buhner
"Jesus und die antike Magie. Bemerkungen zu M. Smith, Jesus der Magier" £vT 43
(1983) 156-75. Cf. W. Wink "Jesus as a Magician" USQR 30 (1974) 3-14.
76 Samain ETL 15 (1938) 490.
 § 25 Necromancer?

"Was Jesus accused of Necromancy?" asks CH. Kraeling.1 His answer is

"Yes". Kraeling's case centres around his understanding of Mark 6.14—16 —
Herod's view of Jesus: "John, whom I beheaded, has been raised." His ar-
gument is, briefly, as follows.
Herod has heard a report of Jesus, most likely of Jesus' mighty works.
But, John did no miracles (John 10.41). What then is the connection that
Herod is making between Jesus and John? It cannot be that Jesus is John
redevivus for the ministries of Jesus and John overlap (Matthew 11.2—6/
Luke 718—23). So Kraeling suggests that the connection is necromancy.2
The backbone of Kraeling's case is that, apart from the sayings relating
to Jesus in John (7.20, 8.48, 49, 52; 10.20), and the reference in Luke 8.29
to the Gadarene demoniac, the locution exeiv 5aip.óviov means "to have a
demon under one's control and to make him do one's bidding."3 Kraeling
gives the impression that this phrase is used on a number of other
occasions. In fact, it appears only in Matthew 1118/Luke 7.33, and Kraeling
gives us no evidence for thinking that this verse was intended to convey
the notion of John having a demon under his control. Kraeling also
mentions the Beelzebul charge in this connection (Mark 3.22). However,
we have just seen that this interpretation of the charge is improbable. This
severely undermines if not destroys Kraeling's case.

1 Kraeling JBL 59 (1940) 147-57.

2 Kraeling JBL 59 (1940) 153.
3 Kraeling JBL 59 (1940) 154.
 § 26 Hasid?

Would Jesus' audience have seen him as one of their charismatic rabbis?
In Jesus the Jew Geza Vermes considers that Jesus is represented in the
Gospels "as a man whose supernatural abilities derived, not from secret
powers, but from immediate contact with God, (which) proves him to be a
genuine charismatic."1 This conclusion may adequately define Jesus' ac-
tivity and character in terms of our understanding of a charismatic. But,
can we go so far as to say "that the person of Jesus is to be seen as part
of the first-century charismatic Judaism and as the paramount example of
the early Hasidim or Devout"?2 In other words, would Jesus' contem-
poraries have considered him one of their charismatic rababis? Yes, says
Vermes.3
Vermes places Jesus among the charismatic rabbis as a result of an
examination of Jesus as a healer, particularly as an exorcist, and by com-
paring him with Honi and Hanina ben Dosa. In relation to exorcism, the
material Vermes produces to set up the background for Jesus is from
Tobit, Jubilees, Josephus, Qumran and the rabbinic literature.
Our first task here is to note that there are some general objections to
the view that Jesus was a rabbi. In contrast to Jesus, the rabbis seemed to
have little interest in eschatology, nor did they speak in a prophetic man-
ner.4 And, in the conclusion to his chapter on "The Constraints of the
Law", Harvey says:
"We have tried, so far as our knowledge permits us, to lay out the options which
would have been open to anyone who acquired the reputation, as Jesus undoubtedly
did, of being a teacher. The evidence of the gospels - taken . . . as a whole, and

1 Vermes Jesus 79, cf. Dunn Jesus 88; Barrett Spirit 57 and Borg Conflict Preface, 73,
230-L
2 Vermes Jesus 79.
3 Vermes Jesus 79. Cf. Buhner EvT 43 (1983) 156-75; Borg Conflict 230-1; E. Rivkin
What Crucified Jesus? (Nashville: Abingdon, 1984) chaps. 4 and 5. For a critique of
the hasid as a 'type' see D. Bermann "Hasidim in Rabbinic Tradition" in PJ. Ach-
temeier (ed.) SBLSP 2 vols. (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979) 2, 15-33 and Freyne in
Nickelburg and Collins (eds.) Ideal Figures 223-58.
4 Neusner Traditions I, 395; Harvey Constraints 93 n. 88.
210 V As Others Saw Him

therefore less vulnerable to the suspicion of fabrication by the early church - tells
strongly against Jesus having adopted any of these options as he found them. Rather,
his activity had features drawn from several of them, and indeed his record stands out
from that of any other figure of his time and culture (with the possible exception of
John the Baptist) in that he combined learning and expertise of the scribes with the
freedom and directness of a prophet. Moreover, unlike the sages of the Pharisaic
schools, his teaching was inseparable from the particular circumstances which he invited
people to believe now prevailed."5

Secondly, over against Vermes, particularly in relation to Jesus as an

exorcist, we are able to set out some evidence that provides a corrective
to Vermes' position. I say "corrective" for, as we have seen in the last
three chapters, Jesus was indeed an exorcist at one with his Jewish milieu.
But, I also say "corrective" because we have produced evidence to show
that Jesus' audience may not have classed him simply as one of their
rabbis.
L Most importantly, the rabbis were most probably not the only ex-
orcists in Palestine in Jesus' time. There were probably exorcists like
Eleazar, like the Abraham of the Genesis Apocryphon, the exorcists re-
presented in the magical papyri, the sons of Sceva, the Strange Exorcist,
perhaps travelling Cynics, as well as rabbis like Honi and Hanina ben
Dosa (see the conclusion to chapter II above). This great variety of tra-
ditions means that Jesus' audience was probably aware of a great range of
exorcists and their methods, with the rabbis representing only one aspect
of that variety.
2. Although, of all the exorcists in first century Palestine, Jesus was
probably most like the charismatic rabbis there are some important dif-
ferences between him and the rabbis.
(a) Although, on one occasion, we see the report of a rabbi using no
technique, save the command to the demon to get out (§7 above), Jesus is
almost (cf. Mark 5.10ff.) consistently simple in his exorcistic technique.
Even Vermes recognizes this difference between Jesus and many of his
contemporary exorcists when he says that "no rite is mentioned in con-
nection with these achievements. In fact, compared with the esotericism of
other methods, his own, as depicted in the Gospels, is simplcity itself."6
(b) In the last chapter we spent some time examining the relationship
between miracle and message in the Gospels. One of the conclusions of
that discussion was that this unique relationship is to be traced back to the
historical Jesus. So far as I know none of the hasidim made any con-
nection between their miracles and a message.7

5 Harvey Constraints, 65.

6 Vermes Jesus 65 and a 31
7 On the theological intention of the rabbinic miracle stories see K. Schubert "Wun-
derberichte und ihr Kerygma in der rabbinischen Tradition" Kairos 24 (1982) 31-7.
 §26 Hasid? 211

(c) Closely related to this point is the specific significance that the
historical Jesus gave to his miracles. That is, in the last chapter we saw
that Jesus understood his exorcisms in particular to be the kingdom of
God in action. Not only is Jesus' general preoccupation with the kingdom
unique, but so also is the significance he attributed to his exorcisms. This
preoccupation with the kingdom of God and its relationship to exorcism is
not something found in Judaism's charismatics.8
(d) We noted above (§18) that although prayer was probably important
for the historical Jesus, and the early Church enhanced this importance,
prayer was never part of Jesus' technique of exorcism. There are examples
(e.g. b. Me'il. 17b) of rabbis healing without prayer, but with a simple
command. However, this seems to be the exception (see m. Ber. 5.5; b. Ber.
34b). Primarily on the basis of this point Harvey says:
"All the conditions are there: Jesus both shows extraordinary powers of prolonged
concentration and adopts an intimate (though not, in his case, bartering or bantering)
style of address to God; and he instructs his followers in both the necessity and the
power of prayer for performing miracles; but few of his mighty works are explicitly
attributed to prayer."

Harvey concludes that "the style of the 'Charismatic' is not the one chosen
by Jesus."9
If our argument is correct Vermes' view needs at least some correctioa
Although the nearest parallel to Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples are the
rabbis and their pupils, and although Jesus the exorcist was at one with his
Jewish environment, a significant aspect of his ministry that seems to
mark off Jesus over against the rabbis is his healing and exorcistic min-
istry.10 So, would Jesus' audience have viewed him as another hasid? If
they did, is it not probable that, as an exorcist, Jesus would have been
seen as displaying characteristics that meant that he did not fit entirely
into their understanding of a wandering charismatic?11

8 See also ARC. Leaney's review of Vermes in JTS 25 (1974) 490.

9 Harvey Constraints 107.
10 B. Lindars "Jesus and the Pharisees" in CJC. Barrett, E. Bammel and WD. Davies (eds.)
Donum Gentiticum: NT Studies in honour of David Daube (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978)
51-63 sounds a warning against too ready an assumption that the gap can be closed
between Jesus and the Pharisees or Galilean teachers of the period.
11 Cf. Freyne in Nickelburg and Collins (eds.) Ideal Figures 223-58, who criticizes
Vermes on the grounds that "when all the material that might conceivably be
included in the production of a suitable profile has been considered, it seems that we
would still have to query the possibility of the charismatic being in itself a viable
type within the overall religious context of Palestinian life in the early centuries of
our era" (247). The limits set on the scope of our study preclude the need to enter
into the dehate as to whether or not Jesus, as an itinerant preacher, was more like a
Cynic philosopher than a rabbi. See Hengel Charismatic Leader, Theissen Radical Re-
ligion 2 (1975) 84-93; Kee Origins 68.
212 V As Others Saw Him

We have, in the second part of this chapter, examined three possible

ways in which it has been suggested Jesus' contemporaries would have
assessed him. Our discussions have shown how unlikely it is that the
categories of "magician" or "necromancer" would have been used. While
Jesus' overall ministry may have caused him to be seen as a hasid, as an
exorcist it is doubtful if those who witnessed him at work would have
considered him just another of their charismatic rabbis. In the conclusions
to this chapter we will make our own suggestions in this connection.
 § 27 Conclusions

In this chapter we have been considering some of the suggestions as to

how Jesus the exorcist might have been understood or categorized by his
contemporaries. We have cast doubt on the proposals that have so far
been offered. It is unlikely that, in observing his exorcisms, bystanders
would have deemed Jesus to be either a (or the) Messiah, or a magician,
or a necromancer. Further, we have suggested correctives to the notion
that Jesus the exorcist would have been viewed as a charismatic rabbi.1
How then might Jesus have been understood or assessed by his con-
temporaries?
Our answer needs to take account of the following points. First, even
though we have suggested the need for correctives to the notion that Jesus
the exorcist would have been viewed as a charismatic rabbi, viewed over
all, his life-style and ministry most nearly matches that of such figures.
Apart from the individuals mentioned above in §26 there is evidence,
particularly from Josephus,2 but also from the New Testament, that Pales-
tine was particularly fertile soil for fostering peripatetic charismatics and
rabbis.3
Secondly, our inquiry into the background of Jesus' ministry of exor-
cism highlighted a tradition of wandering charismatic healers in first
century Palestine.
Before the first World War Bousset called Jesus a "wandering preacher"
and more recently Theissen has characterized him as a "wandering cha-

1 In view of the present position of the "divine-man" debate - in which it is now

generally doubted that it is a useful category to use in relation to Jesus - it is
unnecessary for us to consider it in our discussion. See JX>. Kingsbury T h e 'Divine
Man' as the key to Mark's Christology - The End of an Era?" Int 35 (1981) 143-57;
Dunn Jesus 69 and notes; GR. Holladay Theios Aner in Hellenistic-Judaism (Missoula:
Scholars Press, 1977>, (cf. the review of Holladay by W. Telford in JTS 30 [1979]
246-52); Gallagher Divine Man chap. VI; Blackburn Theios Aner 263-6.
2 Josephus War 2117-9, 259, 261-3, 433; 1253, 437-41; Ant. 18.2-10, 23-5, 85-7; 20.97-8,
102, 167, 169-72, 188.
3 Cf. Hengel Charismatic Leader 201 and Twelftree in Wenham (ed.) Gospel Perspec-
tives 5, 289-310.
214 V As Others Saw Him

rismatic".4 There are sayings in the Gospels which reflect weak ties with
his family (e.g. Mark 3.21; Luke 8.19—21; 11.27—8) and home (e.g. Matthew
8.20, Mark 10.28—30) as well as a low view of material .possessions (e.g.
Matthew 6.25—32; Mark 10.21; Luke 101—7). The stories also carry a
variety of place names where Jesus is found — Jerusalem, Bethany, Gali-
lee, Nain, Nazareth, Cana, Capernaum, Chorazin, Bethsaida and Gergesa,
for example — which support the many generalizing statements in the
Gospels such as "as he was going away".
On the other hand, Jesus seems to have worked from a home he had in
Capernaum (Matthew 4.13; Mark 2.1; John 2.12)5 and some of the Galilean
towns mentioned are within easy walking distance of Capernaum. While it
is not possible to characterize Jesus the exorcist as a homeless charismatic
preacher on the margins of society, he seems to have been sufficiently
mobile for it to be probable that his audience viewed him, in part, in the
light of what they would have known of wandering Cynic healers.
Thirdly, in chapter II above, we have seen that there was a great
variety of methods and types of exorcisms and exorcists in the traditions.
There were traditions such as those in the magical papyri which primarily
preserved the techniques of exorcists. There were stories of healings in
which, like that of Eleazar by Josephus, the exorcist was of little signif-
icance. There were stories, like those of Abraham in the Genesis Apo-
cryphon, where the healer was of central importance. There was material,
both Hellenistic and Jewish, which contained stories of men who were
exorcists as well as prophets or philosophers. There were traditions in
which exorcisms relied on special techniques and others which relied on
the personal force of the exorcist, and others which relied on a com-
bination of these extreme alternatives.
With regard to this variety we concluded that the most reasonable
categories applicable to the material are that the success of some exor-
cisms depended on the performance of special traditions, while others
depended on the person of the exorcist himself for their effectiveness.
Fourthly, apart from the Synoptic tradition's objective to portray Jesus
as the Messiah and later generations' accusation of magic, the earliest
layers of the Jesus tradition give no hint of an attempt to categorize Jesus
along any of the lines reviewed earlier in this chapter. In fact, the only
clear category brought to bear on Jesus' activity was one of "good", that
is, from God, or "evil", that is, from Satan (Matthew 12.24ff./Luke H15ff.).

4 Bousset Kyrios Christos 117 and Theissen Followers chap. 2 and also FJ1 Borsch
"Jesus, the Wandering Preacher?" in Hooker and Hickling (eds.) What about the NT?
45-63.
5 Further see EJ.F. Bishop "Jesus and Capernaum" CBQ 15 (1953) 427-37.
 §27 Conclusions 215

Fifthly, it cannot even be maintained that the exorcisms of Jesus would

have suggested the divine origin of Jesus6 for, as the stories of Abraham
in the Genesis Apocryphon and of Noah in Jubilees indicate, such stories
could simply be used to reflect the upright character of the exorcist.7
Therefore, it is appropriate that we should conclude this discussion with
the suggestion, not that as an exorcist Jesus "transcended" the categories
of the first century.8 Rather it is improbable that his contemporaries saw
him as either, (a) fitting or could have fitted him into any categories or,
(b) attached any "labels" to him that were available to them. We can
agree with Hengel when he says:
"Even within the characterization we have preferred, of an 'eschatological charismatic',
he remains in the last resort incommensuarble, and so basically confounds every
attempt to fit him into the categories suggested by the phenomenology or sociology of
religion."9

It is not surprising then that his audience is said to have probably

reflected on whether or not he was a "good" or "evil" healer (cf. Matthew
12.24ff./Luke lL15ff.; Acts 10.38). We can also concur with a conclusion of
Harvey's.
"Jesus evidently opted for a type of miraculous healing which was bound to be
dangerously ambiguous; but, at least according to the records, he carried it out with the
absolute minimum of those technical procedures which would most surely have aroused
suspicion about his true credentials and motives."10

For the early Church the exorcisms of Jesus were seen as yet another
aspect of his ministry, albeit a very important aspect. Perhaps for Mark, in
particular, it was seen as the most important part of Jesus' ministry, which
was conscripted into the programme of showing that Jesus was the Mes-
siah.11

6 Cf. Tiede Charismatic chap. 3.

7 See Twelftree Christ 30-1.
8 Cf. Morris Cross 56f.
9 Hengel Charismatic Leader 69. In the context of a discussion of Jesus as a teacher
Hengel also says that ". . . Jesus stood outside any discoverable uniform teaching
tradition of Judaism. It is not possible to assign him a place within the development
of contemporary Jewish traditions" (his emphasis, 49). See also Koester Introduction II,
77-8 and Buhner in EvT 43 (1983) 156-75, esp. 174-5.
10 Harvey Constraints 109.
11 Further see Twelftree Christ.
 VI
Jesus The Exorcist: His Self-Understanding

§ 28 Introduction

The historian's picture of Jesus as an exorcist involves not only the

recovery of the outward features of this aspect of his ministry but, also, so
far as it is possible, some idea of Jesus' self-understanding. This task is also
of interest to modern theology and the present day debate on exorcism.'
However, in the wake of Schweitzer's exposure, much of the nineteenth
century reconstruction of Jesus' self-understanding has been shown to tell
us more about nineteenth century theology than about the Jesus of the
first century. One result of this has been the denial that it is possible to
know much or anything about the mind of the historical Jesus. For exam-
ple, in 1926 Fridrichsen wrote; "What took place in the depths of Jesus'
soul will always remain a mystery no source will be able to uncover...^
Nevertheless, as James Dunn says,
"While a biography of Jesus is indeed impossible, particularly a biography in the
modern sense which traces out the hero's growth in self-awareness and in under-
standing of himself and his world, that does not mean that we can say nothing at all
about Jesus' self-consciousness and spiritual experience at some points in his ministry."3

So, what we will do in this brief chapter is test this last statement and
see if it is possible to say something about Jesus' understanding of his
exorcisms, viz. — How did Jesus view himself as an exorcist? and, What
did he think he was doing?

1 See particularly Dunn Jesus 13. Following Charlesworth Jesus Within Judaism 131, I
have avoided the term "self-consciousness" as "it might be misunderstood as remi-
niscent of nineteenth-century romanticism and the pursuit of a biography on Jesus."
The self-understanding of Jesus in his ministry is also seen in his teaching, see
Lindars in Barrett, Bammel and Davies (eds.) Donum Gentilicum 51-63. For literature
on Jesus' self-understanding see Evans Jesus Research 128-38.
2 Fridrichsen Miracle 72. Cf. Bultmann Jesus and the Word 14; D. Nineham "Epilogue"
in J. Hick (ed.) The Myth of God Incarnate (London; SCM, 1977) 188.
3 Dunn Jesus 12-13, his emphasis. Cf. Charlesworth Jesus Within Judaism 131-64;
Leivestad Jesus 12.
 § 29 Exorcism and Eschatology

Jesus was well aware that he was not the only exorcist in the community.
In a debate with some of his opponents he asks rhetorically about the
methods of some other Jewish exorcists (Matthew 12.27/Luke 11.19). On
another occasion John reports to Jesus that the disciples had seen someone
using his name to cast out demons. Also, from the use of his name in
incantations, Jesus would have been able to conclude that he was con-
sidered a successful and powerful exorcist.
In chapter III we saw that it is the collection of sayings now found in
the Beelzebul Controversy pericope which has the greatest potential in
telling us about Jesus' views of his exorcisms (see §10 above). Arguably
the most important saying in the Beelzebul Controversy pericope is the
Spirit/finger saying (Matthew 12.28/Luke 1120). We have already aruged
for its authenticity (§10 above). We can now ask, what does it tell us
about Jesus' understanding of his exorcisms?
In Jesus and the Spirit James Dunn has addressed this question and
one of his answers is that "Jesus believed that he cast out demons by the
power of God" (p. 47). However, it is probably better to say that it was by
the Spirit of God that Jesus cast out demons for, it is the Spirit that is
mentioned in the tradition here. Jesus was quite conscious that the source
of his power-authority for exorcism was in the wholly new eschatological
Spirit of God, and not simply in himself or his techniques.
It is misleadning to say, as does James Dunn, that in this verse we can
see that Jesus is aware of an "otherly" power as if this was particularly
significant here, for such experience was common to holy men.1 Some of
the exoricsts mentioned in chapter II were aware of, and relied upon, just
this kind of power, a power-authority outside themselves.
But, we have also argued that not only is "Spirit" significant in this
verse but so also is the "I" (§10 above). Thus, Jesus was not simply
claiming that the exorcisms performed by or through the eschatological
Spirit of God meant that the kingdom of God had come, but that those

1 Dunn Jesus 47, though see his point (b) there. See Borg Conflict 253.
218 VI Jesus The Exorcist: His Self-Understanding

exorcisms which he performed — by or through the eschatological Spirit

of God — meant that the kingdom of God had come. In other words, we
can say that the awareness of the presence and empowering of the es-
chatological Holy Spirit had so given him a consciousness of his messianic
identity that for Jesus the hoped-for kingdom had arrived, not only
because of the activity of the Holy Spirit, but also because it was he who,
in the Spirit, was casting out demons. Therefore, it is only half correct to
say "Where the Spirit is there is the kingdom."2 Jesus' understanding is
better reflected by saying that where the Spirit is operative in Jesus there
is the kingdom.3
From what has been said so far, for Jesus, the exorcisms were not
preparatory for the coming of the kingdom,4 but were themselves the
kingdom of God in operatioa This conclusion depends, to some extent, on
e<p0aoev ("has come") in Matthew 12.28/Luke 1120. However, Sanders says
that in interpreting this verse: " . . . it seems to me obviously dubious to
lean so heavily on the meaning of the verb ecpGaoev." And, he continues,
"How can we know that the Greek accurately captures not only some-
thing Jesus said but also the nuance which he intended to convey?"
Sanders' reply is that "clearly we cannot."5 Of course, in the nature of
historical enquiry, we cannot finally know whether or not the Greek
ecpGaoev reflects what Jesus said, or a nuance he intended. However,
ecpGaoev (and probably r^yiKev as well, Mark 1.15) is most likely to be a
translation of K12D which means "to come" or "to arrive".6 So, despite
Sanders' hesitation, at the very least, on the basis of this verse, we can say
that Jesus understood his exorcisms as having something to do with the
coming of the kingdom of God, whether or not that "coming" was
imminent, taking place or realized. In turn, we can agree with Dunn when
he says, "So far as Jesus was concerned, the exercise of this power [in
exorcism] was evidence that the longed-for kingdom of God had already
come upon his hearers, his exorcisms demonstrated that the last days were
already present."7 In the light of Matthew 12.28/Luke 1120, we can go

2 Dunn Jesus 49 and his "Spirit and Kingdom" ExpTim 82 (1970-1) 39, his emphasis.
3 Dunn almost says this in ExpTim 82 (1970-1) 39. Cf. Dunn Jesus 47f. Leivestad
Jesus 106 says that the "I" of this saying must be emphasized. Bultmann, History 239,
says Jesus "concludes from his success that the Kingdom of God has come." This can
hardly be, for, there is no question that other exorcists were successful - even in
Jesus' eyes. Cf. Mark 9.38/Luke 9.49f; Matt 12.27/Luke 1U9.
4 As Betz NovT 2 (1958) 116-37. Further, see the discussion in Beasley-Murray Jesus
and the Kingdom 75-80.
5 Sanders Jesus 134.
6 Cf. Kummel Promise 106 n. 6; Dalman Words 107 and Caragounis TynBul 40 (1989)
12-23.
7 Dunn Jesus 47 (his emphasis). He goes on to say,
 § 29 Exorcism and Eschatology 219

further and suggest that Jesus believed that where the Spirit was op-
erating in him there was the coming of the kingdom of God? This self-
understanding of Jesus is well expressed in the Gospel of Thomas: "Jesus
said, he who is near me is near the fire, and he who is far from me is far
from the kingdom" (82). That is, the coming of the kingdom is not only
linked to Jesus' message nor even his words and actions but with the
person of Jesus.9
Another authentic saying in the Beelzebul Controversy pericope, to
which we need draw attention, is the parable of the Strong Man (Mark
3.27/Matthew 12.29 and Luke 11.21f„ see §10 above). We have shown there
that in this parable Jesus takes his exorcisms to be the casting out or
defeat of Satan.
According to literature reflecting thinking of the New Testament
period, the binding of the powers of evil or the demise of Satan was
expected in the Messianic Age (e.g. Isaiah 24.21f.; 1 Enoch 10.4ff^ llff.; 1QS
4.18f.).10 When we were reviewing the way others assessed Jesus the
exorcist we saw that the consensus of scholarly opinion is that in the first
century it was expected that the Messiah would defeat Satan by casting
out demons (see §23 above). This suggestion is represented in Matthew

"We should not permit our familiarity with this aspect of Jesus' preaching to dull
the edge of this assertioa For this was an astonishing and audacious claim. The
eschatological kingdom was already presentT (his emphasis).
See also Dunn and Twelftree Churchman 94 (1980) 220. While this claim that the
kingdom had already dawned is unique to Jesus we should not over emphasize the
difference between Jesus and the thinking of his contemporaries who saw the present
as the last moments of this world. See 2 Bar 85.10 (early second century AD); 4 Ezra
5.50-5; 1410 (late first century AD>, J Ä Charlesworth "The Historical Jesus in the
Light of Writings Contemporaneous with Him" A NRW II.25.1 (1982) 460-9.
8 Cf. Twelftree in Wenham and Blomberg (eds.) Gospel Perspectives 6. Cf. R. Bultmann
Theology of the NT 2 vols. (London: SCM, 1952 and 1955) I, 7 . .what are the signs
of the time? He himself! His presence, his deeds, his messageT (his emphasis); Borg
Conflict 73, 253. Further on Jesus' self-understanding ("if I cast out demons") see
Leivestad Jesus 106. In a review article of G. Theissen's Urchristliche Wundergeschichten,
Achtemeier notes that Theissen thinks that:
"Because the present calamitous times have been broken by Jesus' miracles,
episodic salvation could occur. Because such episodic salvation/healing could occur,
one could announce that future salvation was already at hand in the present."
But, says Achtemeier ". . . what of the miracle stories themselves? Where in them is
a word about this eschatological dimension of the miracles?" ("An Imperfect Union.
Reflections on Gerd Theissen, Urchristliche Wundergeschichten" in Funk [ed.] Early
Christian Miracle Stories 65). Surely Matt 12.28/Luke 1120 supplies the eschatological
framework for, at the least, the exorcisms of Jesus (cf. Jesus' answer to John the
Baptist Matt lU-6/Luke 7.18-23).
9 See also RJ3. Gärtner "The Person of Jesus and the Kingdom of God" Today 27 (1970)
32-43, esp. 37 and 43. On Q's caution in relation to this understanding of exorcism in
its tradition see Mearns SJT 40 (1987) 189-210.
10 See Dunn and Twelftree in Churchman 94 (1980) 220 and n.31.
220 VI Jesus The Exorcist: His Self-Understanding

where, on seeing Jesus cast out a demon, an amazed crowd asks "can this
be the Son of David?" (12.23). But, in examining the evidence that speaks
of the Coming One's involvement in exorcism and the defeat of Satan two
things emerged. First, all connections between a Messianic individual, ex-
orcism and the defeat of Satan were found in material that had been
either written or redacted by Christians. Second, the Assumption of Moses
10J and 3, which is potentially useful in understanding first century Mes-
sianic expectation, simply anticipates the demise of Satan in the New Age
(see §23 above). Thus — as we concluded at the end of §23 above — prior
to the New Testament even though the end of Satan was expected in the
eschaton,11 there is no specific connection made between exorcism and
eschatology. That the connection is found in authentic words of Jesus but
not found before Jesus, it appears that it was Jesus himself who made this
connection between exorcism and eschatologyP
But, what was the nature of the defeat of Satan that Jesus had in mind?
Were the exorcisms the final and complete defeat, or perhaps the begin-
ning of the defeat of Satan? Or what? These questions arise because quite
different notions of the defeat of Satan can be detected in the Gospel
traditions.
Matthew has the Beelzebul sayings about the defeat of Satan tied to
Jesus' exorcisms (12.25—9). But, alongside this we need to place a number
of other passages from Matthew which exhibit a different view. The first
passage is 8.29b where Matthew adds (see §7 above) to the demon's
question "What do you want with us . . . ? " — the notion of them being
tormented before their time. The implication of this is that it is Matthew
who thought that the torment of the demons lay in the future/beyond
Jesus' exorcisms. With this future element, the two passages we are about
to mention, and the use of "torment" in Revelation of the last time (14.11;
20.10; cf. 9.5; 18.7, 10, 15) it seems likely that Matthew places the final
torment of the demons in the last time.
The second pericope to consider is the parable of the Wheat and the
Tares (Matthew 13.24—30). I have argued elsewhere that the main features
of this parable are probably to be traced back to the historical Jesus,
including the reference to the destruction of the enemy's work in the es-
chaton.13

11 Cf. O. Bôcher "Exorzismus" in Theologische Realenzyklopàdie 10 (Berlin and New

York: de Gruyter, 1982) 749.
12 In contrast to this, having surveyed the cult of Asclepius Kee says that "there is no
suggestion that the healing had any meaning outside of itself; it is not a pointer to a
spiritual transformation or a promise of anything transcendent" (Miracle 87). On
miracles in early Judaism see A. Guttmann "The Significance of Miracles for Tal-
mudic Judaism" HUCA 20 (1947) 363-406.
13 Twelftree Christ 80-L
 § 29 Exorcism and Eschatology 221

The third passage to be noted is 13.36—43 — the interpretation of the

parable of the Wheat and the Tares — which Jeremías has convincingly
shown to be the work of Matthew.14 Here the devil is at work until the
final judgement when all causes of sin and all evil doers will be thrown
into the fire.
The fourth and perhaps clearest expression of when Matthew thinks
Satán will finally be defeated is 25.41, "Depart from me, you cursed, into
the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." This verse comes in
a unit on the Last Judgement (25.31—46) that is so thoroughly Matthean
that it may all be his own work.15 In this verse, and the previous two, the
end of Satan for Matthew is at the end of time, the last judgement.
From this investigation of the view of the end of Satan in Matthew we
see that he has .picked up the view from a tradition which has its origin
in the life of the historical Jesus — at least in the instance of the parable
of Wheat and the Tares — that Satan is to be finally defeated in the last
judgement. But, along side this tradition is the view (compare, e.g.
Matthew 1229), which also most probably has its origin in the life of the
historical Jesus, that the defeat of Satan was taking place in the exorcistic
ministry of Jesus.
Mark's view is less clear. However, in so far as the disciples are par-
adigms of the post-Easter Church and they have been given the task of
casting out demons (6.7—12; [cf. 16.12]) he does not see Satan as finally or
completely defeated in the exorcistic ministry of Jesus. Yet, again, we see
that Jesus' exorcisms are also associated with the defeat of Satan (327).
Like the other two Synoptic Evangelists, Luke has the Beelzebul sayings
relating the exorcisms of Jesus and the casting out of Sataa Further, in
10.18 he records that Jesus says he saw Satan falling while the disciples
were away on a mission that included casting out demons. But, he still
sees Satan active after the end of Jesus' healing ministry in Satan's
inspiration of Judas' betrayal (22.3, cf. 31). Notably, Luke has Paul per-
forming an exorcism (Acts 16.16—18). Thus, for Luke, Satan was not finally
nor completely defeated in Jesus' exorcisms nor any other part of his
ministry.

14 Jeremias Parables 224-5.

15 Cf. R J l Stein An Introduction to the Parables of Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1981) 143, "The great majority of scholars argue for the view that the interpretation is
essentially a Matthean creation, and for many Jeremias' analysis of this passage makes
it 'impossible to avoid the conclusion that the interpretation of the parable of the
Tares is the work of Matthew himself [quoting Jeremias Parables 84-51' Others have
attempted to find in the interpretation a pre-Matthean layer of the tradition [citing
JD. Crossan "The Seed Parables of Jesus" JBL 92 (1973) 260-11 but in essence the
interpretation is still seen as being primarily the work, of Matthew."
222 VI Jesus The Exorcist: His Self-Understanding

John's Gospel has a number of verses that let us see what he thought of
the defeat of Satan. The absence of exorcism in the Fourth Gospel means
that the defeat of Satan could hardly be linked to them. Particularly
important is 12.3L Jesus is talking about his death and says "now shall the
ruler of this world be cast out" It is unlikely that we could trace this back
to the historical Jesus.16 Here the defeat of Satan, the ruler of this world, is
directly linked with the death of Jesus (cf. 14.30 and 16.11). Yet, over
against this we must put Jesus' prayer "that you should keep them from
the evil one" (17J.5).17 So, even if John saw Satan as being defeated in the
death of Jesus he was certainly not saying Satan was finally destroyed for
the early community felt that it still had to deal with him.
The question that arises out of this discussion is, What is the origin of
these views, and, importantly for our purposes, which view or views can
be traced back to the historical Jesus?
We have argued that the Spirit/finger saying of Matthew 12.28/Luke
11.20 is a faithful reflection of the intention of the historical Jesus in
relation to his exorcisms. That is, Jesus saw his exorcisms as having some-
thing to do with the defeat of Satan. Yet, we see that there is material in
the Jesus tradition that assumes the continuing reality and activity of
Satan until the end of the age. The amount of material is not great; it
includes the commission in Mark 16.17, the parable of the Wheat and the
Tares (Matthew 13.24—30), the explanation of the parable of the Wheat
and the Tares (Matthew 13.36—43), the parable of the Net and its
explanation (Matthew 13.47—50), and the parable of the Sheep and Goats
(Matthew 251—46). Although only the parable of the Wheat and the Tares
stands up to historical scrutiny we have in this parable evidence that the
historical Jesus associated the defeat of Satan and evil with the last
judgement.18
Therefore, on the one hand, Jesus associates his exorcism with the
defeat of Satan, yet, on the other hand, he sees the defeat of Satan as
taking place in the last judgement. How are we to resolve this apparent
tension? The view of C.K. Barrett probably reflects that of most scholars,
even though he is not talking about the historical Jesus: "The devil is de-
feated, but he is not destroyed. The Church was too well acquainted with
his devices to suppose that Satan had died."19 Is this view correct?

16 "The Ruler of this World" occurs in the NT only in John. Cf. R. Schnackenburgh
The Gospel According to St. John 2 vols. (London: Burns and Oates, 1968 and 1980) II,
390ff. and Bultmann John 43L
17 Bultmann John 508 and n. 1.
18 Twelftree Christ 80-1.
19 Barrett Spirit 52.
 § 29 Exorcism and Eschatology 223

For a resolution of the problem we need to turn to literature reflecting

views of the period in which the defeat of Satan is pictured with the same
tension.20 The earliest reference that is of value to us is in the so-called
Isaiah Apocalyse (Isaiah 24—27). Isaiah 24.22 reads:
"They [the host of heaven] will be gathered
together as prisoners in a pit;
they will be shut up in a prison,
and after many days they will be punished."
The identity of the "host of heaven" is not clear but they are probably the
rebellious powers in heaven thought to be controlling or manipulating the
heathen nations (cf. Deuteronomy 32.8 and Daniel 10.13). In the Isaiah
passage the defeat of the rebellious powers of heaven is pictured as taking
place in two distinct stages. I Enoch develops this simple picture, clarifying
how the first century mind probably understood the nature of the two
stages of the defeat.
"And . . . the Lord said to Raphael, 'Bind Azaz'el hand and foot (and) throw him into
the darknessf And he made a hole in the desert which was in Duda'el and cast him
there; he threw on top of him rugged sharp rocks. And he covered his face in order
that he may not see the light; and in order that he may be sent into the fire on the
great day of judgment" (1 Enoch 10.4-6).

The first stage, depicted in the picture of covering Azazel with rugged
sharp rocks, is described as a "binding"; a preparation for the final and
complete destruction of the leader of the evil minions.21 A little further on
in 1 Enoch 10.11—13 the initial stage of the defeat is also described as one
of binding. The second stage is said to take place at the great day of
judgement and the picture is one of fire (cf. 19.1). A few lines further on
in chapter 10 the same is said of the minions of Semyaza, another re-
presentation of Satan.
". . . bind them for seventy generations underneath the rocks of the ground until the
day of their judgment and of their consummation, until the eternal judgment is con-
cluded" (1012; cf. 1814-9.2; 21.6-10; 90.23-7 and also Jubilees 5.6-10; 10.5-9.

This two stage notion of the defeat of Satan and his angels fits well
with what we saw reflected of the view of the historical Jesus. However,
we need to note that, while the imagery of the material we have just cited
mentioned nothing about how the leader of the evil minions was to be
bound, Jesus clearly equates the first or preliminary stage of the defeat of
Satan with his exorcisms (Matthew 12.28/Luke 1120). As the parable of the

20 Isa 24.21f.; 1 Enoch 10.4-6, 12f_; 18.14-19.2; 21.6f.; 90.23-4; Jub. 5.5-10; 10.4-9. See also 2
Pet 2.4; Jude 6; Rev 20.1-3. Cf. Moore Judaism IL 338-45.
21 The place "Dudael" is a puzzle. It could derive from "the jagged mountains of God"
(<'A>6ouôar|'X) though see MA. Knibb (ed.) The Ethiopie Book of Enoch in
consultation with E. Ullendorff 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978) 2, 87 n. and M. Black
The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch (Leiden: Brill, 1985) 133-5.
224 VI Jesus The Exorcist: His Self-Understanding

Wheat and the Tares shows (Matthew 1324—30), Jesus maintained the
view, prevalent in the period, that the second and final stage of the defeat
was to take place in the last judgement.
Exorcism was then probably of great importance, even of central im-
portance to Jesus in the conception of his ministry. But, his reply to John
the Baptist warns us against thinking that Jesus saw his exorcisms as of
exclusive importance. In our discussion of Jesus' answer to John the
Baptist (§12 above) we concluded that Jesus probably did not mention his
exorcisms when he was describing the "signs of the times" to John's dis-
ciples (contrast Luke 721). Thus, for Jesus, the kingdom was present
because of his exorcisms, and also because of the preaching to the poor
and other miracles.22
We saw in chapter II that names of exorcists with powerful reputations
were used by others as power-authorities for their exorcisms. We also saw
that Jesus was aware that others were using his name in their exorcisms
(Mark 9.38f./Luke 9.49f; Luke 10.17-20). Might we not then presume that
this would have been reflected in his own self-understanding — that he
was indeed a powerful exorcist?
We have seen in the last few pages that it is possible to say something
about Jesus' self-understanding in relation to his exorcisms. In the words of
Dunn (referring particularly to the claims in Matthew 12.28/Luke 11.20 and
Luke 10.18): "These claims imply a clear sense of the eschatological dis-
tinctiveness of his power. Jesus' mighty acts were in his own eyes as
epochal as the miracles of the Exodus and likewise heralded a new age."23
In this section we have been able to show that Jesus was the first to
make the connection between exorcism and eschaiology. For him, his
exorcisms were the first or preliminary binding of Satan who would
finally be destroyed in the eschaton.

22 Luke, in particular, picks up and develops this theme. See further §5 n. 7 above.
23 Dunn Jesus 48, his emphasis.
 VII

§ 30 Conclusions

This study has been an attempt to contribute to our knowledge of the

historical Jesus. Such an enterprise is important because of the pre-
supposition that the life, ministry and passion of the earthly Jesus were
important to thé early Church and remain of key significance for the
contemporary Church. The particular focus of this study has been the
reported ministry of exorcism of Jesus. The set of three inter-related ques-
tions motivating this book has been: If Jesus was an exorcist, (a) What did
the first reports of his activities as an exorcist contain? (b) How would he
have been viewed by those who saw him at work? and (c) How did Jesus
understand his ministry of exorcism? This study is potentially profitable
because of the contrast between the relative lack of interest in Jesus'
ministry of exorcism shown in modern "lives" of Jesus, and the Synoptic
Gospels' great interest in Jesus as an exorcist.
1. The first result we can record from our study is that we are able
unhesitatingly to support the view that Jesus was an exorcist And, we
need to carry this conclusion forward in two directions. First, Gospel tra-
ditions, other New Testament writings and extra canonical data are agreed
that Jesus was a particularly successful and powerful exorcist This is
evidenced, for example, by his name soon being taken up as a power-
authority by his contemporary or near contemporary exorcists. Second, it
is mistaken for modern "lives" of Jesus virtually to ignore this aspect of
the ministry of the historical Jesus or to relegate it to a subsection of a
small section on his reported miracles. Such an approach may make the
picture of a "life" of Jesus more palatable to twentieth century Christians
but the result is a distorted picture of the historical Jesus. The picture of
the Jesus we have sketched may well be strange to our "enlightened" eyes.
The nature of the Gospel traditions means it is no longer possible to
determine how much of Jesus' time was taken with performing exorcisms.
Yet as our study has shown, exorcism was one of the most obvious and
important aspects of his ministry, both from the perspective of Jesus and
the later Gospel writers. Therefore, to sketch a picture of the historical
Jesus without significant reference to his ministry of exorcism is to
produce a distortion of the evidence.
226 Vil § 30 Conclusions

2. The first century Palestinian background against which we should

place Jesus the exorcist seems to have been rich in variety of notions
available on exorcism and exorcists. The intellectual currency of the time
was wider than that represented by the Jewish charismatics and their
healing methods. First century Palestinians were most probably well aware
of, and practised forms of exorcism that are represented in the ancient
Babylonian and Egyptian texts and papyri as well as the later magical
papyri. Tobit, Jubilees, the Dead Sea Scrolls, LAB, the New Testament
itself, Josephus, rabbinic literature, Lucian and Philostratus, most probably
represent the kinds of exorcists that would have been familiar to Jesus'
observers. However, it seems mistaken to rely on the New Testament
Apocrypha and the Testament of Solomon to give us independent in-
formation on first century ideas.
In first century Palestine there were most probably exorcists like the
Eleazar of Josephus' story, like the Abraham of the Genesis Apocryphon,
like those reflected in the magical papyri, like the Strange Exorcist, the
Jewish exorcists of the Beelzebul Controversy, the sons of Sceva, the wan-
dering Cynic healer-philosophers, as well as the Jewish charismatics.
Moreover, if this if right, then there were exorcisms that ranged
between those which were thought to be successful because of what was
said in the incantations, and done in the rituals, and on the other hand
there were those that were thought to be successful because of who per-
formed the healing. The individuals of this later category with powers of
exorcism are found both as legendary figures in literature as well as fig-
ures in history. These individuals, including Jesus of Nazareth, indigenous
to first century Palestine, were men whose reputable character and
wisdom were thought to be reflected in miracles done either in their
name or actually by them. When, in the light of this, we examine the
principal data on Jesus and exorcism a number of points emerge.
3. Exorcism stories have neither been appended to the Gospel tradition
from other traditions nor rewritten in the light of other traditions. The
Jesus behind the Gospels is at one within his environment not because the
early Church adjusted the tradition but because Jesus the exorcist was a
man of his time.
4. Virtually all of the techniques of Jesus the exorcist would have been
familiar to those who observed him. The exorcism from a distance, the
initial dramatic confrontation between Jesus and the demoniacs which
gave rise to verbal exchanges in which the demon(iac) sought defence and
leniency, Jesus' commanding words or incantations to the demon, the use
of objects (pigs!) to provide an alternative habitat for the evicted demons
and the violence associated with his exorcisms all cause Jesus to appear at
one with his fellow exorcists.
 VII §30 Conclusions 227

5. Yet, we cannot ignore some quite significant factors that, to varying

degrees, most probably set Jesus apart from his contemporary exorcists.
Some exorcisms of the period, like those performed by rabbi Simeon and
Apollonius, were effective without mechanical aids. These, and those
performed by Jesus, would probably have been marked as relatively dis-
tinctive. Also, like few of his contemporaries Jesus appeared to use no
prayers, as some of the rabbis may have, nor was he reported as invoking
any power-authority or as using a powerful name. That is, Jesus never
adjures or binds a demon by an outside authority.
6. So far as we can see from this study, those who observed Jesus as an
exorcist did not accuse him of being a magiciaa In fact, as we concluded
at the end of §25 above, it is reasonable to suppose that if the Gospel
writers or their traditions knew of any charge of magic they would have
taken the opportunity to spell it out and refute it as they had done with
other criticisms of Jesus. The criticism, a most horrific criticism of Jesus
in relation to his exorcism, was that he was evil rather than good; oper-
ating under the aegis of Satan rather than God. The charge that Jesus was
a magician is evidenced only from second and third century literature
onwards.
The evidence, as we saw it, also does not allow us to conclude that
Jesus' observers thought him a necromancer or even simply another of
their charismatics. Rather, there seems to have been such a variety of
notions of exorcism and exorcists available in first century Palestine that
Jesus was probably not categorized by his contemporaries beyond being
good or evil.
7. Matthew 12.23 alleges that the crowd responded to an exorcism by
acclaiming Jesus to be the Messiah; "Can this be the Son of David?"
However, we concluded that this verse has a history no earlier than
Matthew's redaction. That the crowd might have thought Jesus' exorcism
marked him as the Messiah assumes that, in the first century, people
expected the Messiah to be an exorcist. Up to the present this has been an
assumption of scholarship. However, no certainly pre-Christian literature
anticipates a messianic figure doing battle with Satan through the re-
latively ordinary healing of exorcism. In turn, we conclude that it was
Jesus who first made the connection between exorcism and eschatology. It
was he who associated the notion of the cosmic, • supernatural battle
against the kingdom of Satan in the eschaton with the very act of an
ordinary exorcism. Satan was being defeated and the coming of the
kingdom of thé God was taking place in his exorcisms (cf. the parable of
the Strong Man).
8. First century Palestinians believed — and Jesus shared the view —
that Satan's defeat would take place in two stages. In the beginning of the
228 VII § 30 Conclusions

eschaton Satan would be bound so that, in the end, he could be finally

destroyed. It seems that Jesus saw his, and the exorcisms of his disciples, as
the first stage of the defeat of Sataa
9. For Jesus, an exorcism was a confrontation between himself and the
demonic in which the demonic was defeated. Here, as in his belief that he
was undertaking the first stage of the defeat of Satan, we touch on a most
unique feature of Jesus' understanding of his exorcisms. He is seen to rely
on his own power-authority by saying "I command . . . " Yet, in a
round-about way, he informs his critics that he is operating by the es-
chatological Spirit of God (Matthew 12.28/Luke 1L20). The unique and
unprecedented aspect of Jesus' exorcisms is that he gave profound
meaning to the relatively ordinary event of an exorcism.
Part of the significance Jesus attributed to his exorcism is apparent in
the Spirit/finger saying (Matthew 12.28/Luke 1120) where he assigns a con-
nection between exorcism and eschatology. Lest it be thought we are
resting too much on this one verse it is worth recalling that, indirectly, the
saying in Luke 10.18 shows the eschatological significance Jesus attributed
to exorcism as does the parable of the Strong Man. That, in general, Jesus
saw eschatological significance in his ministry is seen by his choice of
twelve disciples and his "cleansing" of the Temple.
Over against the idea that Jesus considered that Satan was defeated and
that the kingdom had come because of the coming of the eschatological
Spirit, it is probably a more faithful representation of Jesus' understanding
of his exoricisms to say that where the Spirit was operating in him there
was the focus of the coming of the kingdom. This means that we can
probably say that Jesus would have been aware of considerable uniqueness
in his relation to God and to what he thought God was doing around him
(cf. Matthew lL2-6/Luke 7.18-23).
Jesus the exorcist was a man of his time, performing exorcisms in
much the same way as some of his wandering exorcist contemporaries.
However, while exorcism was by no means the only aspect of his min-
istry, particularly in his exorcisms (carried out by the power-authority of
the eschatological Spirit) he believed the first stage in the defeat of Satan
and his kingdom was taking place in order that the kingdom of God could
come.
 Bibliography

L Primary Texts and Sources

Allegro, J_M_ and Anderson, A_A. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan V:I (4Q-
158-4Q186) (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968).
Allison, F.G. Menander: The Principal Fragments LCL (London: Heinemann and New
York: Putnam, 1921).
Audollent, A. (ed.) Defixionum Tabellae (Frankfurt Main: Minerva GmbH, Unveränderter
Nachdruck, 1967).
Avigad, N. and Yadin, Y. A Genesis Apocryphon: A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judea
(Jerusalem: Hebrew University and Magnes Press, 1956).
Barthélémy, D. and Milik, J.T. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert I: Qumran Cave
I (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955).
Baillet, M. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert VII: Qumran Grotte 4 III (4Q482-4Q-
520) (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982).
Baillet, M_ Milik, J.T. and de Vaux, R. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan 111:
Les petites grottes de Qumrân (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962).
Bell, HJL, Nock, AJD. and Thomspon, H. "Magical Texts from a Bilingual Papyrus in the
British Museum" Proceedings of the British Association 17 (1931) 235-87.
Betz, HD. (ed.) The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1986).
Blau, LJ3. Das altjüdische Zauberwesen (Strasbourg: Trübner, 1898).
Bourghouts, JP. (ed.) Ancient Egyptian Magical Texts, Nisaba 9 (Leiden: Brill, 1978).
— The Magical Texts of Papyrus Leiden I, 348 (Leiden: Brill, 1971).
Braude, W.G. Pesikta rabbati 2 vols. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968).
Bryce, H. The Seven Books of Arnobius Adversus Gentes ANCL voL 19 (Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1871).
Burrows, M. (et al.) (eds.) The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark's Monastry I The
Isaiah* Manuscript and Habakkuk Commentary (New Haven: American Schools of Oriental
Research, 1950).
— The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark's Monastery 11/2 The Manual of Disciple (New
Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1951).
Chadwick, H. (ed.) Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980).
Charles, R A (ed.) The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament 2 vols. (Ox-
ford: Clarendon, 1913).
— The Ascension of Isaiah (London: Black, 1900).
— The Assumption of Moses (London: Black, 1897).
Charlesworth, J A (ed.) The Discovery of a Dead Sea Scroll (4Q Therapeia): Its
Importance in the History of Medicine and Jesus Research (Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech
University Press, 1985).
— The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2 vols. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co, 1983
and 1985).
230 Bibliography

Cohoon, J.W. and Crosby, RL. Dio Chrysostom LCL, 5 vols. (London: Heinemann and Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932-51).
Colson, EH. and Whittaker, G J l (et al.) (eds.) Philo LCL, 12 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press and London: Heinemann, 1929-53).
Conybeare, F.C. (ed.) Philostratus: The Life of Apollomus LCL, 2 vols. (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press and London: Heinemann, 1948).
Cross, F M "Fragments of the Prayer of Nabonidus" IEJ 34 (1984) 260-4.
Danby, H. The Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933).
Delling, G. (ed.) Antike Wundertexte. KIT, 792 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1960).
Denis, A.-M. (ed.) Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum Quae Supersunt Graeca PVTG, 3 (Leiden:
Brill, 1970).
Diehl, E. (ed.) Anthologia Lyrica Graeca BSGRT, 3 vols. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1925).
Dods, M Reith, G. and Pratten, BP. The Writings of Justin Martyr and Athenagoras AN-
CL vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1867).
Downing, F.G. (ed.) The Christ and the Cynics (Sheffield: JSOT, 1988).
Dupont-Sommer, A The Essene Writings from Qumran (Oxford: Blackwell, 1961).
Epstein, l (ed.) The Babylonian Talmud 34 vols. (London: Soncino, 1935-48).
Fiebig, P. (ed.) Antike Wundergeschichten zum Studium der Wunder des Neuen Testamentes
(Bonn: Marcus und Weber, 1911).
— Jüdische Wundergeschichten des neutestamentlichen Zeitalters (Tübingen: Mohr, 1911).
— Rabbinische Wundergeschichten des neutestamentlichen Zeitalters KIT, 78 (Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1933).
Finkelstein, L. Sifre on Deuteronomy (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America,
1989).
Fitzmyer, JA. "The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the NT" NTS 20
(1974) 393. 4QpsDan A*.
— (ed.) The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
1966).
— and Harrington, DJ. (eds.) A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Rome: Biblical
Institute, 1978).
Foerster, W. Gnosis: A Selection of Gnostic Texts 2 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1972 and 1974).
Fowler, RN. Plato: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus LCL (London: Heinemann
and Cambridge, MA- Harvard University Press, 1966).
Freedman, H. and Simon, M (eds.) Midrash Rabbah 10 vols. (London: Soncino, 1939).
Gaster, T A The Scriptures of the Dead Sea Sect (London: Seeker & Warburg, 1957).
Gifford, EJL Eusebii Pamphili Evangelicae Praeparationis 4 vols. (Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1903).
Ginzberg, L. The Legends of the Jews 7 vols. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,
1909-38).
Goodwin, GW. Fragment of a Graeco-Egyptian Work Upon Magic (Cambridge: Deighton,
1852).
Grant, R.M. (eds.) Gnosticism: An Anthology (London: Collins, 1961).
Grenfell, B.P. and Hunt, AS. (eds.) The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (London: Egypt Exploration
Fund, 1898-).
Griffith, F l . and Thompson, H. (eds.) The Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and
Leiden 3 vols. (London: Grevel, 1904-9).
Gulick, CA Athenaeus: The Deipnosophists LCL, 7 vols. (London: Heinemann and New
York: Putnam and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927-41).
Gummere, RJvt Seneca and Lucilium Spistulae Morales LCL, 3 vols. (London: Heinemann
and New York: Putnam, 1917-25).
Harmon, AM, Kilburn, K. and Macleod, MD. Lucían 8 vols. (London: Heinemann, New
York: Macmillan and Putnam and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913-67).
Harrington, DJ. (et al.) Pseudo-Philon, Les antiquités bibliques 2 vols. (Paris: Cerf, 1976).
Härtel, G.S. Thasci Caccili Cypriani CSEL vol. 3 (New York and London: Johnson Reprint,
1965).
 Bibliography 231
Heikel, LA. Eusebius Werke GCS vol. 23 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1913).
Hennecke, E. New Testament Apocrypha 2 vols. (London: SCM, 1963 and 1965).
Herford, R.T. Pirke Aboth (New York: Schocken, 1962).
Hicks, RD. Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers LCL, 2 vols. (London: Hei-
nemann and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925).
Holladay, C (ed.) Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors voL 1 Historians Texts and
Translations, 20; Pseudepigrapha Series, 10 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983).
Horner, G. Pistis Sophia (London: SPCK, 1924).
Horseley, GJLR. (ed.) New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity 5 vols. (Sydney: The
Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 1981-89).
James, MR. (ed.) The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1924).
— The Biblical Antiquities of Philo (New York: KTAV, 1971).
Jonge, M de, (et al.) The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. A Critical Edition of the
Greek Text (Leiden: Brill, 1978).
Jongeling, B. Labuschagne, C. and van der Woude, AS. (eds.) Aramaic Texts from Qum-
ran vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1976).
Kee, H.C. (ed.) Medicine, Miracle and Magic in NT Times (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1986) Appendix, 4Q Therapeia.
Kittel, R. (ed.) Biblia ¡¡ebraica (7th ed. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1951).
Knibb, MA. (ed.) The Ethiopic Book of Enoch in consultation with E. Ullendorff 2 vols.
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1978).
Koetschau, P. Origenes Werke GCS. vols. 2 and 3 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1899).
Lauterbach, J X . (ed.) Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael 3 vols. (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication
Society of America, 1933-35).
Lake, K. (ed.) The Apostolic Fathers LCL, 2 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
and London: Heinemann, 1912 and 1913).
— Lawlor, HJ. and Oulton, JÜ.L. (eds.) Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History LCL, 2 vols.
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press and London: Heinemann, 1926, 1932).
Lightfoot, J A (ed.) The Apostolic Fathers (London: Macmillan, 1891).
Lipsius, RA. and Bonnet, M (ed.) Acta Apostolorum apocrypha I (Lipsiae: Mendelssohn,
1891—).
Lohse, E. (ed.) Die Texte aus Qumran. Hebräisch und deutsch (München: Kösel, 1971).
Luck, G. Arcana Mundi. Magic and the Occult in the Greek and Roman Worlds. A Col-
lection of Ancient Texts Translated, Annotated, and Introduced (Baltimore and London:
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985).
MacMahon, JJL The Refutation of all Heresies by Hipploytus ANCL vol. 6 (Edinburgh: T
& T Clark, 1868).
Malherbe, A J. (ed.) The Cynic Epistles (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1977).
Marcus, R. (ed.) Philo Supplement LCL, 2 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
and London: Heinemann, 1953).
McCown, C.C. (ed.). The Testament of Solomon (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922).
Milik, J.T. (ed.) The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1976).
Montefiore, CG. and Loewe, H. A Rabbinic Anthology (New York: Schocken, 1974).
Montgomery, JA. Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur (Philadelphia: University Mu-
seum, 1913).
Moore, CJL and Jackson, J. Tacitus: The Histories: The Annals LCL, 4 vols. (London:
Heinemann and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1925-37).
Murray, A.T. Demosthenes Private Orations LCL, 3 vols. (London: Heinemann and Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1936-9).
Naveh, J. "A Medical Document or a Writing Exercise? The So-called 4Q Therapeia" IEJ
36 (1986) 52-5.
Nestle, E. and Aland, K. (eds.) Novum Testamentum Graece (26th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelstiftung, 1979).
Neusner, J. (ed.) The Tosefta 6 vols. (New York: KTAV, 1977-81).
— The Mishnah (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1988).
232 Bibliography

Oldfather, C U (et al.) Diodorus of Sicily LCL, 12 vols. (London: Heinemann and New
York: Putnam's Sons and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933-67).
Oldfather, W A Epictetus LCL, 2 vols. (London: Heinemann and New York: Putnam's Sons,
1926-8).
Ploeg, J .P.M. van der "Un petit rouleau de psaumes apocryphes (11 QPsAp*)" in G. Jeremias
(et al.) (eds.) Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 128-39 (+ pis. II-VII).
— "Le psaume XCI dans une recension de Qumran" RB 72 (1965) 210-17 (+ pis. VIII-IX).
Preisendanz, K. (ed.) Papyri Graecae Magicae. Die griechischen Zauberpapyri 3 vols.
(Leipzig: Teubner, 1928, 1931, 1941).
— and Henrichs, A (eds.) Papyri Graecae Magicae 2 vols. (2nd ed. Stuttgart: Teubner,
1973-74).
Pritchard, J. (ed.) Ancient Near-Eastern Texts (3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1969).
Puech, E. "UQPsAp a : Un rituel d'exorcismes. Essai de reconstruction" RevQ 14 (1990) 377-
408.
Rackham, H. Pliny: Natural History LCL, 10 vols. (London: Heinemann and Cambridge,
MA Harvard University Press, 1938-63).
Radice, B. Pliny: Letters and Panegyricus LCL, 2 vols. (London: Heinemann and Cam-
bridge, MA Harvard University Press, 1969).
Rahlfs, A. (ed.) Septuaginta 2 vols. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1935).
Reifferscheid, A and Wissowa, G. Tertulliani opera CCL voL 2, (Turnhout: Brepols, 1954).
Roberts, A and Rambaut, WJL The Writings of Irenaeus ANCL vols. 5 and 9 (Edinburgh:
T & T Clark, 1868).
Robinson, JJvl. (ed.) The Nag Hammodi Library in English (San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1988).
Rodkinson, MX. (ed.) New Edition of The Babylonian Talmud 15 vols. (New York: New
Amsterdam Book Company, 1896-1903).
Rolfe, J.C Suetonius LCL, 2 vols. (London: Heinemann and Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1913-14).
Sanders J A Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan IV: The Psalm Scroll of Qum-
ran Cave 11 (llQPs') (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965).
Schmidt, C Die alten Petrusakten (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1903).
— Pistis Sophia (Copenhagen: Nordisk, 1925).
Schuller, EM. Non-Canonical Psalms from Qumran: A Pseudepigraphic Collection (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1987).
Schwab, M. Le Talmud de Jerusalem 11 vols. (Paris: Maisonneuve, 1871-90).
Scott, SP. The Code of Justinian 2 vols. (New York, NY: AMS, 1973).
Shorey, P. Plato, The Republic LCL, 2 vols. (London: Heinemann and Cambridge, MA
Harvard University Press, 1937 and 1935).
Sparks, KFD. (ed.) The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984).
Stählin, O. Clemens Alexandrinus: Stromata Buch ¡ VI GCS voL 52 (Berlin: Akademie-
Verlag, 1960).
Strack, H. and Billerbeck, P. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch
5 vols. (München: Beck, 1922-61).
Sukenik, EX. The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University The Isaiahb Scroll, War Rule
and Thanksgiving Hymns (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 1955).
Thackeray, H. St. J. (et al.) (eds.) Josephus LCL, 10 vols. (Cambridge, MA Harvard Uni-
versity Press and London: Heinemann, 1926-65).
Thelwall, S. The Writings of Tertullian ANCL vol 11 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1869).
Thompson, R.G The Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylon 2 vols. (London: Luzac, 1903-4).
Vaux, R. de and Milik, J.T. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert VII: Qumran Grotte 4 11:1
ArchéologieJI. Tefillin, Mezuzot et Targums 4Q128-4Q157 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977).
Vermes, G. (ed.) The Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1987).
Walker, A Apocryphal Gospels, Acts and Revelations ANCL vol. 16 (Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1870).
 Bibliography 233

Wallis, RE. The Writings of Cyprian Bishop of Carthage ANCL vols. 8 and 13 (Edinburgh:
T & T Clark, 1868 and 1869).
Wendland, P. (ed.) Hippolytus GCS vol 26 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1916).
White, AX. Sherwin- The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1966).
Wilson, W. The Writings of Clement of Alexandria ANCL vols. 4 and 12 (Edinburgh: T &
T Clark, 1867 and 1869).

IL Select Secondary Sources

Aalen, S. " 'Reign' and 'House' in the Kingdom of God in the Gospels" NTS 8 (1961-2) 215-
40.
Achinger, H. "Zur Traditionsgeschichte der Epileptiker-Perikope Mk 9, 14-29 par, Mt 17,
14-21 par, Lk 9, 37-43a" in A. Fuchs (ed.) Probleme der Forschung (Wein: Herold, 1978)
114-23.
Achtemeier, PJ. "Gospel Miracle Tradition and Divine Man" Int 26 (1972) 174-97.
— "Miracles and the Historical Jesus: A Study of Mark 914-29" CBQ 37 (1975) 471-91
— "The Origin and Function of the Pre-Marcan Miracle Catenae" JBL 91 (1972) 198-221
— Toward the Isolation of Pre-Markan Miracle Catenae" JBL 89 (1970) 265-91
Aitken, W.EJvt "Beelzebul" JBL 31 (1912) 34-53.
Alexander, W.M. Demonic Possession in the NT (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902).
Ambrozic, A M "New Teaching With Power (Mk_L27)" in J. Plevnik (ed.) Word and Spirit:
Essays in Honour of David Michael Stanley (Willowdale, Ontario: Regis College, 1975)
113-49.
Annen, F. "Die Dämonenaustreibungen Jesu in den synoptischen Evangelien" TB 5 (1976)
107-46.
— Heil für die Heiden: Zur Bedeutung und Geschichte der Tradition vom besessenen
Gerasener (Mk 5,1-20 parr) (Frankfurt am Main: Knecht, 1976).
Argyle, A.W. 'The Meaning of e ? o w i a in Mark 1, 22-27" ExpTim 80 (1968-9) 343.
Attridge, H.W. First Century Cynicism in the Epistle of Heraclitus (Missoula: Scholars Press,
1976).
Aune, D.E. "Magic in Early Christianity" ANRW IL23.2 (1980) 1507-57.
Baarda, T. "Gadarenes, Gerasenes, Gergesenes and the 'Diatesseron' Tradition" in E. Ellis and
M Wilcox (eds.) Neotestamentica et Semitica (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1969) 181-97.
Bächli, O. " 'Was habe ich mit Dir zu schaffen?' Eine formelhafte Frage im AT. und N.T."
TZ 33 (1977) 69-80.
Bacon, B.W. "The Markan Theory of Demonic Recognition of the Christ" ZNW 6 (1905)
153- 8.
Baird, M M "The Gadarene Demoniac" ExpTim 31 (1919-20) 189.
Baltensweiler, H. " 'Wer nicht uns (euch) ist, ist Für uns (euch)T Bemerkungen zu Mk 9,40
und Lk 9,50" TZ 40 (1984) 130-6.
Barrett, CX. Bammel, E. and Davies, WD. (eds.) Donum Gentilicum: NT Studies in honour
of David Daube (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978).
Barrett, CX. The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (London: SPCK, 1947).
Bartlett, D.L. Exorcism Stories in the Gospel of Mark. (PhD. Thesis: Yale University, 1972).
Batdorf, LW. "Interpreting Jesus since Bultmann: Selected Paradigms and their Hermeneutic
Matrix" in K J i Richards (ed.) SBLSP (Chico: Scholar Press, 1984) 187-215.
Bauernfeind, O. Die Worte der Dämonen im Markusevangelium (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
1927).
Baumbach, G. Das Verständnis des Bösen in den synoptischen Evangelien (Berlin: Evange-
lische Verlagsanstalt, 1963).
Beasley-Murray, GR. Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans and Exeter
Paternoster, 1986).
— "Jesus and the Spirit" in A. Descamps and A. de Halleux (eds.) Melanges Bibliques en
hommage au R.P. Beda Rigaux (Gembloux: Duculot, 1970) 463-78.
234 Bibliography

Beauvery, R. "Jésus et Béelzéboul (Le 11,14-28)" Assemblées du Seigneur 30 (1963) 26-36.

Becker, J. "Wunder und Christologie" NTS 16 (l%9-70) 130-48.
Becker-Wirth, S. "Jesus triebt Dämonen aus (Mk 1, 21-28)" Religionsunterricht an höheren
Schulen 28 (1985) 181-6.
Behm, J. Die Handauflegung im Urchristentum (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesell-
schaft, 1968).
Benko, S. "Early Christian Magical Practices" in KJL Richards (ed.) SBLSP (Chico: Scholars
Press, 1982) 9-14.
Best, E Disciples and Discipleship. Studies in the Gospel of Mark (Edinburgh; T & T
Clark, 1986).
— "Exorcism in the NT and Today" Biblical Theology 27 (1977) 1-9.
— Following Jesus (Sheffield: JSOT, 1981).
— The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1965).
Betz, KD. T h e Early Christian Miracle Story: Some Observations on the Form Critical
Problem" in R.W. Funk (ed.) Early Christian Miracle Stories Semeia 11 (Missoula: SBL,
1978) 69-81.
— "The Formation of Authoritative Tradition in the Greek Magical Papyri" in BP. Meyer
and EP. Sanders (eds.) Jewish and Christian Self-Definition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982)
III, 161-70.
— "Introduction to the Greek Magical Papyri" in HD. Betz (ed.) The Greek Magical
Papyri in Translation VoL 1: Texts (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1986) xli-liii.
— "Jesus as Divine Man" in F.T. Trotter (ed.) Jesus and the Historian: In Honor of Er-
nest Cadman Colwell (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) 114-33.
Betz, O. "The Concept of the So-Called 'Divine-Man' in Mark's Christology" in DP. Aune
(ed.) Studies in NT and Early Christian Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1972) 229-40.
— "Das Problem des Wunders bei Flavius Josephus im Vergleich zum Wunderproblem bei
den Rabbinen und im Johannesevangelium" in O. Betz, K. Haacker and M. Hengel (eds.)
Josephus-Studien (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1974) 23-44.
— "Jesu Heiliger Krieg" NovT 2 (1958) 116-37.
— "Miracles in the Writings of Flavius Josephus" in LJL Feldman and G. Hata (eds.)
Josephus, Judaism and Christianity (Leidem Brill, 1987) 212-35.
— and Grimm, W. Wesen und Wirklichkeit der Wunder Jesu (Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang, 1977).
Black, M. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967).
— "The Messiah in the Testament of Levi xviii" ExpTim 60 (1948-9) 321-2.
Bligh, J. "The Gerasene Demoniac and the Resurrection of Christ" CBQ 31 (1969) 383-90.
Böcher, O. Christus Exorcista: Dämonismus und Taufe im Neuen Testament (Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1972).
— Dämonenfurcht und Dämonenabwehr. Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der christlichen
Taufe (Stuttgart-Mainz: Kohlhammer, 1970).
— Das Neue Testament und die dämonischen Mächte (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk,
1972).
Boers, H Who Was Jesus? The Historical Jesus and the Synoptic Gospels (San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1989).
Bokser, B.M. "Wonder-Working and the Rabbinic Tradition. The Case of Hanina ben Dosa"
JSJ 61 (1985) 42-92.
Bonner, C. "The Story of Jonah on a Magical Amulet" HTR 41 (1948) 31-7.
— Studies in Magical Amulets Chiefly Graeco-Egyptian (Ann Arbor University of
Michigan Press, 1950).
— "The Technique of Exorcism" HTR 36 (1943) 39-49.
— 'The Violence of Departing Demons" HTR 37 (1944) 334-6.
Borg, MJ. Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus (New York and
Toronto: Mellen, 1984).
— Jesus, A New Vision: Spirit, Culture and the Life of Discipleship (San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1987).
 Bibliography 235
— "A Renaissance in Jesus Studies" TToday 45 (1988) 280-92
— "What Did Jesus Really Say?" BibRev 5 (1989) 18-25.
Boring, ME. "Criteria of Authenticity. The Lucan Beatitudes As a Test Case" Forum 1
(1985) 3-38; revised as T h e Historical-Critical Method's "Criteria of Authenticity': The
Beatitudes in Q and Thomas as a Test Case" in CW. Hedrick (ed.) The Historical Jesus
and the Rejected Gospels Semeia 44 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 9-44.
Bornkamm, G. Jesus of Nazareth (London: SCM 1960).
— "IlveC^a aXaXov. Eine Studie zum Markusevangelium" in Geschichte und Glaube II
(München: Chr. Kaiser, 1971) 21-36.
— Barth, G. and Held, HJ. Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (London: SCM, 1982).
Bousset, W.G. and Gressmann, H. Die Religion des Judentums im Späthellenistischen Zeital-
ter (Tübingen: Mohr, 1966).
Bowker, J. The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1969).
Bowman, J. "David, Jesus the Son of David and Son of Man" Abr-Nahrain 27 (1989) 1-22.
— "Exorcism and Baptism" in R. H. Fischer (ed.) A Tribute to Arthur Vöörbus: Studies in
Early Christian Literature and its Environment (Chicago: Lutheran School of Theology,
1977) 249-63.
— "Solomon and Jesus" Abr-Nahrain 23 (1984-5) 1-13.
Brière, J. "Le cri et le secret. Signification d'un exorcisme. Me 1,21-28" Assemblées du
Seigneur 35 (1973) 34-46.
Brown, P. "The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity" JRS 61 (1971) 80-10L
— "Sorcery, Demons, and the Rise of Christianity from Late Antiquity into the Middle
Ages" in M Douglas (ed.) Witchcraft, Confession and Accusations (London: Tavistock,
1970) 119-46.
— The World of Late Antiquity (London: Thames and Hudson, 1971).
Brox, N. "Das Messianische Selbstverständnis des Historischen Jesus" in K. Schubert (ed.)
Vom Messias zum Christus (Wien-Freiburg-Basel: Herder, 1964) 165-20L
Bryant, HE. "Note on Luke xi. 17" ExpTim 50 (1938-9) 525-6.
Büchler, A Types of Jewish-Palestinian Piety (London: Jews College, 1922).
Bühner, J.-A. "Jesus und die antike Magie. Bemerkungen zu M Smith, Jesus der Magier"
EvT 43 (1983) 156-75.
Bultmann, R. History of the Synoptic Tradition (New York: Harper & Row, 1976).
— 'The Problem of Miracle" Religion in Life 27 (1957-8) 63-75.
Burger, C. Jesus als Davidssohn: Eine Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970).
Burkiii, T A "Concerning Mk. 5.7 and 518-20" ST 11 (1957) 159-66.
— "The Historical Development of the Story of the Syrophoenician Woman (Mark vii:
24-31)" NovT 9 (1967) 161-77.
— "Mark 3.7-12 and the Alleged Dualism in the Evangelist's Miracle Material" JBL 87
(1968) 409-17.
— Mysterious Revelation: An Examination of the Philosophy of St. Mark's Gospel (New
York: Cornell University Press, 1963).
— "The Notion of Miracle with Special Reference to St. Mark's Gospel" ZNW 50 (1959)
33-48.
— 'The Syrophoenician Woman: The Congruence of Mark 724-31" ZNW 57 (1966) 123-37.
Busse, U. Die Wunder des Propheten Jesus (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977).
Calvert, D.GA "An Examination of the Criteria for Distinguishing the Authentic Words of
Jesus" NTS 18 (1971-2) 209-19.
Caragounis, C.G "Kingdom of God, Son of Man and Jesus' Self-Understanding" TynBul 40
(1989) 2-23, 223-38.
Carlston, C E "A Positive Criterion of Authenticity" BR 1 (1952) 33-44.
Carr, D. "Narrative and the Real World: An Argument for Continuity" History and
Theory 25 (1986) 117-3L
— Time, Narrative and History (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986).
Casas, G.V. "Los Exorcismos de Jesus: Posesos y Endemoniados" Biblia y Fe 1 (1976) 60-76.
236 Bibliography

— "Jesús El Exorcista" Biblia y Fe 6 (1980) 28-40.

Cave. C R "The Obedience of Unclean Spirits" NTS 11 (1964-5) 93-7.
Chadwick, G.A. "Some Cases of Possession" The Expositor 6 (1892) 272-81.
Charlesworth, J A "The Historical Jesus in the Light of Writings Contemporaneous with
Him" ANRW IL25J (1982) 451-76.
— The NT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: A Guide to Publications, with Excursuses on
Apocalypses (Metuchen, NJ: American Theological Library Association and Scarecrow
Press, 1987).
—The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976).
Chilton, BD. "A Comparative Study of Synoptic Development: The Dispute between Cain
and Abel in the Palestinian Targums and the Beelzebul Controversy in the Gospels"
JBL 101 (1982) 553-62.
— "Exorcism and History: Mark 1:21-28" in D. Wenham and C Blomberg (eds.) Gospel
Perspectives 6, (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986) 253-71.
— The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984).
— Profiles of a Rabbi, Synoptic Opportunities in Reading about Jesus (Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1989).
Comber, J A T h e Verb 8epajieúu in Matthew's Gospel" JBL 97 (1978) 431-4.
Corrington, GP. "Power and the Man of Power in the Context of Hellenistic Popular
Belief" in KJL Richards (ed.) SBLSP (Chico: Scholars Press, 1984) 257-61.
Craghan, Jp. "The Gerasene Demoniac" CBQ 30 (1968) 522-36.
Cranfield, C P A "St. Mark 9J4-29" SJT 3 (1950) 57-67.
Crasta, PM. Miracle and Magic: Style of Jesus and Style of a Magician (ThD. Thesis;
Rome: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1985).
Cratchley WJ. "Demoniac of Gadara" ExpTim 63 (1951-2) 193-4.
Dalman, G. The Words of Jesus (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902).
Danker, F.W. "The Demonic Secret in Mark: A Re-examination of the Cry of Dereliction
(15, 34)" ZNW 61 (1970) 48-69.
Daube, D. The NT and Rabbinic Judaism (Salem: Ayer, 1984).
— "ÈÇouoia in Mark 122 and 27" JTS 39 (1938) 45-59.
Davies. T.W. Magic, Divination and Demonology Among the Hebrews and Their Neigh-
bours (London: Clarke and Leipzig: Spirgatis, 1897).
Day, P i . An Adversary in Heaven (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988).
Deissmann, A. Bible Studies (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1901).
— Light from the Ancient East (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1910).
Delobel, J. (ed.) Logia: Les Paroles de Jésus - The Sayings of Jesus (Leuven: Leuven Uni-
versity Press, 1982).
Dermience, A. 'Tradition et rédaction dans la péricope de la Syrophénicienne: Marc
7,24-30" RTL 8 (1977) 15-29.
Derrett, JX)At "Contributions to the Study of the Gerasene Demoniac" JSNT 3 (1979) 2-17.
— "Law in the NT: The Syrophoenician Woman and the Centurion of Capernaum"
NovT 15 (1973) 161-86, reprinted with further annotations in his Studies in the NT I
(Leiden: Brill, 1977) 143-69.
— "Legend and Event: The Gerasene Demoniac: An Inquest into History and Liturgical
Projection" in E.A. Livingstone (ed.) StudBib J978 II (Sheffield: JSOT, 1980) 63-73
reprinted with further annotations in his Studies in the NT III Misdrash, Haggadah, and
the Character of the Community (Leiden: Brill, 1982) 47-58.
— "Spirit-possession and the Gerasene Demonaic" Man (as.) 14 (1978) 286-93.
Detweiller, R. and Doty, W.G. (eds.) The Daemonic Imagination: Biblical Texts and Secular
Story (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990).
Diaz, JA. "Question sinóptica y universalidad del mensaje cristiano en el pasaje evangélico
de la mujer cananea" CB 20 (1963) 274-9.
Dibelius, M From Tradition to Gospel (London: Clarke, 1971).
Dieterich, A. Abraxas: Studien zur religionsgescHchte des später altertums (Leipzig:
Teubner, 1891).
 Bibliography 237

Dilthey, W. Gesammelte Schriften 12 vols. (Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner and Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1958).
Dodds, E.R. "Supernormal Phenomena in Gassical Antiquity" in his The Ancient Concept
of Progress and Other Essays in Greek Literature and Belief (Oxford: Garendon, 1973)
156-210.
Dodds, GJR. The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971).
Domeris, W.R. "The Office of Holy One" Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 54
(1986) 35-8.
Douglas, M Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (Har-
mondsworth: Penguin, 1970).
— Witchcraft, Confession and Accusations (London: Tavistock, 1970).
Downing, F.G. Jesus and the Threat of Freedom (London: SCM, 1987).
— "The Social Contexts of Jesus the Teacher Construction or Reconstruction" NTS 33
(1987) 439-51
Dozent, PP. "The Temptation Stories and Their Intention" NTS 20 (1974) 115-27.
Dschulnigg, P. Sprache, Redaction und Intention des Markus-Evangeliums (Stuttgart: Kath-
olisches Bibelwerk, 1984).
Dudley, DJl. A History of Cynicism from Diogenes to the Sixth Century AO. (Hildesheim:
Georg Olms, 1967).
Duling, D.G "The Eleazar Miracle and Solomon's Magical Wisdom in Flavius Josephus's An-
tiquitates Judaicae 8.42-49" HTR 78 (1985) 125.
— "The Promises to David and their Entrance into Christianity - Nailing Down a Likely
Hypothesis" NTS 20 (1974) 55-77.
— "Solomon, Exorcism, and the Son of David" HTR 68 (1975) 235-52.
— "The Testament of Solomon: Retrospect and Prospect" JSP 2 (1988) 87-112.
— "The Therapeutic Son of David: An Element in Matthew's Christological Apologetic"
NTS 2 4 (1978) 392-410.
Dunn, JX».G. Ckristology in the Making (SCM, London, 1980).
— Jesus and the Spirit (London: SCM, 1975).
— "Matthew 1228/Luke 11:20 - A Word of Jesus?" in WJL Gloer (ed.) Eschatology and
the New Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988) 31-49.
— "Spirit-and-Fire Baptism" NovT 14 (1972) 81-92.
— "Spirit and Kingdom" ExpTim 82 (1970-1) 36-40.
— Unity and Diversity (London: SCM, 1977).
— and Twelftree, G H "Demon-Possession and Exorcism in the NT" Churchman 94 (1980)
210-25.
Dupont-Sommer, A. "Exorcismes et Guerisons Dans les Ecrits de Qumrän" VTSup 1 (1959)
246-61
— The Jewish Sect of Qumran and the Essenes: New Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls
(New York: Macmillan, 1955).
Easton, BJS. "The Beelzebul Sections" JBL 32 (1913) 57-73.
Edelstein, L. "Greek Medicine in its relation to Religion and Magic" Bulletin of the History
of Medicine 5 (1937) 201-46.
Eitrem, S. Some Notes on the Demonology in the NT (Oslo: Bragger, 1950).
Elliott, JJC. "The Synoptic Problem and the Laws of Tradition: A Cautionary Note" Exp-
Tim 82 (1971) 148-52.
Evans, C A . "Authenticity Criteria in Life of Jesus Research" Christian Scholar's Review 19
(1989) 6 - 3 1
— "Jesus of Nazareth: Who Do Scholars Say That He Is? A Reivew Article" Crux 23 (1987)
15-19.
— Life of Jesus Research: An Annotated Bibliography (Leiden: Brill 1989).
Everts, W a W . "Jesus Christ, No Exorcist" BS 81 (1924) 355-62.
Fabris, R. "Blessings, Curses and Exorcism in the Biblical Tradition" Concilium 178 (1985) 13-
23.
Ferguson, E. Demonology of the Early Christian World (New York: Mellen, 1984).
Fiebig, P.WJ. "Neues zu den rabbinischen Wundergeschichten" ZNW 35 (1936) 308-9.
238 Bibliography

— "Zu den Wundern der apostelgeschichte" 'Aggelos': Archiv für neuetestamentliche Zeit-
geschichte und Kulturkunde 2 (1926) 157f_
Fiederlein, RM. Die Wunder Jesu und die Wundererzählungen der Urkirche (Munich: Don
Bosco, 1988).
Fischer, L.R. "Can this be the Son of David?" in F.T. Trotter (ed.) Jesus and the Historian:
Written in Honor of Ernest Cadman Colwell (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968) 82-97.
Fitzmyer, JA. A Wandering Aramean (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979).
Flammer, B. "Die Syrophoenizerin" TQ 148 (1968) 463-78.
Flusser, D. "Healing Through the Laying-on of Hands in a Dead Sea Scroll" IEJ 7 (1957)
107-8.
Fohrer, G. "Prophetie und Magie" ZAW 37 (1966) 25-47.
Freedman, D X "The Prayer of Nanonidus" BASOR 145 (1957) 31-2.
Fridrichsen, A. The Problem of Miracle in Primitive Christianity (Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1972).
— "The Conflict of Jesus with the Unclean Spirits" Theology 22 (1931) 122-35.
Fuchs, A. Die Entwicklung der Beeliebulkontroverse bei den Synoptikern: traditions-
geschichliche und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Mk 3,22-7 (Linz: Studien
zum NT und seiner Umwelt 5: 1980).
Fuchs, E. Jesu Wort und Tat (Tübingen: Mohr, 1971).
Fuller, R H Interpreting the Miracles (London: SCM 1963).
— The Mission and Achievement of Jesus (London: SCM, 1954).
Funk, R.W. (ed.) Early Christian Miracle Stories Semeia 11 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978).
Gallagher, E.V. Divine Man or Magician? Celsus and Origen on Jesus (Chico: Scholars
Press, 1982).
Gardiner, AJL "Professional Magicians in Ancient Egypt" Proceedings of the Society of
Biblical Archeology 39 (1917) 31-44.
Garrett, SR. The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Luke's Writings (Min-
neapolis: Fortress, 1989).
Gärtner, R.B. "The Person of Jesus and the Kingdom of God" TToday 27 (1970) 32-43.
Gaston, L. "Beelzebul" TZ 18 (1962) 247-55.
— Horae Synopticae Electonicae Word Statistics of the Synoptic Gospels (Missoula: Schol-
ars Press, 1973).
Geller, MJ. "Jesus' Theurgic Powers: Parallels in the Talmud and Incantation Bowls" JJS 28
(1977) 141-55.
George, A. "Note sur quelques traits lucaniens de l'expression Tar le doigt de Dieu' (Luc
XI, 20)" Sciences ecclésiastiques 18 (1966) 461-6; reprinted in his Etudes sur l'oeuvre de
Luc (Paris: Gabalda, 1978) 128-32
Georgi, D. "The Records of Jesus in the Light of Ancient Accounts of Revered Men" in
L.G McGaughtey (ed.) SBL 1972 Proceedings 2 vols. (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972) II,
527-42.
Ghalioungui, P. Magic and Medical Science in Ancient Egypt (London: Hodder and Stough-
ton, 1963).
Gibbs, J M "Purpose and Pattern in Matthew's Use of the Title 'Son of David' " NTS 10
(1963-4) 446-64.
Giesen, H. "Dämonenaustreibungen - Erweis der Nähe der Herrschaft Gottes. Zu Mk 1,21-
28" Theologie der Gegenwart 32 (1989) 24-37.
Girard, R. "Les démons de Gérasa" in Le Bouc émissaire (Paris: Grasset, 1982) 233-57.
Giversen, S. "Solomon und die Dämonen" in M Krause (ed.) Essays on the Nag Hammadi
Texts in Honour of Alexander Böhlig (Leiden: Brill, 1972) 16-21.
Gollancz, J. The Book of Protection (London: Henry Frowde, 1912).
Gonzales, F J I "Jesus y los demonios. Introduction cristologica a la lucha por la justicia"
Estudios Eclesiästcos (Madrid) 52 (1977) 487-519.
Goodenough, EJL Jewish Symbols in the greco-Roman Period 13 vols. (New York: Pantheon
Books for the Bollingèn Foundation, 1953-68).
Goodwin, G.W. Fragment of a Graeco-egyptian Work Upon Magic (Cambridge: Macmillan,
1852).
 Bibliography 239
Goshen-Gottstein, M R "The Psalms Scroll (llQPs1): A Problem of Canon and Text"
Textus 5 (1966) 22-33.
Grant, R M Miracle and Natural Law in GraecoRoman and Early Christian Thought
(Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company, 1952).
— "Quadratus, The First Christian Apologist" in R J i Fischer (ed.) A Tribute to Arthur
Vöörbus: Studies in Early Christian Literature and its Environment, Primarily in the
Syrian East (Chicago: The Lutheran School of Theology, 1977) 177-83.
Grayston, K. "Exorcism in the NT" Epworth Review 2 (1975) 90-4.
— "The Significance of the Word Hand in the NT" in A. Descamps and A de Halleux
(eds.) Melanges Bibliques en hommage au R.P. Beda Rigaux (Gembloux: Duculot, 1970)
479-87.
Green, WÜ. "Palestinian Holy Men: Charismatic Leadership and Rabbinic Tradition"
ANRW IL192 (1979) 619-47.
Grelot, P. "La Prière de Nabonide (4 Q Or nab)" RevQ 9 (1978) 483-95.
Grundmann, W. Der Begriff der Kraft in der neutestamentlichen Gedankenwelt (Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1932).
Guillmette, P. "La forme des récits d'exorcisme de Bultmann. Un dogme à reconsidérer
Eglise et Théologie 11 (1980) 177-93.
— "Me 1, 24 est-il une formule de défense magique?" ScEs 30 (1978) 81-96.
— "Un enseignement nouveau, plein d'autorité" NovT 22 (1980) 222-47.
Guttmann, A. "The Significance of Miracles for Talmudic Judaism" HUCA 20 (1947)
363-406.
Gutwenger, E. "Die Machterweise Jesu in formseschichtlicher Sicht" ZKT 89 (1967) 176-90.
Hadas, M and Smith, M Heros and Gods: Spiritual Biographies in Antiquity (New York:
Harper & Row, 1965).
Hammerton-Kelly, R.G. "A Note on Matthew 12.28 par. Luke 1120" NTS 11 (1964-5) 167-9.
Harrington, DJ. "The Jewishness of Jesus: Facing Some Problems" CBQ 49 (1987) 1-13.
Harvey, A.E. Jesus and the Constraints of History (London: Duckworth, 1982).
Hasler, JJL "The Incident of the Syrophoenician Woman (Matt, xv.21-28, Mark vii.24-30)"
ExpTim 45 (1933-4) 459-61.
Hawkins, J. Horae Synopticae (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1909).
Hawthorn, T. "The Gerasene Demoniac: A Diagnosis Mark vJ-20. Luke viil26-39. (Matthew
viiL28-34)" ExpTim 66 (1954-5) 79-80.
Hay, LJS. "The Son-of-God Christology in Mark" JBR 32 (1964) 106-14.
Hedrick, GW. "The Role of 'Summary Statements' in the Composition of the Gospel of
Mark: a Dialog with Karl Schmidt and Norman Perrin" NovT 26 (1984) 289-311
Heil, M "Significant Aspects of the Healing Miracles in Matthew" CBQ 41 (1979) 274-87.
Heitmüller, W. Im Namen Jesu (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903).
Hendrickx, H. The Miracle Stories of the Synoptic Gospels (London: Geoffrey Chapman
and San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987).
Hengel, M The Charismatic Leader and His Followrs (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1981).
— Jews, Greeks and Barbarians: Aspects of the Hellemzation of Judaism in the pre-
Christian Period (London: SCM, 1980).
— Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hel-
lenistic Period (London: SCM, 1974).
— Son of God: The Origins of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion
(London: SCM, 1976).
Hermann, L " '. . . dan ist das Gottesreich zu euch gekommen': Eine Homilie zu Luk 11,
14-20" BibLeb 1 (1960) 198-204.
Herrmann, L. "Les premiers exorcismes juifs et judéo-chrétiens" Revue de L'Université de
Bruxelles 1 (1954-5) 305-8.
Hiers, R J i The Historical Jesus and the Kingdom of God (Gainesville: University of Flor-
ida Press, 1973).
— The Kingdom of God and the Synoptic Tradition (Gainsville: Florida University Press,
1970).
— "Saun, Demons, and the Kingdom of God" SJT 21 (1974) 35-47.
240 Bibliography

Hinnels, J.R. "Zoroastrianism Saviour Imagery and its Influence on the NT" Numen 16 (1969)
161-85.
Hock, Ri\ "Simon the Shoemaker as an Ideal Cynic" GRBS 17 (1976) 41-53.
Holladay, GR. Theois Aner in Hellenistic Judaism (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977).
Hollenbach, P.W. "Jesus, Demoniacs, and Public Authorities: A Socio-Historical Study"
JAAR 49 (1981) 567-88.
Hopfner, T. Griechisch-Ägyptischer Offenbarungszauber 2 vols. (Leipzig: Hassel, 1921 and
1924).
Horsley, RA. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman
Palestine (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987).
— "Popular Messianic Movements Around the Time of Jesus" CBQ 46 (1984) 471-95.
— "Popular Prophetic Movements at the Time of Jesus Their Principal Features and Social
Origins" JSNT 26 (1986) 3-27.
— Sociology and the Jesus Movement (New York: Crossroad, 1989).
Howard, JX. "New Testament Exorcism and its Significance Today" ExpTim 96 (1985) 105-9.
Howard, V. Das Ego Jesu in den synoptischen Evangelien (Marburg: N.G. Elwert, 1975).
Hull, J M Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition (London: SCM, 1974).
Hultgren, AJ. Jesus and His Adversaries: The Form and Function of the Conflict Stories
in the Synoptic Tradition (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979).
Hunt, AS. "A Greek Cryptogram" Proceedings of the British Academy 15 (1929) 127-34.
— "An Incantation in the Ashmoleon Museum" JEA 15 (1929) 155-7.
— "The Warren Magical Papyrus" in SJUC Glanville (ed.) Studies Presented to F. Li.
Griffith (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1932) 233-40.
Huntress, E. " 'Son of God' in Jewish Writings Prior to the Christian Era" JBL 54 (1935)
117-23.
Huppenbauer, H.W. "Belial in den Qumrantexten" TZ 15 (1959) 81-9.
Iersel, B MP. van 'Der Sohn' in den Synoptischen Jesusworten (Leiden: Brill, 1964).
Jayne, W A The Healing Gods of Ancient Civilizations (New York: University Books Inc,
1962).
Jeremias, J. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (London: SCM, 1969).
— NT Theology (London: SCM, 1971).
— The Pdrables of Jesus (London: SCM, 1972).
Jonge, M. de. "Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs" NovT 4
(1960) 182-235.
— "The Main Issues in the Study of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs" NTS 26
(1980) 508-24.
— "Once More: Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs" NovT 5
(1962) 311-19.
— "Recent Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs" SEA 36 (1971) 77-96.
— Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and Interpretation (Leiden:
Brill, 1975).
— T h e Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the New Testament" SE 1 (1959) 546-56.
Jongeling, B. (et aL) Aramaic Texts From Qumran I (Leiden: Brill, 1976).
Kallas, J. The Significance of the Synoptic Miracles (London: SPCK, 1961).
— Jesus and the Power of Satan (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968).
Kampling, R. "Jesus von Nazaret - Lehrer und Exorzist" BZ 30 (1986) 237-48.
Käsemann, E. "Die Heilung der Besessenen" Reformatio 28 (1979) 7-18.
— "Lukas 11, 14-28" in his Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen 2 vols. (Göttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960) I, 242-8.
Kasper, W. (et al.) Teufel, Dämonen, Besessenheit (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald, 1978).
Kazmierski, CR. Jesus, the Son of God: A Study of the Marlean Tradition and its
Redaction by the Evangelist (Würzburg: Echter, 1979).
Keck, L£. "Mark 3.7-12 and Mark's Christology" JBL 84 (1965) 341-58.
Kee, H.C. Medicine, Miracle and Magic in NT Times (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1986).
 Bibliography 241

— Miracle in the Early Christian World (New Haven and London: Yale University Press,
1983).
— "Satan, Magic, and Salvation in the Testament of Job" in G. McRae (ed.) SBLSP 2 vols.
(Cambridge, MA: SBL, 1974) I, 53-76.
— "The Terminology of Mark's Exorcism Stories" NTS 14 (1967-8) 232-46.
Kelly, H A Towards the Death of Satan (London: Chapman, 1968).
Kertelge, K. "Jesus, seine Wundertaten und der Satan" Cone 1 (1975) 168-73.
— Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium: Ein redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung
(München: Kösel, 1970).
— "Die Wunder Jesus in der neueren Exegese" TB 5 (1976) 71-105.
King, L.W. Babylonian Magic and Sorcery (London: Luzac, 1896).
Kingsbury, J£>. Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom (London: SPCK, 1976).
— "Observations on the 'Miracle Chapters' of Matthew 8-9" CBQ 40 (1978) 559-73.
Kirchschläger, W. "Engel, Teufel, Dämonen. Ein biblische Skizze" BLit 54 (1981) 98-102.
— "Exorzismus in Qumran?" Kairos 18 (1976) 135-53.
— Jesu exorzistisches Wirken aus der Sicht des Lukas: Ein Beitrag zur lukanischen Re-
daktion (Klosterneuberg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1981) 45-54.
— "Wie über Wunder reden?" BLit 51 (1978) 252-4.
Kissinger, W.S. The Lives of Jesus: A History and Bibliography (New York and London:
Garland, 1985).
Klein, G. "Der Synkretismus als theologisches Problem: Apg 19, 11-20" ZTK 64 (1967) 50-60.
Kleist, JA. "The Gadarene Demoniacs" CBQ 9 (1947) 101-5.
Kloppenborg, J.S. The Formation of Q (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).
Knox, W L "Jewish Liturgical Exorcism" HTR 31 (1938) 191-203.
Koch, D.-A. Die Bedeutung der Wundererzählungen für die Christologie des Markus-
evangeliums (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1975).
Kolenkow, AB. "A Problem of Power How Miracle-Doers Counter Charges of Magic in the
Hellenistic World" in G. MacRae (ed.) SBLSP (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976) 105-10.
— "Relationships between Miracle and Prophecy in the Greco-Roman World and Early
Christianity" ANRW 11232 (1980) 1470-1506.
Kraeling, CJL "Was Jesus Accused of Necromancy?" JBL 59 (1940) 147-57.
Kremer, J. "Besessenheit und Exorzismus. Aussagen der Bibel und heutige Problematik"
BLit 48 (1975) 22-8.
Kruse, R "Das Reich Satans" Bib 58 (1977) 29-6L
Kuhn, H.W. Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1971).
Kümmel, W.G. Promise and Fulfilment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus (London:
SCM, 1969).
Lamarche, P. "Les miracles de Jésus selon Marc" in X. Léon-Dufour (ed.) Les Miracles de
Jesus selon le Nouveau Testament (Paris: Seuil, 1977) 213-226.
— "Le Possédé de Gérasa" NRT 90 (1968) 581-97.
Umbrecht, J. "Le possédé et le troupeau (Me 5, 1-20)" RClAfr 33 (1968) 557-69.
Langdon, S. "An Incantation for Expelling Demons from a House" ZA 2 (1925) 209-14.
Langton, E. Essentials of Demonology: A Study of Jewish and Christian Doctrine Its
Origin and Development (London: Epworth, 1949).
— Good and Evil Spirits (London: SPCK, 1942).
Lattey, C. "The Messianic Expectations in The Assumption of Moses'" CBQ 4 (1942) 9-2L
Latourelle, R. "Authenticité historique des miracles de Jésus: Essai de criteriologie" Gre-
gorianum 54 (1973) 225-62.
— The Miracles of Jesus (New York: Paulist, 1988).
— "Originalité et Fonctions des miracles de Jésus" Gregorianum 66 (1985) 641-53.
Leaney, R. "Dominical Authority for the Ministry of Healing" ExpTim 65 (1953-4) 121-3.
Légasse, S. "L'épisode de la Cananéenne d'après Mt 15,21-28" BLE 73 (1972) 21-4.
— "L' 'homme fort' de Luc xi 21-22" NovT 5 (1962) 5-9.
Leivestad, R, Christ the Conqueror: Ideas of Conflict and Victory in the NT (London:
SPCK, 1954).
242 Bibliography

— Jesus in His own Perspective (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1987).

Léon-Dufour, X. (ed.) Les miracles de Jesus selon le NT (Paris: Seuil, 1977).
— "L'épisode de l'enfant épileptique" La formation des évangiles (Burges: Desclée de
Brouwer, 1957) 94-100.
Lewis, E L "Christ and Unclean Spirits" Theology 23 (1931) 87-8.
Limbeck, M "Beelzebul - eine ursprünglich Bezeichnung fur Jesus?" in KJL Schelkle (ed.)
Worte Gottes in der Zeit (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1973) 31-42.
— "Jesus und die Dämonen. Der exegetische Befund" BK 30 (1975) 7-1L
— "Satan und das Böse im NT" in R Haag (ed.) Teufelsglaube (Tübingen: Katzmann, 1974)
271-88.
Lindars, B. "Jesus and the Pharisees" in CK. Barrett, E. Bammel and WX). Davies (eds.)
Donum Gentilicium: NT Studies in Honour of David Daube (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979)
51- 63.
— and Smalley, S.S. (eds.) Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1973).
Ling, T. The Significance of Satan (London: SPCK, 1961).
Loader, WS.G. "Son of David, Blindness, Possession, and Duality in Matthew" CBQ 44 (1982)
570-85.
Loos, R van der The Miracles of Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 1965).
Lorenzmeier, T. "Zum Logion Mt 12, 28; Lk 11, 20" in RD. Betz and L. Schottroff (eds.)
Neues Testament und christliche Existenz: Festschrift für Herbert Braun (Tübingen:
Mohr, 1973) 289-304.
McArthur, RK. (ed.) In Search of the Historical Jesus (London: SPCK, 1970).
McCasland, S.V. By the Finger of God (New York: Macmillan, 1951).
— "The Demonic "Confessions' of Jesus" JR 24 (1944) 33-6.
— "Portents in Josephus and in the Gospels" JBL 51 (1932) 323-35.
— "Religious Healing in First Century Palestine" in J.T. McNeill, M Spinka and RR.
Willoughby (eds.) Environmental Factors in Christian History (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1939) 18-34.
— "Signs and Wonders" JBL 76 (1957) 149-5Z
McCown, CC. "The Christian Tradition as to the Magical Wisdom of Solomon" J POS 2
(1922) 1-24.
— "The Ephesia Grammata in Popular Belief" TPAPA 54 (1923) 128-40.
McEleney, NJ. "Authenticating Criteria and Mark 7J-23" CBQ 34 (1972) 431-60.
MacDonald, DJl. (ed.) The Apocryphal Acts of Apostles Semeia 38 (Decatur Scholars Press,
1986).
Macintosh, A A "A Consideration of Hebrew *1j?r VT 19 (1969) 471-9.
MacLaurin, E.GB. "Beelzebul" NovT 20 (1978) 156-60.
MacRae, G. "Miracle in The Antiquities of Josephus" in GFD. Moule (ed.) Miracles:
Cambridge Studies in Their Philosophy and History (London: Mowbray, 1965) 127-47.
Mäher, M "Recent Writings on the Miracles" New Black friars 56 (658, 1975) 165-74.
Malina, BJ. and Neyrey, JJL Calling Jesus Names. The Social Value of Labels in Matthew
(Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1988).
Mann, CS. "Wise Men or Charlatans" Theology 61 (1958) 495-500.
Manrique, A. "El endemoniado de Gerasa" Biblia y Fe & (1982) 168-79.
Margoliouth, D i "The Syrophoenician Woman" The Expositor 22 (1921) 1-10.
Martin, AX). "The Loss of the Gadarene Swine" ExpTim 25 (1913-14) 380-1.
Marwick, M (ed.) Witchcraft and Sorcery: Selected Readings (Harmondsworth: Penguin,
1970).
Mastin, BA. "Scaeva the Chief Priest" JTS 27 (1976) 405-12.
Mateos, J. "Térmnios relacionados con 'Legión' en Me 5,2-20" Filologia Neotestamentaria 1
(1988) 211-15.
Maynard, AJH. "TI EMOI KAI SOI" NTS 31 (1985) 582-6.
Mead, G.R.S. Apollonius of Tyana: The Philosopher-Re former of the First Century AD
(New York: University Books, 1966).
Metzger, BAI "Names for the Nameless in the NT. A Study in the Growth of Christian
 Bibliography 243
Tradition" in P. Granfield and J A Jungman (eds.) Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes
Quasten 2 vols. (Münster, Westfalen: Aschendorff, 1970) I, 79-99.
— "A Magical Amulet for Curing Fever" in B.M. Metzger (ed.) Historical and Literary
Studies: Pagan, Jewish and Christian (Leiden: Brill, 1968) 104-10.
— "St. Paul and the Magicians" Princeton Seminary Bulletin 38 (1944) 27-30.
Meyer, BP. The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM, 1979).
— "Objectivity and Subjectivity in Historical Criticism of the Gospels" in his Critical
Realism and the NT (Allison Park: Pickwick, 1989) 129-45.
Meyer, P.W. "The Problem of the Messianic Self-Consciousness of Jesus" NovT 4 (1961)
122-38.
Meyer, R. Das Gebet des Nabonid (Berlin: Adademie-Verlag, 1962).
Meynet, R. "Qui donc est 'le plus fort?' analyse rhétorique de Me 3, 22-30; Mt 12, 22-37;
Luc a 14-26" RB 90 (1983) 334-50.
Milik, J.T. " 'Prière de Nabonide' et Autres écrits d'un cycle de DanieL Fragments Aramées
•de Qumrân 4" RB 63 (1956) 407-15.
Mills, M i . Human Agents of Cosmic Power in Hellenistic Judaism and the Synoptic
Tradition (Sheffield: JSOT, 1990).
Miyoshi, M. Der Anfang des Reisesberichts Lk.9J1-1024 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1974).
Montefiore, CG. Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings (London: Macmillan, 1930).
Montgomery, JA. "Some Early Amulets from Palestine" JAOS 31 (1911) 272-81
Moore, GJ3. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, the Age of Tannaim 3
vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1948-50).
Moule, C.F.D. (ed.) Miracles. Cambridge Studies in their Philosophy and History (London:
Mowbray," 1965).
Mussner, F. The Miracles of Jesus: An Introduction (Notre Dame: University Notre Dame
Press, 1968).
— "Eine Wortspiel in Mk 1, 24?" BZ 4 (1960) 285-6.
Neirynck, F. "Mt 12,25a/Lc 11,17a et la rédaction des évangiles" ETL 62 (1986) 122-33.
— "Words Characteristic of Mark: A New List" ETL 63 (1987) 367-74.
Nestle, E. "Jüdische Parallelen zu neutestamentlichen Wundergeschichten" ZNW 8 (1907)
239-40.
Neusner, J. From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall, 1972).
— Messiah in Context (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984).
— "New Problems, New Solutions: Current Events in Rabbinic Studies" SR 8 (1979) 401-18.
— The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees Before 70 3 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1971).
Neyrey, JJL "The Idea of Purity in Mark's Gospel" ' in J A Elliott (ed.) Social-Scientific
Criticism of the NT and its Social World Semeia 35 (Decatur Scholars Press, 1986)
91-128.
Nickelsburg, G.W. (ed.) Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1980).
Nilsson, MJ>. Die Religion in den griechischen Zauberpapyri (Lund: Gleerup, 1948).
Nkwoka, AO. "Mark 3: 19b-21: A Study on the Charge of Fanaticism Against Jesus"
Biblebhashyam 15 (1989) 205-21
Noack, B. Solanas und Soteria (Kabenhavn: Gads, 1948).
Nock, AD. "Greek Magical Papyri" JEA 15 (1929) 219-35.
Nyberg, Hü. "Zum Grammatischen Verständnis von Matth. 12, 44-45" ConNT 2 (1936) 22-35;
reprinted 13 (1949) 1-11.
Oakman, D.E. "Rulers' Houses, Thieves and Usrupers: The Beelzebul Pericope" Forum 4
(1988) 109-23.
O'Day, G.R. "Surprised by Faith: Jesus and the Canaanite Woman" Listeneing 24 (1989) 290-
301
Odegard, D. "Miracles and Good Evidence" RelS 18 (1982) 37-46.
Oesterley, W.O.E. "The Demonology of the OT Illustrated by Ps. 91" The Expositor 16-18
(1907) 132-51.
Oesterreich, TJC. Possession Demonical and Other (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner,
1930).
244 Bibliography

Oster, RE. Jr. A Historical Commentary on the Missionary Success Stories in Acts
19.11-40 (PhD. Thesis, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1974).
Owen, E.C.E. "Aaifiuv and Cognate Words" JTS 32 (1930-1) 133-53.
Peabody, DJ3. Mark as Composer (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1987).
Perels, O. Die Wunderüberlieferung der Synoptiker in ihrem Verhältnis zur Wortüberlie-
ferung (Stuttgart, Berlin: Kohlhammer, 1934).
Perrin, N. The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (London: SCM, 1963).
Pesch, R. Der Besessene von Gerasa (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1972).
— Jesu ureigene Taten? Ein Beitrag zur Wunderfrage (Freiburg, Vienna: Herder, 1970).
— "The Markan Version of the Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac" Ecumenical Review 23
(1971) 349-76.
— " 'Eine neue Lehre aus Macht': Eine Studie zu Mk 1,21-28" in J.-B. Bauer (ed.)
Evangelienforschung (Graz-Wein-Köln: Styria, 1968) 241-76.
— "Ein Tag vollmächtigen Wirkens Jesu in Kapharnahum (Mk 1,21-34, 35-39)" BibLeb
9(1968) 61-77, 114-28, 177-95.
Peters, T. "The Use of Analogy in Historical Method" CBQ 35 (1973) 475-82.
Peterson, E. Eti; ©sog Epigraphische, formgeschichtliche und religionsgeschichtliche Un-
tersuchungen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926).
Petterson, O. "Magic-Religion: Some Marginal Notes to an Old Problem" Ethos 22 (1957)
109-19.
Petzke, G. "Die historische Frage nach den Wundertaten Jesu, dargestellt am Beispiel des
Exorzismus Mark. IX. 14-29 par" NTS 22 (1976) 180-204.
Pimental, P. "The 'unclean spirits' of St Mark's Gospel" ExpTim 99 (1988) 173-5.
Pokorny, P. "The Temptation Stories and Their Intention" NTS 20 (1974) 115-27.
Polhill, JA "Perspectives on the Miracle Stories" RE 74 (1977) 389-99.
Polkow, D. "Method and Criteria for Historical Jesus Research" in KU. Richards (ed.)
SBLSP (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987) 336-56.
Praeder, S. Miracle Stories in Christian Antiquity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).
Preisendanz, K. "Die griechischen und lateinischen Zaubertafeln" AP 11 (1935) 153-64.
— "Neue griechische Zauberpapyri" Chronique d'Egypte 26 (1951) 405-9.
— "Zur Uberlieferungsgeschichte der spätantiken Magie" Aus der Welt des Buches: Fest-
gabe zum 70. Geburtstag von Georg Leyh (Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1950) 223-40.
Pryke, EJ. Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel: A Study of Syntax and Vocabulary as
Guides to Redaction in Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).
Rankin, RD. Sophists, Socratics and Cynics (Beckenham, Kent: Croom Helm, 1983).
Reif, S.G "A Note on "1W" VT 21 (1971) 241-2.
Reiner, E. "Surpu: A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations" Archiv für Orient-
forschung Beiheft 11 (1958).
Reitzenstein, R. Hellenistische Wundererzählungen (Leipzig: Teubner, 1963).
— Poimandres: Studien zur Griechisch-Ägyptischen und Frühchristlichen Literatur (Leipzig:
Teubner, 1904).
Remus, H. "Does Terminology Distinguish Early Christian from Pagan Miracles?" JBL 101
(1982) 531-51.
— "Magic or Miracle? Some Second-Century Instances" SecCent 2 (1982) 127-56.
— Pagan-Christian Conflict Over Miracle in the Second Century (Cambridge, MA: Phil-
adelphia Patristic Foundation, 1983).
Riesenfeld, R "De fientliga andarna Mk 9,14-29" SvExA 22-3 (1957-8) 64-74.
Riga, P. "Signs of Glory: The Use of 'Semeion' in St. John's Gospel" Int 17 (1963) 402-24.
Rist, M. "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: A Liturgical and Magical Formula"
JBL 57 (1938) 289-303.
Rodd, CS. "Spirit or Finger" ExpTim 72 (1960-1) 157-8.
Rohde, E. Psyche: The Cult of Souls and Belief in Immortality Among the Greeks
(London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1925).
Roloff, J. Das Kerygma und der irdische Jesus. Historische Motive in den Jesus-
Erzählungen der Evangelien (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970).
Ross, J.M. "The Decline of the Devil" ExpTim 66 (1954-5) 58-6L
 Bibliography 245

— "Epileptic or Moonstruck?" BT 29 (1978) 126-8.

Rüsch, E.G. "Dämonenaustreibung in der Gallus-Vita und bei Blumhardt dem Älteren" TZ
34 (1978) 86.
Russell, D.S. The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (London: SCM, 1964).
Russell, E A "The Canaanite Woman and the Gospels (MU521-28; cf. Mk.7.24-30)" in E A
Livingstone (ed.) StudBib. 1978 2 vols. (Sheffield: JSOT, 1980) II, 263-300.
— "A Plea for Tolerance (Mk. 9.38-40)" IBS 8 (1986) 154-60.
Sabugal, S. La Embajada mesiänica de Juan Bautista Mt 112-6 = Le 7J8-23) (Madrid:
SYSTECO, 1980).
Safrai, S. and Stern, M. (eds.) The Jewish People in the First Century 2 vols. (Assen: Van
Gorcum and Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974 and 1976).
Sahlin, R "Die Perikope vom gerasenischen Besessenen und der Plan des Markusevan-
geliums" ST 18 (1964) 159-72.
Samain, J. "L'accusation de magie contre le Christ dans les Evangiles" ETL 15 (1938) 449-90.
Sanders, EP. Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM, 1985).
Sanders, JA. The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967).
Santo, G de "The Assumption of Moses and the Christian Gospel" lnt 16 (1962) 305-10.
Schenk, W. von "Tradition und Redaktion in der Epileptiker-Perikope Mk 9,14-29" ZNW
63 (1972) 76-94.
Schenke, L. Die Wundererzählungen des Markusevangeliums (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibel-
werk, 1974).
Schille, G. Die Urchristliche Wundertradition: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem irdischen
Jesus (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1967).
Schindler, CJ. "Demonic Possession in the Synoptic Gospels" Lutheran Church Quarterly 1
(1928) 285-414.
Schlatter, A. "Das Wunder in der Synagogue" Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie
16 (5, 1912) 49-86.
Schlosser, J. "L'exorciste étranger (Me, 938-39)" RevScRel 56 (1982) 229-39.
Schmithals, W. "Die Heilung des Epileptishen" ThViat 13 (1975-6) 211-34.
— Wunder und Glaube. Eine Auslegung von Markus 4, 35-6, 6a (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu-
kirchener-Verlag, 1970).
Schubert, K. "Wunderberichte und ihr Kerygma in der rabbinischen Tradition" Kairos 24
(1982) 31-7.
Schultz, W. "Ephesia Grammata" Philologus 68 (1909) 210-28.
Schürer, E. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ 3 vols. (Edin-
burgh: T & T Clark. 1973-1987).
Schwarz, G. " 'Aus der Gegend' (Mk V. 10b)" NTS 22 (1976) 215-6.
— "EYPODOINIKIEZA-XANANAIA (Markus 7.26/Mauhäus 15.22)" NTS 30 (1984) 626-8.
Schweizer, E. "Anmerkungen zur Theologie des Markus" in Neotestamentica et Patristica.
Eine Freundesgabe Herrn Professor Dr. Oscar Cullmann NovTSup 6 (Leiden: Brill,
1962) 35-46.
— "Er wird Nazoräer heissen (zu Mc 1,24; Mt 2,23)" in W. Eltester (ed.) Judentum,
Urchristentum, Kirche (Berlin: Töpelmann, 1964) 90-3.
•— 'Towards a Christology of Mark?" in J. Jervell and W A Meeks (eds.) God's Christ and
His People Studies in Honour of Nils Alstrup Dahl (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977)
29-42.
Segal, AF. "Hellenistic Magic: Some Questions of Definition" in R. van den Broek and M.J.
Vermaseren (eds.) Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions Presented to Gilles
Quispel on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (Leiden: Brill, 1981) 349-75.
Sellew, P. "Beelzebul in Mark 3: Dialogue, Story, or Sayings Cluster?" Forum 4 (1988) 93-108.
Shae, G5. "The Question on the Authority of Jesus" NovT 16 (1974) 1-29.
Sider, RJ. "The Historian, The Miraculous and Post-Newtonian Man" SJT 25 (1972) 309-19.
Simonis, W. Das Reich Gottes ist mitten unter euch (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1986).
Skehan, P.W. "A Fragment of the 'Song of Moses' (Deut.32) From Qumran" BASOR 136
(1954) 12-15.
246 Bibliography

Slingerland, H.D. The Testaments of the Twelves Patriarchs: A Critical History of Re-
search (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977).
Smalley, S.S. "Spirit, Kingdom and Prayer in Luke-Acts" NovT 15 (1973) 59-71
Smart, JD. "Jesus, the Syro-Phoenician Woman - and the Disciples" ExpTim 50 (1938-9)
469-72.
Smith, G. "Jewish, Christian, and Pagan views of Miracle under the Flavian emperors" in
K..H. Richards (ed.) SBLSP (Chico: Scholars Press, 1981) 341-8.
Smith, JZ. "Towards Interpreting Demonic Powers in Hellenistic and Roman Antiquity"
ANRW 1116.1 (1978) 425-39.
— Map is not Territory. Studies in the History of Religions (Leiden: Brill, 1978).
Smith, M. Jesus the Magician (London: Gollancz, 1978).
— Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the OT (New York and London: Columbia
University Press, 1971).
— "Prolegomena to a Discussion of Aretalogies, Divine Man, the Gospels and Jesus" JBL 90
(1971) 174-99.
Somerville, JJE. "The Gadarene Demoniac" ExpTim 25 (1914-4) 548-51.
Stanton, G.N. "On the Christology of Q" in B. Lindars and S.S. Smalley (eds.) Christ and
Spirit in the NT (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973) 27-42.
Starobinski, J. "An Essay in Literary Analysis - Mark 51-20" Ecumenical Review 23 (1971)
377-97.
— "The Gerasene Demoniac" in R. Barthes (et al.) Structural Analysis and Biblical Ex-
egesis (Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1974) 57-84.
— "The Struggle with Legion: A Literary Analsysis of Mark 51-20" New Literary History
4 (1973) 331-56.
Starr, J. "The Meaning of Authority in Mark 1.22" HTR 23 (1930) 302-5.
Stein, RJL "The "Criteria' for Authenticity" in R.T. France and D. Wenham (eds.) Gospel
Perspectives I (Sheffield: JSOT, 1980) 225-63.
— 'The Proper Methodology for Ascertaining a Markan Redaction History" NovT 13 (1971)
181-98.
— "The 'Redaktionsgeschichtlich' Investigation of a Markan Seam (Mcl.21f.)" ZNW 61 (1970)
70-94.
Steinmueller, J.E. "Jesus and oi nap' auxoü (Mk. 3:21-21)" CBQ 4 (1942) 355-9.
Stewart, JS. "On a Neglected Emphasis in NT Theology" SJT 4 (1941) 293-301.
Stock, A. "Jesus and the Lady from Tyre. Encounter in the Border District" Emmanuel 93
(1987) 336-9, 358.
Stone, Mü. (ed.) Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Philadelphia: Fortress and
Assen: Van Gorcum, 1984).
Storch, W. "Zur Perikope von der Syrophönizierin. Mk 7, 28 und Ri 1, 7" BZ NF 14
(1970) 256-7.
Strack, H.L. Jesus die Häretiker und die Christen nach den ältesten jüdischen angaben
(Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1910).
Strange, W A "The Sons of Sceva and the Text of Acts 19.14" JTS 38 (1987) 97-106.
Strugnell, J. "More Psalms of 'David'" CBQ 27 (1965) 207-16.
Sturch, R.L. "The Markan Miracles and the Other Synoptics" ExpTim 89 (1977-8) 375-6.
Sugirtharajah, RJS. "The Syrophoenician Woman" ExpTim 98 (1986) D-15.
Suhl, A. "Der Davidssohn im Matthäus-Evangelium" ZNW 5 (1968) 57-81
— "Überlegungen zur Hermeneutik an Hand von Mk 1,21-28" Kairos 26 (1984) 28-38.
Tagawa, K. Miracles et Evangile (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1966).
Talmon, S. "Messianic Expectations at the Turn of the Era" Face to Face (New York) 10
(1983) 4-12.
Taylor, B.E. "Acts 19i4" ExpTim 57 (1945-6) 222.
Tcherikover, V. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New York: Atheneum, 1977).
Theissen, G. The First Followers of Jesus (London: SCM, 1978).
—• "Itinerant Radicalism: The Tradition of Jesus Sayings from the Perspective of the
Sociology of Literature" Radical Religion 2 (1975) 84-93, a translation of "Wander-
radikalismus" ZTK 70 (1973) 245-71.
 Bibliography 247

— "Lokal- und Sozialkolorit in der Geschichte von der syrophönikischen Frau (Mk.7.24-
30)" ZNW 75 (1984) 202-25.
— Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1983).
Thompson, R.G Semitic Magic: Its Origins and Development (London: Luzac, 1908).
Thompson, W.G. "Reflections on the Composition of Mt.81-9,34" CBQ 33 (1971) 365-88.
Tiede, D.L. The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1972).
Torczyner, R "A Hebrew Incantation against Night-Demons from Biblical Times" JNES 6
(1947) 18-29.
Trevijano, R. "El transfordo apocaliptico de Mc 1, 24.25; 5, 7.8 y par." Burgense 11 (1970)
117- 33.
Trocmé, E. "Is There a Marcan Christology?" in B. Lindars and S.S. Smalley (eds.) Christ
and Spirit in the NT (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973) 3-13.
— Jesus and his Contemporaries (London: SCM, 1973).
Tuckett, G (ed.) The Messianic Secret (London: SPCK. and Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).
Turner, GH. "Markan Usage: Notes Critical and Exegetical, on the Second Gospel" JTS 25
(1924) 377-85, 26 (1925) 12-20, 145-56, 225-40, 337-46.
Twelftree, G.H. Christ Triumphant: Exorcism Then and Now (London: Hodder and Stough-
ton, 1985).
— "EI AE . . . E r Q E K B A A A Q T A AAIMONIA . . . " in D. Wenham and C. Blomberg
(eds.) Gospel Perspectives 6 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986) 361-400.
— "Jesus in Jewish Traditions" in R.T. France and D. Wenham (eds.) Gospel Perspectives 5
(Sheffield: JSOT, 1984) 289-341.
— "The Place of Exorcism in Contemporary Ministry" Anvil 5 (1988) 133-50.
— "Temptation of Jesus" in J.B. Green and S. McKnight (eds.) Dictionary of Jesus and the
Gospels (Downers Grove: IVP, 1992).
Vaganay, L. "Les accords négatifs de Matthieu-Luc contre Marc: L'Episode de l'enfant
épileptique (Mt. 17, 14-21; Mc.9,14-29; Lc.9,37-43a)" in Le problème synoptique: Une hy-
pothèse de travail (Tournai: Desclée, 1957) 405-25.
Venkowski, J. "Der gadarenisché Exorzismus. Mt 8,28-34 und Parr." Communio Viatorum 14
(1971) 13-29.
Vermes, G. "Essenes-Therapeutai-Qumran" The Durham University Journal 52 (1960) 97-115.
— The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective (London: Collins, 1977).
— "Hanina ben dosa" JJS 23 (1973) 28-50, 24 (1973) 51-64.
— Jesus the Jew (Glasgow: Fontana, 1976).
— Jesus and the World of Judaism (London: SCM, 1983).
— Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1975).
Vogtle, A. "The Miracles of Jesus against their Contemporary Background" in HJ. Schultz
(ed.) Jesus and His Time (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 96-105.
Vollenweider, S. " 'Ich sah den Satan wie einen Blitz vom Himmel fallen' (Lk 10:18)"
ZNW 79 (1988) 187-203.
Volz, P. Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Hildes-
heim: Olms, 1966).
Walker, W.O. "A Method for Identifying Redactional Passages in Matthew on Functional
and Linguistic Grounds" CBQ 39 (1977) 76-93.
Wall, R.W. " T h e Finger of God' Deuteronomy 9J0 and Luke 1120" NTS 33 (1987) 144-50.
Wansbrough, R "Mark iii. 21 - Was Jesus out of his mind?" NTS 18 (1971-2) 233-5.
Weber, J.C. Jr. "Jesus' Opponents in the Gospel of Mark" J BR 34 (1966) 214-22.
Weder, R "Wunder Jesu und Wundergeschichten" VF 29 (1984) 25-49.
Wee, B.C. "The Syrophoenician Woman - Mark 7.24-30; New Testament in the light of the
Old" Compass 18 (1, 1984) 38-40.
Weinreich, O. Antike Heilungswunder. Untersuchungen zum Wunderglauben der Griechen und
Römer (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1909).
Weiss, W. "Ein neue Lehre in Vollmacht." Die Streit- und Schulgespräche des Markus-
Evangeliums (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1989).
Wenham, D. "The Meaning of Mark iii. 21" NTS 21 (1975) 295-300.
White, LM. "Scaling the Strongman's 'Court' (Luke IUI)" Forum 3 (1987) 3-28.
248 Bibliography

Wilhems, E. "Der fremde Exorzist: Eine Studie über Mark 9.38" ST 3 (1949) 162-71
Wilkinson, J. "The Case of the Bent Woman in Luke 13.10-17" EQ 49 (1977) 195-205.
— "The Case of the Epileptic Boy" ExpTim 79 (1967-8) 39-42.
Wink, W. "Jesus as a Magician" USQR 30 (1974) 3-14.
— "Jesus' Reply to John Matt ll:2-6/Luke 7:18-23" Forum 5 (1989) 121-8.
Wire, A.C. 'The Structure of the Gospel Miracle Stories and their Tellers" in R.W. Funk
(ed.) Early Christian Miracle Stories Semeia 11 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978) 83-113.
Wrede, W. "Zur Messiaserkenntnis der Dämonen bei Markus" ZNW 5 (1904) 169-77.
Wünch, R. (ed.) Antike fluchtafeln (Bonn: Markus und Weber, 1912).
— Antikes zaubergerät aus Pergamon (Berlin: Reimer, 1905).
Yamauchi, E M "Magic in the Biblical World" TynBul 34 (1983) 169-200.
— "Magic or Miracle? Diseases, Demons and Exorcisms" in D. Wenham and C Blomberg
(eds.) Gospel Perspectives 6 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986) 89-183.
Yates, J.E. "Luke's Pneumatology and Luke 11.20" SE II Pt. I (1964) 295-99.
— The Spirit and the Kingdom (London: SPCK, 1963).
Yates, R. "Jesus and the Demonic in the Synoptic Gospels" 1TQ 44 (1977) 39-57.
— "The Powers of Evil in the NT" EQ 52 (1980) 97-11L
Zerwick, M. "In Beelzebul principe daemoniorum (Lc.ll,14-28)" VD 29 (1951) 44-8.
 Index of Biblical Passages

Old Testament

Genesis 1 Samuel
1.4 67 16 37,44,51
6.1-4 50 16.16 60
12-15 43 16.23 60
32.11 44 18.10 60

Exodus 2 Samuel
4.22-3 150 7 183
8.19 108 7.11 183
14.9 116 7.12-14 150
19.13 44 7.14 152
23.20 116 16.5-14 63
23.23 116 16.10 (LXX) 63
23.30 110 19.16-23 63
31.18 108 19.22 (LXX) 63
32.34 116
33.2 116 1 Kings
8.3 105
Numbers 17 63
16.3-5 68 17.18 61,63,64
19.11 144 19.5 116
19.16 144 19.7 116
22.16 (LXX) 33
Deuteronomy
9.10 108 2 Kings
28.12 44 1.2 105
31.29 44 3.13 (LXX) 63
32.5 94 4.9 68
32.8 223
32.17(LXX) 105 1 Chronicles
33.27-8 110 28.11-19 108

Joshua 2 Chronicles
6.26 33 6.2 105
22.24 61 35.21 63

Judges Ezra
2.14 44 1.2 105
11.12 61,64 1.26 186
16.16(B) 68 5.11 105
250 Indexes

5.12 105 35.6 101,

6.9 105 35.8 144
6.10 105 42.7 101
7.12 105 42.16 101
7.21 105 42.18-20 101
7.23 105 43.8 101
53.12 111
Nehemiah 61.1 101,
1.4 105 63.15 105
1.5 105 65.1-5 73
2.4 105
2.20 105
Jeremiah
Psalms 1.5 67
2.7 152 23.5 183
8.3 108 27.6f. 44
90.17 44 33.15 183
92.1 187
95.5 (LXX) 105
105.37 (LXX) 105
106.16 (LXX) 68 Ezekiel
136.26 105 8.1 108
146.7b-8a 119 11.5 108
151 37, 38
151.3-4 37
Daniel
Isaiah 2.18 105
9.5 (LXX) 183 2.19 105
11.10 183 2.27 18
24-27 223 2.37 105
24.21 219 2.44 105
24.2 If. 223 3.25 150
24.22 223 4.34 105
29.18 101 5.23 105
29.18-19 120 10.13 223
32.1-20 182
32.3 101
35.1-7 205 Habakkuk
35.5 101, 103, 119 3.11 105

New Testament

Matthew 4.11 vii, 114, 115

1.20 65 4.13 65,214
2.2 186 4.23 103, 166
2.23 65,68 4.24 101, 128, 138
3.13 65 4.24-5 128,138
4.1-11 55 5.38-9 179
4.1 vii, 103, 114 6.25-32 214
4.2 vii, 114 7.16-17 29
4.3 170 7.18-23 208
4.6 151 7.22-3 167
4.10 115 7.22 167
 Biblical Passages 251

7.28 102 220,227

7.28f. 58 12.24 40,98,104,161,176,178,198
8-9 72 12.24ff. 214,215
8.4 103 12.25 98
8.5-13 145 12.25-9 220
8.8 176 12.25-30 106
8.9 109, 154 12.26 109
8.16 101, 177 12.27 1 6 , 3 2 , 3 9 , 4 7 , 104, 107,109,
8.16-17 128, 138 217,218
8.20 214 12.27-8 106
8.27 59 12.27-30 100
8.28 101,200 12.28 3,98,106.107,108,109,111,
8.28-34 72 121, 127, 137, 160, 161, 164,
8.29 6 1 , 8 2 , 8 3 , 8 6 , 186 167, 168, 170,217,218,219,
8.29b 220 2 2 2 , 2 2 3 , 2 2 4 , 228
8.33 59, 101, 176 12.28ff. 66
8.34 59 12.29 13, 111, 138, 167, 168, 170,
9.1-8 168 186,219, 221
9.8 59, 102 12.30 107, 111
9.26 59 12.38 104
9.27-31 102 12.38-42 179
9.27 184 12.39 94, 170
9.32 101 12.43 11, 135
9.32-3 101,102, 138, 146, 148 12.43-5 13
9.32-4 98,99, 100, 102 12.45 119
9.33 59, 102,103 12.46ff. 177
9.34 104 13.16-17 119
10 123 13.24-30 220,222,224
10.1 122, 167 13.36-43 221,222
10.7 167 13.45 65
10.1-15 vii,55, 122 13.47-50 222
10.1-14 123 13.53-8 166
10.25 105 13.54 58
11-13 120 15.21-8 88
11.2-6 vii, 55, 118, 119, 179,208, 15.22 90, 101, 184
219,228 15.25 103
11.4 119, 168 15.31 59, 102
11.4-6 101, 121 16.1 104
11.5 119, 167, 170 16.1-4 170
11.6 120 16.23 115
11.12 119 17.18 59, 6 0 , 7 1 , 9 6
11.18 200,208 17.26 103
11.21-3 167, 168, 170 19.25 58
11.24-6 129 20.30 65, 184
12.9-14 168 20.31 184
12.15-16 128,138 21.11 65
12.22 3, 101, 102, 103, 138, 146, 21.12-17 179
148, 162, 177 21.14 102
12.22-3 101, 178 22.33 58
12.22-7 99 22.34 69
12.22-8 102 22.46 58
12.22-30 vii, 55,98, 99-100, 137 24.24 202
12.22-32 115 24.27 127
12.22-37 98 24.41 221
12.23 59, 102, 176, 180, 181, 184, 24.42 111
252 Indexes

25.1-46 222 2.3 145

2.5 94
25.31-46 221
2.7 2
26.61 65
2.12 59
26.69 65
2.15 79
27.63 201,202
2.18-3.6 168
28.3 127
2.27 169
28.5 65
3.1-5 179
3.1-6 3 , 5 5 , 166, 168
Mark
1-8.26 45 3.7-12 59, 128, 129, 138
1 88 3.7 129
1.1 81 3.8 129
3.11 6 1 , 6 2 , 6 6 , 8 1 , 9 3 , 147, 149,
1.9 65
1.9-13 116 151,154
1.10-11 186 3.14 79
3.14-15 167
1.11 117
3.15 1 0 3 , 1 2 4 , 125
1.12 v i i , 5 8 , 103, 114
3.17-19 74
1.12-13 55
1.13 vii, 114, 115, 116, 117 3.19-21 98, 100, 178
3.19-35 116
1.14 88
3.21 100, 1 0 4 , 1 7 6 , 177, 1 7 8 , 2 1 4
1.14-15 117,166,168
1.15 218 3.22 98,103,104,106,112,140,161,
1.21 65 176, 178, 180, 198, 199, 2 0 8
1.21-2 57,58,166 3.22-£ 99
1.21-8 vii, 3, 55, 5 7 - 8 , 76, 138, 144, 3.22-7 vii, 5 5 , 9 8 , 9 9 - 1 0 0 , 137
147, 166 3.22-30 98
1.21-34 59 3.23 103, 112, 116, 198
1.22 58 3.23b-26 113
1.23 58,61,81,93,146,147,154 3.23-7 106
1.23-5 154 3.26 116
1.23-7 60,74 3.27 89,100,111,112,113,138,
1.23-8 58,71,76 167,168, 170,219,221
1.24 61,62,63,64,66,67,68,81, 3.28 161
148,149 3.30 79,98,176,177,178,198,199
1.24-5 83 3.31 100,177
1.25 62,68,69,70,84,153,154, 3.31-5 100, 104
1 5 7 , 1 6 0 , 162 4.13 79
1.26 93,96,155,156 4.15 116
1.26-8 70 4.34-6.44 166
1.27 2,57,58,59,71,95,176 4.35-41 74
1.27-8 58,59 4.35-5.43 58, 74
1.29 58 4.38-9 138
1.29-31 3,56,138 4.39 69
1.31 96 4.41 2, 59, 78, 166
1.32 101,128 5 74, 7 5 , 7 6 , 155, 164
1.32-4 5 9 , 128, 138 5.1-17 73
1.34 69,70,103,128 5.1-20 vii, 3, 5 5 , 7 2 , 7 3 - 7 4 , 77, 92,
1.39 103, 1 2 8 , 1 3 8 , 166 138, 144
1.40 94 5.2 80
1.40-5 3 5.2ff. 93
1.43 103 5.2-5 92
1.45 79 5.3 80, 112
2.1 79,214 5.3-4 144
2.1-12 3, 166, 168, 179 5.3-5 80
2.1-3.6 58 5.5 80
 Biblical Passages 253

5.6 61,80,81 7.1-23 89, 179

5.6-7 146 7.24 89
5.7 33, 60, 62, 6 3 , 6 4 , 8 1 , 8 2 , 83, 7.24-31 89
147, 149, 151, 152, 163 7.24-30 vii, 3, 55, 76, 88, 145, 146
5.7f. 86 7.24-8.26 88
5.7-9 154 7.25 58, 89, 93, 146, 147
5.7-13 81 7.25-6 148
5.8 62, 77, 83, 84, 95, 153 7.26 89, 90, 103
5.8-9 162 7,27 90
5.8ff. 160 7.27-8 90
5.9 39, 84, 85, 153, 154 7.29 160, 162
5.10 86 7.30 59
5.10ff. 210 7.31-7 3
5.10-12 154 7.33 158
5.10-13 83 7.34 162
5.11 ff. 164 7.35 112
5.11-13 155 7.36 69, 79
5.12 86 7.37 59
5.13 7 0 , 7 1 , 7 4 , 96 8.7 2
5.14 59, 78, 176, 177 8.11 116,170
5.15 59, 78, 80, 101, 155, 173 8.22-6 3, 84, 154
5.16 78, 80, 101 8.22-10.52 84
5.16-20 78 8.23 158
5.17 59, 78, 80 8.32 71
5.18 79, 80, 101 8.33 116
5.18-20 74, 78, 7 9 8.38 81
5.19 79,80 9 93, 156
5.20 59, 79, 80, 148 9.7 81
5.21-43 3 9.14 93
5.23 94 ; 159 9.14-19 92
5.28 94 9.14-20 92
5.33 61, 147 9.14-29 vii, 3, 55, 74, 7 6 , 9 1 , 9 2 , 125,
5.34 94 1 3 8 , 1 4 4 , 145
5.36 94 9.17 93
5.40 103 9.17-18 92, 93
5.41 96, 162 9.18 9 2 , 9 7 , 103
5.43 59, 69 9.18-19 94
6.1-6 166 9.19 92, 93, 94, 97
6.2 58 9.20 6 0 , 6 1 , 9 2 , 9 3 , 9 4 , 146
6.3 2 9.21-2 92, 93
6.7 122, 124, 125 9.21-7 92
6.7-12 vii, 55, 122, 1 2 3 , 2 2 1 9.22 60
6.7-13 124 9.22-3 94
6.11 123 9.23 59, 97
6.12 167 9.24 94, 97
6.13 97, 103, 125 9.25 26,92,93, 95,96, 153,157,
6.14-16 208 1 6 1 , 1 6 2 , 164
6.30 vii, 122, 125 9.26 71, 155, 160
6.45 58 9.26-7 71,96
6.45-8.26 166 9.28 59, 103
6.49 60 9.28-9 92, 96, 9 7 , 1 6 6
6.51 59 9.29 9 7 , 163
6.53-6 59 9.37-43 91
6.56 84 9.38 16, 4 0 , 4 2 , 52, 1 0 3 , 1 2 5 , 139,
7 146 218
254 Indexes

9.38f. 224 4.2-13 103

9.38-9 40 4.3 170
9.38-40 40 4.10-11 151
9.38-41 97, 109 4.13 vii, 114, 115
9.39 42 4.16-30 166
9.40 40,43, 107 4.16 65
9.49f. 218 4.22 58
10.2 116 4.31 65
10.21 214 4.31-2 166
10.24 58 4.31-7 57
10.26 58 4.31-44 57
10.28-30 214 4.32 58, 104
10.32 58, 88 4.33 61, 147
10.46-52 3 4.35 70,71,96
10.47 65 4.36 59, 176, 177
10.48 69 4.38-9 56, 120, 138
10.52 94 4.39 138
11.11 65 4.40-1 128, 138
11.15 103 4.41 61, 138
11.15-19 179 4.44 128, 138
11.18 58 5.5 94
12.5 103 5.8 147
12.6 81 5.9 59
12.8 103 5.17-26 168
12.15 116 5.26 59
12.18 103 5.33 104
12.34 58 6.6-11 168
13.32 81 6.16-19 138
14.1 88 6.17-19 128
14.16 2 6.43-5 29
14.36 81 7.1-10 103, 145
14.43 58 7.7 176
14.61 81 7.8 109
14.67 65 7.16 59, 102
14.69 65 7.18 119
15.1 58 7.18-23 vii, 55, 103, 118, 119,179,
15.19 147 219,228
15.39 81 7.19 119
16.6 65 7.20-1 119
16.12 221 7.21 118,119,120,121,224
16.17 222 7.22 98,119,168,170
16.18 186 7.23 120
17.14-21 91 7.33 200,208
7.36-50 179
8.2 85,119
8.3 112
Luke 8.12 114
1.36 67 8.19ff. 177
2.4 65 8.19-21 214
2.39 65 8.25 59
2.40 65 8.26 86
4 vii 8.26-39 72,73
4.1 114 8.27 200
4,1-13 55 8.28 60, 61, 82, 83
4.2 vii, 114 8.29 80,86,112,208
 Biblical Passages 255

8.31 86, 154 219, 2 2 2 , 2 2 3 , 2 2 4 , 228

8.34 59, 176 11.20ff. 66
8.35 59 11.20-23 100
8.36 101 11.21 98, 112, 186
8.37 59 11.21f. 138,219
8.56 59 11.21-2 13, 111, 168, 170
9 123 11.22 167
9.1 122 11.23 107, 111
9.1-6 vii, 55, 122 11.24-6 11, 1 3 , 9 5 , 112, 135
9.2 167 11.26 119
9.11-12 123 11.27-8 214
9.37 104 11.29 170
9.42 61,96 11.29-32 103, 179
9.43 59 11.36 127
9.49 16, 52, 125, 139 11.37 104
9.49f. 224 11.38 104
9.49-50 40, 109 12.5 186
9.50 4 0 , 4 3 , 107 12.15 112
9.51-19.28 126 12.33 112
10 123 12.44 111, 112
10.1 125 13.10-17 56, 138
10.1-7 214 13.11 56
10.1-11 vii, 55, 122, 124 13.12 56
10.4 123,124 13.16 56, 112, 114
10.9 124, 167 13.17 102
10.13-15 167, 168, 170 13.22 138
10.17 125,140 14.33 112
10.17-19 122,125 15.21-2 119
10.17-20 vii, 55, 122-3, 124, 1 2 5 , 2 2 4 16.1 112
10.18 66, 114, 120, 126, 1 2 7 , 2 2 1 , 16.16 98
224,228 17.24 127
10.19 125, 126, 186 18.31 104
10.19-20 123, 186 19.8 112
10.23-4 119 19.34 119
10.25 104 19.45-8 179
10.27 104 19.45 65
11.9 16 19.48 58
11.14 3,59,101,103,138,146,148, 20.21 103
162, 176, 177, 178 20.40 58
11.14-15 99, 100 20.41 104
11.14-23 vii, 55, 98, 137 22.3 221
11.14-26 98 22.20 104
11.14-20 99 22.23 115
11.15 98, 104, 161, 176, 178, 198 22.31 221
11.15 fT. 214 22.35 123
11.16 104 22.47 104
11.17 98 22.54 104
11.17-23 9 9 - 1 0 0 , 106 23.18 60
11.18 109, 114 23.35 104
11.19 32,39,47,104,107,109,217,
218 John
11.19-20 106 1.45 65
11.20 3,98,106,107,108,109,110, 2.4 63
111, 121, 127, 137, 160, 16!, 2.12 214
164, 167, 168, 1 7 0 , 2 1 7 , 2 1 8 , 2.13-25 179
 256 Indexes

2.23 170 16.17 52,82,140

4.46-54 141 16.18 140, 161
4.54 170 17.31 96
6.69 67 19 31,33,66
7.20 176,177,199,200,208 19,11-40 30
8.48 176, 177, 198, 199, 200,208 19.12 119
8.48-9 200 19.13 31,32,33,34,42,52,66,119,
8.48-52 199 137, 139, 163
8.49 208 19.13 19 30,34,84
8.52 199,208 19.13-20 16,30
9.1-41 166 19.14 30,31
9.6 158 19.15 51,119
9.17 141 19.16 119
10.20 100, 176, 177, 178, 199,200, 26.24-5 200
208
10.21 101,176 Romans
10.38 169 8.17 193
10.41 208
11.31 42 1 Corinthians
11.41-2 163 10.20 105
12.18 170 14.5 200
12.31 222 14.13-19 200
14.30 142,222 14.23 200
16.11 142,222
17.1 111 2 Corinthians
17.15 222 4.10 193
17.21 111
18.30 203 Galatians
20.30 141, 170 3.1 105
6.17 192, 193
Acts
2.22 65, 170 Ephesians
2.24 96 6.12 50
2.32 96
2.40 94 Philippians
3.2 23 2.15 94
3.6 65 3.10 193
3.14 67
3.26 96 Colossians
4.6 31 1.24 193
4.10 34
4.27 67 1 Thessalonians
4.30 67 5.27 163
4.32 112
5.15f. 178 1 Timothy
5.34-9 180 4.1 186
8.18-19 42
10.34-43 129 Hebrews
10.36-43 129 1.5 152
10.38 65,128,129,138,170,215
12.15 200 James
13.10 206 5.14-15 163
13.11 115
13.33-4 96 1 Peter
16.16-18 30,221 2.12 203
 Ancient Literary Sources 257

2.14 203 8.5 127

4.15 203, 204 8.13 167
9.5 220
2 Peter
9.20 105
2.4 223
11.19 127
1 John 14.4 42
2.20 67 14.11 220
4.6 186 16.18 127
18.7 220
Jude 18.10 220
6 223 18.15 220
20.1-3 223
Revelation 20.10 66, 220
3.7 67 22.6 67
4.5 127

Index of Ancient Literary Sources

Dead Sea Scrolls

Cairo Damascus Document 4.18f. 219

(CD) 10.13 105
5.17b-19 199
6.1 67 Florilequim
(•iQFlor) 183
Genesis Apocryphon 51, 52, 159 1.7 188
(lQapGeri) 183
19 51
20 42,43,44, 51, 157, 158, 160
4QPsDan A'(= 4Q243)
20.26 46
82, 151
20.28-9 68
20.29 46
Psalms Scroll
(.HQPs°)
The War Scroll (1QM) 27.2 37
12.1 105 27.3 37
12.2 105 27.4 37
14 44 27.10 37
14.5ff. 45
14.10 68 (HQPsApf)
15.end 50 1.2 38
18.1-5 108 1.4 38
4.4 38,41
Thanksgiving Hymns (1QH)
3.34 105 Temple Scroll
9.11 45 (llQTemple)
48.11-13 144
Fragment (1QHJ) 49.5-21 144
4 45 50.3-8 144
4.6 68
4QTherapeia 16,38
The Manual of Discipline (JQS)
3.9 49 The Prayer of Nabonidus 17,46
4.6 44 (4QPrNab or 4QsNab)
258 Indexes

Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Letter of Aristeas 126 2 Maccabees
15.23 105
Baruch
4.7 105 Assumption of Moses 188
9.1 188
2 Baruch 9.7 188
85.10 219 10.1 66, 183, 188, 220
10.3 66, 188, 220
Ben Sirach 10.7 188
45.6 67
47.11 184 Sibylline Oracles
3.63 186
1 Enoch 49 3.73 186
10.4 183,188
10.4ff. 219 Psalms of Solomon 183, 184
10.4-6 223 17 184
10.1 If. 219 17.21(23) 183
10.11-13 223 17.21(23)—46 183
10.12 223
10.12f. 223 Testament of Solomon 17, 18-19,21,
12-14 154 48, 52, 184, 226
18.14-9.2 223 1 18
19.1 223 1.5-7 35
21,6f. 223 1.6 39
21.6-10 223 2.9 39
37-71 187 5.7 39
55.4 183,187 5.9 39
90.23-4 223 5.10 39
90.23-7 223 11.5 38
11.6 39
4 Ezra 15.13-15 18
5.50-5 219 16.6 39
14.10 219 18.6-37 39
18.16 39
Martyrdom of Isaiah 18.23 39
2.4-5 199 18.25 39

Jubilees 16,21,49, 160,209,215,226 Wisdom of Solomon

5.6-10 223 2.13 151
10 51,52, 154 2.16b-18a 151
10.4-9 223
10.5 51 Tobit 16,21,39, 49, 52,
10.5-9 223 226
10.5-10 223 6.17 109
10.8 51 8.3 157
10.10 157 13.11 105
10.12 157
10.17 51
16.33 186
48.9-11 199

1 Maccabees
2.57 184
 Ancient Literary Sources 259

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

Testament of Reuben Testament of Judah

6.5-12 185 24 185
6.10-12 183,185 25.3. 183,188
6.12 185 25.3b 186

Testament of Levi Testament of Zebulon

18.3 186 9.8 183, 186
18.6-7 185
18.11 f. 183 Testament of Dan
18.1 lb—12 185 5.1 Of. 183,187
18.12a 186 5.10-1 la 187
18.12b 186

Early Christian Literature

Acts of Andrew 20 Hippolytus

6 144 Refutations
13 148 6.34 105
7.15 141
Apostolic Constitution 7.20 141
VIII.7 33
Irenaeus
Adversus Hacreses
Arnobius 2.23.3-4 195
Adversus Gentes 2.32.4 34
1.46 140,206
Jerome
Dio Chrysostom Letter
Discourse 108.13 144
32.2 28-29
32.9-11 28-29 Acts of John
' The Destruction of the
Clement of Alexandria Temple of Artemis' 148
Stromata
6.16.133 108 Justin Martyr
Apology
Cyprian 1.6 34
Testimonia 1.35 34
3.37 203 1.48 34
2.6 140
Eusebius
Dialogue with Trypho
History of the Church
30.3 34, 140
1.9.3 34
69 195,205
4.3.2 195,204
76.6 34. 140
85.2 34, 140
Proof of the Gospel
3.2 203 Nag Hammadi
3.3 205 Codex IX
3.4.31 203 3.70 35
260 Indexes

Origen Pistis Sophia

Contra Celsum 102.255 141
1.6 33, 139, 195, 196 102.258 141
1.28 195 130.332-5 141
1.38 141, 195, 196
1.60 141 Tertullian
1.67 139 Scorpiace
1.68 27, 32, 195, 196,205 12.3 203
III.24 33
III.50 32 Acts of Thomas
IV.34 33 3.31.-3 95
VI.41 207 5.44f. 148
VIII.25 105 5.45 61
8.75-81 93
Acts of Peter 75
Gospel of Thomas
2.4.11 20,26,74,148
35 111,112

Other Ancient Writers

Athenaeus Epictetus
Deipnosophists Discourses
4.157b 29 1.1.16 64
11.502c 29 1.22.15 64
1.27.13 64
Codex Justinianus 2.19.16 64
IX. 18.7 203 2.19.17ff. 64
3.20.15 29
Codex Theodosianus 3.22.26 64
IX. 16.4 203
Homer
Demosthenes Iliad
Orations 5.77 32
47.45 198 16.234 32
16.605 32
Dlodorus Siculus
History Josephus 16,21,31,36, 37,47,49, 52,
2.18 201 157, 180, 209,213,214, 226
15.76 28
26.5 76 Against Apion
1.71 90
Diogenes Laerlius
Lives of Eminent Philosophers Antiquities of the Jews
1.15 28 2.167-70 136
1.19 28 6.160 37
6.13 28 6.165 37
6.101 29 6.166 37
6.103 28, 29 6.168 37, 178
6.103-105 28 6.169 37
6.104 28 6.211 37
6.104-105 28 7.265 63
 Ancient Literary Sources 261

8.36-9 36 31 148
8.42-9 139
8.45 36, 139 Philosophies for Sale
8.45ÎT. 82 2.11-12 206
8.46f. 41
8.46-9 39, 50, 52, 139 Peregrinus
8.47 26,96 10-11 30
8.48 74 13 190
8.49 25, 26,36, 155 15 69
8.182 36 16 30
8.190 36
9.19 105 Pausanias
18.2-10 213 ii.xii.2 32
18.23-5 213
18.63f. 180
18.63-64 196 Phi lo of Alexandria
18.85-7 213 De Gigantibus
18.124 83 7-8 50
20.97 179 16 50
20.97-8 213
20.97-9 180 Quod Deus immutibilis sit
20.102 213
16,21,49,63,64
20.167 213
133-9 64
20.169 213
138 64
20.188 213
20.224-51 31
In Flaccum
The Jewish War 36 60,144
1.10 180 40 144
2.8 158
2.117-9 213
Pseudo Philo 16,21
2.259 202,213
Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum
2.261-3 213
49
2.433 213
60 33,34,52,139,183
3.41 180
3.233 85
3.289 85 Philostratus 23, 24, 226
J.458 85 Life of Apollonius of Tyana
3.485 85 1.2 24
4.13 85 1.3 23
6.114 31 3.38 26, 75,95, 146,148
7.253 213 3.40 26
7.437-41 213 3.45 25
4.20 25,36,60,70,74,81,95,96,
Lucian ofSamosata 16,21, 157, 22 148,156, 158, 160
Alexander 4.45 25
1 190 5.13 25
2 190 6.7 25
7.38 27
Disowned 7.39 24,27,206
6 148 8.7 24,207

Philopseudes Plato 28,47

11 70 Phaedo
16 70,95, 148 81a 201
262 Indexes

The Republic Seneca

364b-365a 27 Epistulae Morales
398a 75 LXXXVII.25 29
444b 201
Suetonius
Pliny Life of Claudius
Natural History 25.4 196
28.37 158
28.86 75 Life of Nero
31.18-24 137 16.2 193

Pliny the Younger Tacitus

Letters Annals
X.96 194 .15.44 34,204
X.96.3 204 15.44.3-8 193

Rabbinic Literature

Mishnah 'Aboda Zara

Berakot 2.2 139,140
5.5 211
Babylonian Talmud
Ta'anit
Berakot
3.8 150 17b 150
34b 23,160,211
Ketubot 51a 85

13.1-2 31 Sabbat
104b 192
Kelim 144
Pesahim
Oholot
17.5 31 112a 151
Tosefta 112b 23,36,51,75
Hullin 112b—113a 148
2.22f. 139
2.22-3 140, 192 Ta'anit
24b 150, 160
Jerusalem Talmud
Hagiga
Berakot 15b 150
1.9d 23 16a 150

Mtfaser Seni Gittin

5.56a 23 69a 75
90a 192
Sabbat
14.4 140 Baba Mesi'a
14.4.14d 139 59b 170, 179

Seqalim Sanhédrin
4.48a 32 43a 140, 141
67a 192
 Ancient Literary Sources

93b 179
Sifra Leviticus
98a 179 26.6 183, 187
Sebifot
15b Numbers Rabbah
158
19.8 43
'Aboda Zara
27b Ecclesiastes Rabbah
139, 140
1 23
Hullin
86a 150 Pesiqta Rabbati
5 63
Me*ila 36 183, 187, 188
17b 2 3 , 4 8 , 70, 178,211 40b 50

Papyri

Papyri Graecae Maqicae V.99-171 38

1.162 84 V.103ff. 67
III.420 158 V. 122-33 38
IV 82 V.247-304 38
IV.1017-19 85 VII.331 95
IV.1067f. 82 VIII.6f. 67
IV. 1227 139 VIII. 13 6 6 , 6 7 , 68
IV.1243ff. 70 XII.63f. 82
IV. 1248 39 XII.72 82
IV. 1254 95 XIII. 171 95
IV. 1294 96 XIII.242ff. 84, 154
IV. 1500 67
IV.2984ff. 67 J.383 193
IV.3007-86 32
IV.3013ff. 70 P. Leiden
IV.3019 4 1 , 8 3 , 160, 161 I.348[22] 38
IV.3019f. 139
IV. 3019ff. 106
P. London
IV.3019-20 82
11.438.19 201
IV.3024f. 95
IV.3024-25 96
P. Oslo
IV.3033 38, 83
1.153 83
IV.3033ff. 67
1.161 f. 69
IV.3034ff. 33
IV.3037 84
IV.3037ff. 112 P. Oxyrhynchus
IV. 3039 83 1665.5f 76
IV.3039ff. 84 3275.40 83
IV.3045 83 3275.46 83
IV.3046 82 3295.19 83
IV.3045-49 67 3295.24 83
IV.3052 83
IV.3056 83 P. Warren
V.46 82 25 f. 38
 Index of Authors

Aalen, S. 98,233 Baumbach, G. 115,233

Achinger, H. 91, 233 Baumgarten, J. 37
Achtcmeier, P.J. 54, 58, 74, 91, 93, 97, 142, 166, fieare, F.W. 65,94, 121, 123,124,203
209,219,233 Beasley-Murray, G.R. 107, 110, 115, 117, 218,
Aitken, W.E.M. 105, 106, 233 233
Aland, K. 108,231 Beauvery, R. 234
Alexander, W.M. 140,233 Becker, J. 185,234
Allan, G. 65 Becker-Wirth, S. 57,234
Allegro, J.M. 229 Behm, J. 44, 234
Allen, W.C. 66 Bell, H.I. 33, 83, 229
Allison, F.G. 229 Bellinzoni, A.J. 53
Ambrozic, A.M. 57,233 Benko, S. 196, 234
Anderson, A.A. 229 Berger, K. 141,149,168
Anderson, H. 58,63, 78, 89,91, 168, 169, 178 Berger, P.L. 8
Annen, F. 72, 86, 233 Bermann, D. 209
Argyle, A.W. 103,233 Bertram, G. 82
Arnold, C.E. 50 Beskow, P. 207
Attridge, H.W. 28,233 Best, È. 43,58,59,65,84,89,91,98,106,111,115,
Audollent, A. 70, 229 116, 128,129, 136, 142, 177, 178,234
Aulen, G. 7 Betz, H.D. 16, 38, 131,229,234,242
Aune, D.E. 41,63,64,84,139,153,158,159,160, Betz, O. 37, 142,170,218, 234
162,163,169,190,191,197,202,207,233,234 Bickermann, E. 105
Avigad, N. 229 Bietenhard, H. 143
Bigg, C. 204
Bächli, O. 64,233 Billerbeck, P. 61, 63, 65, 66, 109, 124, 126, 158,
Baarda, T. 72,233 162, 182, 183, 184, 187,232
Bacon, B.W. 233 Black, C.C. 54, 55
Baillet, M. 229 Black, M. 42, 79, 80, 89, 93, 119, 162, 185, 223,
Baird, M.M. 73, 233 234
Baltensweiler, H. 40, 110,233 Blackburn, B. 68, 213
Bammel, E. 211,216,233,242 Blass, F. 70, 89, 109
Banks, R. 129 Blau, L. 158,229
Barrett, C.K. 54,61,108,110,154,163,182,187, Bligh, J. 234
188, 189, 199,209, 211,216,222,233,242 Bloch, M. 132, 133
Barrett, P.W. 50 Block, M. 37
Barth, G. 60,76, 90, 120, 235 Blomberg, C. 11, 18, 50, 57, 131, 136, 138, 140,
Barthélémy, D. 229 143, 147, 153, 154, 155, 219, 236,247, 248
Barthes, R. 246 Böcher, O. 11, 86, 142, 153,220,234
Barlett, D.L. 74, 77,233 Böhlig, A. 35, 238
Barton, G.A. 186 Boers, H. 234
Bartsch, H.W. 6 Bokser, B.M. 23,234
Batdorf, I.W. 6, 7,233 Bonnard, P. 40, 65
Bauer, J.-B. 244 Bonner, C. 6,35,84, 155,234
Bauernfeind, O. 62,63, 64,67, 68, 73, 81, 233 Bonnet, M. 231
 Authors 265
Borg, M.J. 3,6,170,171,175,209,217,219,234, Carr.D. 132,235
235 Carr, E.H. 132
Boring, M.E. 131,235 Carr, W. 49, 50
Bornkamm, G. 7, 58, 60, 76, 90, 120,235 Carson, D.A. 50, 112
Borrois, G.A. 14 Casas, G.V. 235, 236
Borsch, F.H.214 Cave, C.H. 236
Bourghouts, J.F. 229 Cave, S.V. 73
Bousset, W. 67, 136, 184, 186, 213, 214,235 Chadwick, G.A. 60, 236
Bovon, F. 73, 246 Chadwick, H. 27, 229
Bowie, E.L. 23, 24 Charles, R.H. 186, 229
Bowker, J. 235 Charlesworth, J.H. 3,6,16,18,19,187,216,219,
Bowman, J. 35, 183, 199, 200, 235 229, 236
Braude, W.G. 229 Chilton, B.D. 57, 98, 112, 170,236
Braun, H. 7, 201,242 Chwolson, D. 139
Breech, J. 7 Cohoon, J.W. 230
Briere, J. 59, 235 Collins, J.J. 186, 209,211
Broek, R. Van den 195, 197,245 Colson, F.H. 230
Brooke, G. J. 184 Colwell, E.C. 234, 238
Brown, P. 34,47,235 Comber, J.A. 236
Brown, R.E. 199 Conolly, R.H. 34
Brown, S. 115 Conybeare, F.C. 11, 18,24,25, 230
Brownlee, W.H. 68 Cönzelmann, H. 7, 115, 120
Brox,N. 235 Cook, M J . 104
Bruce, F.F. 32, 82, 129,180, 196 Corrington, G.P. 190, 206, 236
Bryant, H.E. 235 Coulton, C.C. 194
Bryce, H. 229 Craghan, J.F. 78,236
Büchler, A. 178,235 Cranfield, C.E.B. 72, 113,236
Büchsei, F. 112 Crasta, P.M. 236
Bühner, J.-A. 207, 209, 215,235 Cratchley, W.J. 236
Buchanan, G.W. 7 Creed, J.M. 107, 119
Buck, H.M. 63,64 Crehan, J.H. 2
Bulmer, R. 181 Cremer, H. 41
Bultmann, R. 6,7,10,19,20,41,42,48,55,67,68, Crombie, A.C. 135
75, 86, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 100, 103, 104, 107, Crosby, H.L. 230
110, 121, 124, 126, 137, 155, 163, 167, 168, Cross, F.M. 17, 37, 230
169, 172, 180, 199, 216, 218, 219, 222, 233, Crossan J.D. 14, 100, 111, 221
235,239 Cullmann, O. 59,245
Bundy, W. 72, 74 Cupitt, D. 1,2
Burger, C. 102, 183,235
Burket, W. 27 Dahl, N.A. 245
Burkiii, T.A. 62, 64, 69, 73, 79, 81, 83, 89, 235 Dalman, G. 72, 110, 183, 184,218,236
Burrows, M. 229 Danby, H. 230
Busse, U. 235 Danker, F.W. 236
Butts, J.R. 110 Daube, D. 96, 211,233, 236, 242
Davies, T.W. 75, 236
Cadbury, H.J. 119 Davies, W.D. 211, 216, 233, 242
Cadoux, C.J. 126 Day.P.L. 11,236
Caird, G.B. 123, 124, 126 Debrunner, A. 70, 89, 109
Calvert, D..G.A. 235 Dehn, G. 72,81
Calvin, J. 158 Deissmann, A. 41, 83, 84, 95, 112, 193, 236
Canary, R.H. 132 Delcor, M. 37
Cangh, J.-M. van 98, 108 Delebecque, E. 30
Caquot, A. 46 Delling, G. 36, 230
Caragounis, C.C. 107, 108, 111, 218, 235 Delobel, J. 54, 98, 108, 236
Carlson, C.E. 106, 107, 115,235 Denis, A.-M. 19, 230
266 Indexes

Derenbourg, J. 192 Feldman, L.H. 15, 16,37,234

Dermience, A. 88,236 Fenner, F. 158
Derrett, J.D.M. 56,63, 72, 75, 77, 80, 84, 85, 86, Ferguson, E. 11,24,237
90, 122, 143, 144,236 Ferguson, J. 24
Descamps, A. 44, 107, 110, 162,233,239 Feuerbach, L. 3 , 4
Detweiler, R. 72, 236 Fiebig, P.W.J. 10,48,49,146,160,162,230,237,
Diaz, J.A. 236 238
Dibelius, M. 10,11,19,20,72,74,100, 106,129, Fiederlein F.M. 238
155, 172,236 Filson, F.V. 40, 65
Diehl, E. 230 Finkelstein J. 230
Dieterich, A. 236 Fischer, L.R. 238
Dilthey, W. 133,237 Fischer, R.H. 195,235, 239
Dix,G. 190 Fitzmyer, J. A. 16,17,46,68,72,82,114,119,122,
Dodds, E.R. 20,24, 30,237 126, 151,230,238
Dods, M.R. 230 Flammer, B. 238
Domeris, W.R. 67, 237 Flew, A. 133, 136
Doty, W.G. 72,236 Flusser, D. 44, 110, 149, 178,238
Douglas, M. 181,235,237 Foakes Jackson, F.J. 32
Downing, F.G. 28, 29,53, 103,230,237 Foerster, W. 86, 126, 186,230
Dozent, P.P. 237 Fohrer, G. 150, 238
Drewermann, E. 57,72, 88,91,98, 114, 122, 146 Fowler, H.N. 220
Driver, G.R. 46, 75 France, R.T. 119, 131, 132, 166,246,247
Dschulnigg, P. 54,237 Frazen J. 75 .
Dudley, D.R. 28,29,237 Freedman, D.N. 238
Dufton, F. 88 Freedman, H. 230
Duling, D.C. 2, 18, 19, 35, 36,74, 183, 184,237 Frend, W.H.C. 194
Dunn, J.D.G. 4, 11,59, 108, 109, 110, 118, 120, Frerichs, E.S. 182
121, 136, 138, 140, 142, 149, 150, 151, 152, Freyne, S. 14, 22, 180,209,211
161, 162, 168, 177, 209, 213, 216, 217, 218, Fridrichsen, A. 8, 61, 62, 70, 121, 139, 159, 167,
219, 224,237 169, 170,204, 206,207,216,238
Dupont-Sommer, A. 17,44,230,237 Frye, R.M. 134
Dürkheim, E. 190 Fuchs, A. 91,98,233,238
Dzielska, M. 23 Fuchs, E. 173,238
D'Alviella, Count 75 Fuller, R.H. 8, 60, 102, 103, 142, 182, 183, 184,
238
Easton, B.S. 124, 237 Funk, R.W. 6,70,89,109,132,219,234,238,248
Ebstein, E. 61
Edelstein, L. 237 •Gadamer, H.G. 134
Edgar, C.C. 14 Gaechter, P. 40
Edwards, R.A. 66, 111 Gager, J. 35
Egger, W. 128 Gallagher, E.V. 190,204,205,207,213,238
Eissfeldt, O. 183, 186 Galling, K. 186
Eitrem, S. 11, 13, 57, 70,95, 139, 142, 158,160, Gardiner, A.H. 238
191,237 Gardiner, P. 133
Elliott, J.H. 237, 243 Garrett, S.R. 30, 190, 191, 199, 206,238
Ellis, E.E. 72, 233 Gärtner, R.B. 219, 238
Eltester, W. 68,245 Gaster, M. 18, 19
Engelbrecht, J. 136 Gaster, T.H. 230
Enslin, M. 7 Gaston, L. (HSE) 54, 55, 59, 80, 89, 90, 96, 103,
Epstein, I. 192, 230 105, 106, 119,238
Evans, C.A. 2, 130, 131,216,237 Geller, M.J. 16, 68, 80, 139, 144, 191, 238
Everts, W.W. 140,237 George, A. 238
Georgi, D. 238
Fabris, R. 237 Gerhardsson, B. 102
Fascher, E. 153, 176 Ghalioungui, G. 238
 Authors 267
Gibbs, J.M. 102,238 Harmon, A.M. 16, 230
Giesen, H. 57, 238 Hamack, A. 5, 6, 11, 12, 66, 140
Gifford, E.H. 230 Harrington, D.J. 6, 14, 16, 17, 230, 239
Ginzberg, L. 230 Harris, M.J. 196
Girard, R. 72, 238 Härtel, G. 230
Giversen, S. 35,238 Harvey, A.E. 7,48,49,61,68,107,120,136,137,
Gloer, W.H. 111,237 149, 152, 189, 209,210,211,215,239
Gnilka, J. 56, 57, 72, 88,91, 98, 122, 128,129 Harvey, V.A. 2, 132, 133
Gonzales, F.J.I. 238 Hasler, J.I. 239
Goodenough, E.R. 35, 173, 238 Hata, G. 37, 234
Goodwin, G.W. 230, 238 Hauck, F. 60
Goppelt, L. 7, 65 Hawkins, J.C. 54, 59, 101, 115, 119, 126, 239
Goshen-Gottstein, M.H. 37, 239 Hawthorn, T. 73, 239
Goulder, M. 98 Hay, L.S. 239
Granfield, P. 104,243 Hedriek, C.W. 128, 131, 235, 239
Grant, F.C. 72 Heikel, I.A. 231
Grant, M. 136, 169 Heil, M. 239
Grant, R.M. 25, 136, 195, 230,239 Heitmüller, W. 44, 239
Grayston, K. 2,44,239 Held, HJ. 26,76,90, 120,235
Green, J.B. 247 Hemer, C.J. 81
Green, W.S. 239 Hendrickx, H. 57, 239
Greeven, H. 129,147 Hengel, M. 14,15,24,37,105,109,124,125,149,
Grelot, P. 239 150, l l \ 211, 213,215, 234, 239
Grenfell B.P. 230 Hennecke, E. 19, 20,34, 148, 231
Gressmann, H. 67, 184, 235 Henrichs, A. 232
Griffith, F.L. 230,240 Herford, R.T. 192,231
Grimm, W. 234 Hermann, I. 239
Grobel, K. 58 Herrmann, L. 239
Grundmann, W. 41,60,61,147,153,167,205,239 Herzog, R. 146,191
Güttgemanns, E. 77 Hick, J. 216
Guelich, R.A. 45,57,58,68,72,88,98,114,117, Hickling, C. 77,214
122,128, 129, 149, 177 Hicks, R.D. 231
Guerlac. H. 135 Hiers, R.H. 7, 110,169,170, 239
Guillemette, P. 57, 64, 71, 239 Hill, D. 65, 104, 168
Gulick, C.B. 230 Hinnells, J.R. 240
Gummere, R.M. 230 Hock, R.F. 240
Gundry, R.H. 94, 101 Hodgson, P.C. 5
Gurewicz, S.B. 37 Hoffmann, P. 66, 124, 125
Guttmann, A. 220,239 Hogarth, D.G. 32
Gutwenger, E. 239 Holladay, C.R. 213,231,240
Hollander, H.W. 185
Haacker, K. 37, 234 Hollenbach, P.W. 6, 7,130, 143, 145, 179,240
Haag, H. 242 Holtz, T. 111
Hadas, M. 239 Honoré, A.M. 103
Hadidian, D.Y. 134 Hooker, M.D. 77, 115,214
Haenchen, E. 30, 32,41, 180 Hopfner, T. 240
Hahn, F.C. 68, 82, 123, 124, 142 Horner, G. 231
Hahn, H.C. 66 Horsley, G.H.R.231
Halleux, A. de 233, 239 Horsley, R.A. 6, 7, 28, 129,240
Halleux, R.P. de 44, 107, 110, 162 Houlden, L. 49
Halliday, W.R. 24 Howard, J.K. 240
Hamm, M.D. 56 Howard, V. 12,95, 164,240
Hammerton-Kelly, R.G. 108, 239 Hull, J.M. 9, 10, 13,18,48, 60, 62, 86, 153, 157,
Hanse, H. 198 158, 197,206,240
Hardy, B. 132 Hultgren, A.J. 98,240
268 Indexes

Hume, D. 133, 136 Klein, G. 241

Hummel. R. 104 Kleist, J. A . 241
Hunt, A.S. 2 3 0 , 2 4 0 Klijn, A.F.J. 14
Hunter, A.M. 126, 170 Kloppenborg, J.S. 102, 114, 126, 241
Huntress, E. 2 4 0 Klostermann, E. 40, 60, 84, 86, 115
Knibb, M.A. 1 8 7 , 2 2 3 , 2 3 1
Iersel, B.M.F. van 2 4 0 Knox, W . L . 3 3 , 2 4 1
Isaac, E. 187 Koch, D.-A. 5 7 , 6 8 , 2 4 1
Koester, H. 138, 142, 1 6 9 , 2 1 5
Jackson, J. 231 Koetschau, P. 231
James, M.R. 231 K o l e n k o w , A . B . 179, 1 9 1 , 2 4 1
Jannasch, W. 4 4 Kozicki, H. 132
Jayne, W . A . 2 4 0 Kraeling, C.H. 1 9 8 , 2 0 8 , 2 4 1
Jellicoe, S. 126 Krause, N . 3 5 , 2 3 8
Jeremias, A. 158 Kremer, J. 1 2 , 2 4 1
Jeremias, G. 3 8 , 2 3 2 Kruse, H. 241
Jeremias, J. 14. 31, 32, 73, 85, 88, 90, 104, 110, K ü m m e l , W.G. 6, 53, 54, 66, 103, 107, 110, 124,
111, 114, 118, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 126, 1 4 9 , 2 1 8 , 2 4 1
127, 142, 162, 164, 168, 169, 1 7 8 , 2 2 1 , 2 4 0 Kuhn, H.W. 241
Jervell, J. 47, 245
Johnson,A.R. 86 Labuschagne, B. 231
Johnson, E.A. 2 Lacocque, A. 18
Johnson, S.E. 153 Lagrange, M.-J. 9 3
Jones, H.S. 6 0 , 6 9 , 83 Lake, K. 3 2 , 2 3 1
Jonge, M. de 185, 186, 1 8 7 , 2 3 1 , 2 4 0 Lamarche, P. 5 7 , 2 4 1
Jongeling, B. 16, 17, 18, 1 5 9 , 2 3 1 , 2 4 0 Lambrecht, J. 241
Joüon, P. 111 Lampe, G.W.H. 1
Jühlifher, A . 117 Langdon, S. 241
Jungmann, J. A. 1 0 4 , 2 4 3 Langton, E. 1 1 , 8 4 , 1 2 6 , 2 4 1
Latourelle, R. 9, 56, 72, 87, 8 8 , 9 1 , 9 7 , 131, 138,
Käsemann, E. 2 , 6 5 , 9 4 , 142, 1 6 7 , 2 4 0 153, 1 5 8 , 2 4 1
Kallas, J. 9, 1 6 9 , 2 4 0 Lattey, C. 241
Kampling, R. 1 7 3 , 2 4 0 Lauterbach, J.Z. 1 9 2 , 2 3 1
Kasper, W. 2 4 0 Lawlor, H.J. 231
Kazmierski, C.R. 1 2 9 , 2 4 0 Leaney, A.R.C. 4 0 , 2 1 1 , 2 4 1
Keck, L.E. 1 2 9 , 2 4 0 Lee, B.J. 175
Kee, H.C. 8 , 9 , 1 6 , 1 7 , 2 0 , 2 4 , 2 7 , 4 1 , 4 4 , 4 5 , 4 6 , 4 9 , Leeuw, G. van der 191
57,65,68,69,73,75,81,95,103,115,141,146, Legasse, S. 146
169, 171, 179, 196, 197, 205, 207, 211, 220, Lei vestad, R. 9 , 1 6 9 , 1 7 0 , 1 8 2 , 1 8 9 , 2 1 6 , 2 1 8 , 2 1 9 ,
231,240,241 241,242
Kelly, H.A. 241 Leon-Dufour, X. 57, 1 6 6 , 2 4 1 , 2 4 2
Kennedy, J.M. 45 Lessing, G. 4
Kermode, F. 2 0 4 L e w i s , E.L. 2 4 2
Kertelge, K. 7 , 8 , 5 7 , 5 8 , 5 9 , 7 0 , 7 4 , 7 7 , 8 9 , 9 1 , 9 2 , Leyh, G. 2 4 4
106, 148, 241 Liebermann, S. 15
Kiev, A. 179 Lietzmann, H. 193, 194
Kilbum, K. 2 3 0 Lightfoot, J.B. 231
Kilpatrick, G.D. 65 Lightfoot, R.H. 59, 78, 80
King, L.W. 4 4 , 2 4 1 Limbeck, M. 1 1 3 , 2 4 2
Kingsbury, J.D. 2,72, 102, 183,213,241 Lindars, B. 6 5 , 1 1 1 , 1 2 0 , 1 6 3 , 1 9 9 , 2 1 1 , 2 1 6 , 2 4 2 ,
Kirchschläger, W. 1 1 , 1 3 7 , 2 0 5 , 2 4 1 246,247
Kissinger, W.S. 6 , 7 , 2 4 1 Ling, T. 2 4 2
Kittel, G. 4 2 Linnemann, E. 127
Kittel, R. 231 Lipsius, R.A. 231
Klausner, J. 179, 183, 192 Livingstone, E.A. 7 7 , 2 3 6 , 2 4 5
 Authors 269
Loader, W.R.G. 183, 242 Meeks, W.A. 47, 245
Locke, J. 120 Mehlmann, J. 198
Loewe, H. 231 Meier, J.P. 3
Lohmeyer, E. 59, 72, 116 Mendelsohn, I. 13, 206
Lohse, E. 158, 184, 231 Metzger, B.M. 32, 97, 104, 123, 242,243
Loos, H. van der 8,33,59,84,86,92,146,158,159, Meyer B.F. 4, 7, 27, 28, 38, 131, 234, 243
169, 176,242 Meyer, E. 134
Lorenzmeier, T. 242 Meyer P.W. 243
Liddell, H.G. SJ, 60, 69, 83 Meyer, R. 243
Lühramm, D. 123 Meyers, E.M. 14
Luck, G. 191,231 Meynet, R. 98, 113,243
Luz, U. 70 Michaelis, W. 140
Michaels, J.R. 203
MacDonald, D.R. 19,242 Michel, O. 81
Macintosh, A.A. 46, 242 Micklem, E.R. 159
Mack, B.L. 7, 57 Milik, J.T. 17, 187,229, 231, 232, 243
Mackey, J.P. 3 Miliar, F. 15
MacLaurin, E.C.B. 98,105, 242 Miller, D.G. 134
Macleod, M.D. 230 Milligan, G. 32,41, 60, 76, 82, 83, 93
MacMahon, J.H. 231 Milligan, J.D. 135
MacRae, G. 241,242 Mills, M.E. 9, 16, 19, 35, 243
Mäher, M. 136, 242 Milot, L. 56
Mair.L. 190, 191 Mink, L.O. 132
Malherbe, A.J. 28, 231 Miyoshi, M. 243
Malina, B.J. 98, 191,242 Mohlberg, C. 194
Mandelbaum, M. 132 Montefiore, C.G. 72, 74,231, 243
Mann, C.S. 7,56, 72, 100, 146,242 Montgomery, J.A. 85, 231,243
Manrique, A. 72, 242 Moore, C.H. 231
Manson, T.W. 103, 123, 126 Moore, G.F. 182,223,243
Manson, W. 105, 119 Morenz, S. 44
Marcus, R. 105, 231 Morris, L.L. 152, 206,215
Margoliouth, D.S. 242 Moule, C.F.D. 3, 79, 127, 242, 243
Marin, A.D. 242 Moulton, J.H. 32,41, 60, 76, 82, 83, 93
Marsh, J. 7 Münz, P. 132
Marshall, I.H. 4,5,65,72,111,118,119,120,123, Murray, A.T. 231
124, 169 Mussner, F. 8, 68,131, 168, 243
Marwick, A. 134, 135
Marwick, M. 190,242 Nagakubo, S. 14
Marxsen, W. 59, 65, 89 Naveh, J. 16,231
Mastin, B.A. 31,242 Neirynck, F. 54, 78, 80, 89, 98, 129,243
Mateos, J. 85,242 Nestle, E. 108, 231,243
Mauser, U.W. 116 Neusner, J. 16,49, 178, 182,209, 231, 243
Maynard, A.H. 62, 152,242 Newton, C.T. 32
McArthur, H.K. 242 Neyrey, J.H. 98, 105, 191, 242, 243
McCasland, S.V. 36, 62, 139, 153,242 Nicholson, F.W. 158
McConnell, S. 101 Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 22,209, 211,243
McCown, C.C. 18, 19, 32, 231,242 Niebuhr, R.R. 3
McEleney, N.J. 242 Nielsen H.K. 169
McEwin, J.S. 140 Nilsson, M.P. 243
McGaughtey, L.C. 238 Nineham, D.E. 33, 80, 88, 90, 91, 97, 117, 129,
McKnight, S. 114, 247 149,216
McNeill, J.T. 242 Nkwoka, A.O. 98, 177,243
McRae G. 241 Noack, B. 11,243
Mead, G.R.S. 242 Nock, A.D. 229,243
Mearns, C. 98, 187,219 Nolan, B.M. 183
270 Indexes

Norman, A.P. 132 Puech, E. 38,232

Oakman, D.E. 6,98, 243 Quasten, J. 104,243

Odegard, D. 136,243 Quispel, G. 245
Oepke, A. 66
Oesterley, W.O.E. 243 Rackham, H. 232
Oesterreich, T.K. 11, 243 Radice, B. 232
Olafson, F. 132 Rahlfs, A. 232
Oldfather, C.H. 232 Rambaut, W.H. 232
Oldfather, W.A. 232 Rankin, H.D. 29,244
Oppenheimer, A. 180 Ratschow, C.H. 13
Oster, R.E. 30,32, 33,244 Reif, S.C. 244
Otto, R. 112,143, 170 Reifferscheid, A. 232
Oulton, J.E.L. 231 Reimarus, H. 4
Owen, E.C.E. 244 Reiner, E. 244
O'Brien, P.T. 50, 162 Reiser, M. 43
O'Day, G.R. 88,243 Reith, G. 230
O'Neil, E. 28 Reitzenstein, R. 67,244
Remus, H. 153, 191, 195,204,206,244
Pancaro, S. 200 Rengstorf, K.H. 65
Pannenberg, W. 7, 133, 134 Rice, G.E. 57
Parker, S.T. 79,143 Richards, J. 1
Passmore, J. 132 Richards, K.H. 6,7,131,190,196,206,233,234,
Paulus, H. 4 236,244, 246
Peabody, D.B. 54,244 Richardson, A. 8, 142
Pelikan, J. 2 Riches, J. 7
Penella, R.J. 23 Ridderbos, H. 169
Perels, O. 244 Riesenfeld, H. 244
Perrin, N. 54, 107, 110, 128, 142, 168,239,244 Riga, P, 244
Pesch, R. 40,45,56,57,58,59,64,72,78,88,89, Rigaux, R.P.B. 44, 233,239
91,95,98, 114, 122, 128, 129,131, 135, 142, Rist, M. 244
173,244 Rivkin, E. 209
Peters, T. 134,244 Roberts, A. 232
Petersen, N.R. 74 Robinson, J.M. 3, 9, 35, 69, 142, 232
Peterson, E. 59,244 Robinson, W.C. 70
Petitpierre, R. 1,2 Rodd, C.S. 244
Petrie, S. 103 Rodkinson, M.L. 232
Petterson, O. 244 Rohde, E. 70,244
Petzke, G. 23,92,93, 97,244 Rohde, J. 115
Pimental, P. 60,244 Rolfe, J.C. 232
Plevnik, J. 57,233 Roloff, J. 244
Ploeg, J.P.M. van der 38,232 Rosen, G. 145
Plummer, A. 93, 105 Rose, H.J. 191
Pokorny, P. 244 Ross, J.M. 40, 244, 245-
Polag, A. 103, 119 Rüsch, E.G. 245
Polhill, J.B. 244 Russell, D.S. 50, 182, 188, 245
Polkow, D. 130, 131,244 Russell, E.A. 40, 245
Praeder, S. 244
Pratten, B.P. 230
Sabourin, L. 49
Preisendanz, K. 19,232,244
Sabugal, S. 118,245
Preisker, H. 85,200
Safrai, S. 14,178,245
Pritchard, J. 232
Sahlin, H. 73, 245
Procksch,O. 67
Samain, J. 201,202, 207, 245
Pryke, E.J. 54, 59, 78, 80, 83, 90, 128, 145, 147,
Sanday, W. 126
178,244
 Authors 271
Sanders, E.P. 7 , 2 7 , 2 8 , 3 8 , 1 0 4 , 1 8 2 , 1 8 9 , 1 9 1 , 2 1 8 , Simpson, R.T. 103
234,245 Skehan, P.W. 3 7 , 2 4 5
Sanders, J.A. 3 7 , 2 3 2 , 245 Slingerland, H.D. 185, 246
Santo, C. de 245 Smalley, S.S. 120, 162,242, 2 4 6 , 2 4 7
Sawyer, H. 59 Smalley, W.A. 37
Schaeder, H.H. 65 Smart, J.D. 246
Scheidweiler, F. 34 Smith, G. 246
Schelkle, K.H. 242 Smith, J.Z. 11,47, 181, 191,246
Schenk, W. von 91, 9 7 , 2 4 5 Smith, M. 1 0 , 1 4 , 3 7 , 4 9 , 1 3 7 , 1 9 1 , 1 9 2 , 1 9 3 , 1 9 4 ,
Schenke, L. 57, 245 195, 196, 197, 198, 201, 203, 204, 206, 207,
Schille, G. 8, 245 235, 2 3 9 , 2 4 6
Schillebeeckx, E. 11 Somerville, J.E. 246
Schindler, C.J. 245 Speyer, W. 24
Schlatter, A. 126,245 Spinka, M. 242
Schlosser, J. 4 0 , 4 2 , 245 Stählih, O. 232
Schmidt, C. 232 Stanley, D.M. 5 7 , 2 3 3
Schmidt, K.L. 58, 83, 128, 2 3 2 , 2 3 9 Stanton, G.N. 77, 120, 171, 196, 246
Schmithals, W. 245 Starky, J. 37
Schnackenburgh, R. 222 Starobinski, J. 72, 73, 246
Schnapp, F. 185 Starr, J. 246
Schottroff, L. 242 Stauffer, E. 109, 153, 164
Schramm, T, 104, 123, 138 Steck, O.H. 66
Schreckenberg, H. 16 Stein, R.H. 5 4 , 5 8 , 5 9 , 7 4 , 8 9 , 9 0 , 9 7 , 1 0 0 , 1 1 9 , 1 3 1 ,
Schreiber, J. 54, 106 132, 2 2 1 , 2 4 6
Schürer, E. 1 4 , 1 6 , 1 8 , 1 9 , 3 1 , 3 2 , 3 5 , 7 2 , 1 7 9 , 1 8 2 , Steinmueller, J.E. 100,246
188, 196,245 Stern, M. 14, 245
Schürmann, H. 5 7 , 7 2 , 9 1 , 9 4 , 1 1 5 , 1 1 9 , 1 2 0 , 1 2 2 , Stewart, J.S. 246
169 Stock, A. 57, 72, 88, 98, 114, 122, 246
Schubert, K. 210,235, 245 Stock,K. 79
Schüller, E.M. 232 Stone, M.E. 17, 35, 246
Schultz. H.J. 49, 247 Storch, W. 246
Schultz, W. 245 Strack,H.L. 6 1 , 6 3 , 6 5 , 6 6 , 1 0 9 , 1 2 4 , 1 2 6 , 1 5 8 , 1 6 2 ,
Schulz, S. 104, 115, 119, 124 182, 183, 184, 187, 192,232, 246
Schwab, M. 232 Strange, J.F. 14, 57
Schwarz, G. 9 0 , 2 4 5 Strange W.A. 3 0 , 3 1 , 2 4 6
Schweitzer, A. 2 , 4 , 5, 7, 8, 174, 216 Strauss, C. Levi- 72
Schweizer, E. 3 3 , 4 0 , 5 8 , 5 9 , 6 5 , 6 8 , 6 9 , 8 0 , 8 6 , 8 9 , Strauss, D.F. 4, 5, 8, 72, 142
91,100,106,107,128,129,149,150,164,168, Streeter, B.H. 126
169,245 Strugnell, J. 246
Scott, R. 6 0 , 6 9 , 83 Sturch, R.L. 246
Scott, S.P. 232 Sugirtharajah, R.S. 8 8 , 2 4 6
Scott, W. 169 Sukenik, E.L. 232
Seccombe, D.P. 120
Seebas, H. 67 Täger, F. 24
Seesemann, H. 62 Tagawa, K. 57, 246
Segal, A.F. 195, 197,245 Talbert, C.H. 4
Sellew, P. 9 8 , 2 4 5 Talmon, S. 3 7 , 2 4 6
Sellin, G. 126 Tatum, W.B. 7
Sevenster, J.N. 14,169 Taylor, B.E. 31
Shae, G.S. 245 Taylor, D.B. 65
Shanks, H. 57 Taylor, V. 4 1 , 5 8 , 6 1 , 7 2 , 7 4 , 7 9 , 8 0 , 8 6 , 8 8 , 8 9 , 9 0 ,
Shorey, P. 232 9 3 , 9 7 , 1 0 0 , 1 0 6 , 111, 1 2 0 , 1 2 5 , 1 2 8 , 1 4 1 , 1 4 9 ,
Sider, R.J. 136,245 153, 168, 176, 246
Simon, M. 230 Tcherikover, V. 14,246
Simonis, W. 245 Telford, W. 213
272 Indexes

Thackeray, H. St. J. 16, 80, 105, 232 Wansbrough, H. 177,247

Theissen, G. 8,28,30,47,59,73,75,85,88,90 94, Weatherhead, L. 73, 84
102,143,144,176,211,213,214,219,246,247 Weber, J.C. 104,247
Thelwall, S. 232 Weder, H. 247
Thraede, K. 22 Wee, B.C. 88, 247
Tiede.D.L. 51,215,247 Weinreich, O. 159,247
Tilborg, S. van 104 Weiss, B. 69
Tödt, H.E. 66,94 Weiss, J. 43
Torczyner, H. 247 Weiss, W. 59,247
Trebilco, R.R. 82 Wellhausen, J. 42, 66
Trevijano, R. 62,247 Wendland, H.-D. 44,233
Trites, A.A. 162, 163 Wengst, K. 85
Trocmé, E. 247 Wenham, D. 11, 18, 50, 57, 131, 132, 135, 136,
Troeltsch, E. 132, 133 138, 140, 143, 147, 153, 154, 155, 166, 170,
Trotter, F.T. 234,238 177,180,192,196,213,219,236,246,247,248
Tuckett, C.M. 28,69, 70,247 Whigham, P. 29
Turner, C.H. 54, 88,247 White, A.N. Sherwin- 194, 195,204,233
Turner, H.E.W. 94, 130 White, L.J. 6
Turner, M.M.B. 112 White, L.M. 98,247
Turner, N. 63,67, 89, 101, 109 Whittaker, G.H. 230
Twelftree, G.H. 1,8,11,12,14,30,38,39,43,50, Wilcox, M. 72,233
52,56,60,62,65,66,82,86,92,110,114,115, Wild, R.A. 50
122, 125, 131, 135, 136, 138, 140, 141, 143, Wilhems, E. 248
147, 148, 153, 154, 155, 161, 180, 192, 196, Wilkinson, J. 56, 248
213,215,219, 220,222,237,247 Williamson, R. 16
Willoughby, H.R. 242
Ullendorff, E. 223, 231 Wilson, G.H. 37
Wilson, W. 233
Vaganay, L. 247 Wink, W. 11,50, 119,207, 248
Vassiliadis, P. 54 Winter, P. 85, 196,207
Vaux, R. de 229,232 Wire, A.C. 248
Venkowski, J. 247 Wissowa, G. 232
Vermaseren, M.J. 195, 197, 245 Woodhouse, W.J. 32
Vermes, G. 9. 15, 16, 17,43,131,142, 146,149, Woude, A.S. van der 231
150, 152, 161, 170, 178, 179, 180, 181, 209, Wrede, W. 62, 69, 70, 78, 79, 89, 90, 248
210,211,232,247 Wright, R.B. 183
Verseput, D.J. 183 Wünsch, R. 70, 139,248
Vögtle, A. 247
Vöörbus, A. 195,235,239 Yadin, Y. 229
Vollenweider, S. 127,247 Yamauchi, E.M. 8, 11. 18, 32, 39, 50, 248
Volkmar, P. 69 Yates, J.E. 248
Volz, P. 182,247 Yates, R. 117, 170,248
Young, R. 136
Walker, A. 232
Walker, >y.O. 55,247 Zeitlin, I.M. 182
Wall, R.W. 108, 247 Zerwick, M. 248
Wallis, R.E. 233
 Index of Names and Subjects

Abraham35,43-44,46,47,51,157,158,160,210, — of Scotland 13
214,215, 226 Coherence, criterion of 121, 130, 135
Abrasax 39 Correlation, principle of 132
Abyss 73 Cross 142
Acts of the Apostles 30-34 Cynics 28-31,47, 52, 59, 210,211,214, 226
Acts of Pilate 34
'Adjure' 32-34,36,39,82,96,139,142,149,161, Dating material 15-17
163-164,227 Daniel 35
Agrath 23,151 David 35,37-38,44, 63, 157, 183,189
Amulet(s) 35, 36,39,44, 51, 95,96, 157 Dead Sea Scrolls 15,16,17,21,37,38,43-47,49,
Analogy, principle of 132, 133, 134 52,68, 82, 105, 108, 151, 152, 160, 183, 187,
Anaxagorus 24 189,209,226
Antithsenes 28 Demoniac(s) 60, 71, 76, 143-145
Angels 18,35,39, 50,62,95,115,116,126,187, Demoniac in synagogue 57-71,76,138,144,146,
188.221.223 147
Apocrypha Demonic 60
— New Testament 19-21 Dcmonology 11, 18, 73
Apollonius of Tyana 16,21,23-27,46,47,48,52, Demon-possession 3,11,13,14,17,18,25,26,36,
70,74,96, 146, 148,156, 158, 159, 160,227 60,75,84,85,93,96,101,104,105,109,111,
Artemis 32 112, 128, 143, 144, 148, 149, 152, 156, 176,
Azazel 154, 187, 188,223 177, 178, 181,198, 199,201,207
Demon(s) 11,17,19,23,26,37,38,40,41,46,51,
Baalshamaim 106 69
Baalzebub 105 — adjure/binding 33,34,39,51,68,69,70,80,83,
Babylonian material 33,44, 50,75,95, 157, 158, 84,95,96,112,128,163-164,227
160,226 — confrontation with exorcist 20, 23, 25, 34, 36,
Baptist, John the 29, 55, 118-121,167, 170, 200, 39, 61, 71, 76, 80, 81, 92, 144, 146-148, 156,
210.219.224 173
Beelzebul 40,61,98-113, 149, 181,198, 199, — consternation of 60, 61, 81, 92,148, 173,220
— Charge 61, 62, 104-106, 138, 149, 161, 176, — defeat/control 23,25,34,35,36,37,38,43,44,
178, 181, 198, 199,200,208 48,50,51,52,59,86,141,162,184,207,208,
— Controversy 16, 98-113, 115, 116, 126, 135, 220,221,228
137, 138, 146, 148, 177, 178, 182, 196, 217, — existence 8,49-50
219,220,226 — foreign gods 105
Belial 38,45, 184 — habitat 26, 76, 86, 93
Beliar 185, 186, 187 — homeless 95
Beth She'arim 14 — messianic confession 61,62,68,149,151,152
Blindness 84, 101,102,119, 120, 154, 158 — multiform 85,86
Bowls, incantation 85,139,144 — name in incantations 95
— nature/work 13,18,25,26,35,69,85,92, 101,
Charismatic figures 22-40,46,52,178,179,181, 102,144,198
209-213,226 — plead leniency 75,86, 154-155, 156
Church — protection from 39
— of England 1 — rebuking 45,46,69,95-96, 138
274 Indexes

— return of 25, 26, 95,96 — mendicant priests 47

— self-defence 34,51,63,64,68,82,83,152,154 — wandering 23,26, 27-34, 59,213,226, 228
— spell on Jesus 82, 152
— transferred 51,74, 75, 86,155,157 Fear and amazement 57, 58, 59, 71, 78, 80, 102,
—violence of26,34,70,71,96,97,144,146,155- 103, 147, 176-177, 181,220
156,226 Finger of God 98, 108, 110, 127, 165, 167, 170,
— vocalizing distress 27, 226 217, 222, 228
— voices of 1, 26, 70, 81, 84, 85,128, 154 Fish 39
— wordiof36,51,62,63,65-68,81,82,83,148- Funerary inscriptions 14
152,226
worshipping Jesus 61,81, 147 Gadarene demoniac 72-87, 144, 146, 156, 200,
see also Spirit(s) 208
Demythologizing 6 Galilee/Galilean 14,15,17,22,28,29,31,58,65,
Disciples 4, 42, 92, 94, 106, 107, 113, 125, 130, 85, 150, 166, 168, 179, 180,211,214,215
135, 141, 144,211,217, 228 Gamaliel 145, 146
— of the Baptist 119, 120, 121,224 Gentile Mission 88, 90, 130
— as exorcists 97, 122-127, 166, 167,221, 228
— failures as exorcists 92,93, 94,96,97 Hand 25, 35,44, 50, 96, 108, 138, 158, 168, 188,
— mission of 55, 80, 122-127, 167, 221 223
— of rabbis 40, 179 Hands, laying on of44,46,52,157,158,159,173
Divination 30 Hasidim 151, J 78, 209-212
Diviner 18 Hermes 51,66
Dosa, Hanina ben 22, 23, 36, 46, 145, 150, 151, Historical method 2, 8, 14, 53, 130-135, 206
160, 181,209,210 Historicity 2,53,58,61,72,76,83,84,88,90,98,
Doubt, methodological 132 103, 106, 108, 110, 118, 121, 130, 131, 132,
134, 135, 137, 138, 145, 146, 148, 149, 161,
Echeles 29 164, 176, 177
Egyptian material 50, 157, 159, 160, 226 'History' of power-authority 51
Eleazar 36,39,47,50,74,96,139,155,157,210, Holy individuals 34,47,51,67-68,148,149,150,
214,226 217
Empedocles 49 Honi 49, 150, 160,209,210
Enoch 154 Holy Spirit 106,108,110,120,127,137,138,167,
Ephesian Grammata 32 173,217,218,219
Ephesus 30,31, 32, 198 — eschatological 217, 218, 228
Epileptic Boy 91-97, 138, 144, 145 — as power authority 98,109,161,164,165,173,
Eschatological events 49,102-103,119,121,168 217,219,228
Eschatology 110, 121, 168, 173, 184, 188, 209 Hyrcanus, Eliezer ben 49, 170
— and defeat of demons 83, 86
— exorcism 46,103,108,127,173,217-224,227, I, emphatic 61,95, 108, 109, 164
228 Incantation(s) 26,27,32,33,34,35,36,38,44,51,
— and miracles 121,219 52,67,69,70,82,85,95,96,139,140,153,156,
Essenes 15, 158 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 172, 173, 177,
Exorcism 195,205,206,217,226
— by blowing 27-28 Incidental transmission, criterion of 103,134,135,
— definition 13 144
— from a distance 26,76,90,141,145-146,156, Insanity 5,60, 77, 104, 176, 177,200
173, 226 Ipsissimus sensus 131
— of places 13 Ipsissima verba 131
— proof of 20,25, 26, 74-76, 155, 164, 173
— techniques 13, 26, 27 Jacob 35
Exorcist(s) 22-47 Jerome 105
— Babylonian 33,44, 50, 75, 95, 158, 160, 226 Jesus
— Gentile 31 — authority of58,59,71,109,120,159, 173,227
—Jewish 16,18,36,39,40,47,106,107,109,139, — baptism of 116, 117, 135, 185
157, 161, 162, 163, 178,217, 226 — a charismatic 209-212,214,215,227
 Names and Subjects 275
— demon-possessed 198-201 Meir, Rabbi 150
— earthly 2 Meleager of Gadara 29
— eschatological charismatic 215 Menedemus 29-30
— eschatological prophet 189 Menippus of Gadara 29
— fanatic 177 Mental illness 143
— Galilean 179-180 Messianic age 66,82,101,103,109,119,121,179,
— ahasid 9, 178,209-212 182-189,219,220,227
— historical 2, 6, 10, 11, 17 Messianic expectations 182-189,219-220,227
— Holy One of God 67,68, 148, 149 Messianic prophets 136, 179, 180, 202
— mad 104, 176-178, 199 Miracle(s) 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10,49, 84, 120, 136, 172,
— magician 10,105,176,190-207,213,214,227 173, 178
— Messiah 48, 62, 79, 81, 120, 121, 152, 176, — of the Baptist 208
182-189, 213,214, 215, 218,227 — counterfeit 5, 137, 159, 200,202,204, 205
— name 32,33,34,40,41,42,43,56,62,64,65, — and eschatology 120, 169, 189,219,224
66,97,139,140,141,148,161,217,224,225, — and exorcism 7, 8
226.227 — Greek stories 10, 24,27,49, 51
— ofNazareth 3,64-66,67,68,140,148,149,214 — ofJesus 6,7,9,78,120,136,159,169,179,195,
— necromancer 208,212,213, 227 197, 198,202,203, 205,211,219,224,225
— peripatetic 213,214, 228 — in John's Gospel 141-142
— prophet 179, 189,209 — in Judaism 10,22,49,137,172,179,181,210,
— quest(s) for 4, 6, 7 220
— a 'Samaritan' 198-201 — and magic 27, 159, 190, 195, 197, 200, 202,
— self understanding 55, 118, 171,216-224 203,205,206,207
— teacher 6 — and message of Jesus 4, 119, 120, 141, 166—
— techniques as exorcist 69-70, 143-165, 178, 171,207,210,211
217 — problem of 4, 5, 6, 8, 25,27, 131, 136-137
— violent exorcisms 70,71,96,97,155,156,226 — significance of 5, 27, 59, 119, 120, 141, 163,
John, Gospel of 100, 141-142, 189, 199-201,222 169, 170, 171
Jonah 35 — as signs 4,9,56,116,140,141,169, 170, 171,
179, 189,202,224
Kingdom — stories of Jesus 3,4,8,9, 10,91,92, 102, 103,
— of God 106-110,119,120,121,124,125,142, 131, 137, 166, 168, 172, 173, 176
166-171, 173, 188, 189, 211, 217-219, 224, — workers 24, 25,27,49, 51, 52, 137, 159, 196,
227.228 226
Moses 35, 51
— of Satan 106, 125, 168, 170,227,228
Most High God 17,43, 82, 186
— Jesus son of 149
L 126 39, 76-77, 85-86
Legion Multiple attestation 130, 132
Music 37, 139, 157
Madness, see Insanity Myth 5, 6, 133
Magic 17,25,27, 35,41, 70, 153-154
— definition 10, 153-154, 190-191 Nakdimon 160
— Hellenistic 9 Name, use of30,32-36,38,39,40-43,52,56,61,
Magician(s) 44, 51, 92, 159, 190, 193, 194, 197, 66, 67, 81-84,92, 95, 97, 139, 140, 148, 152,
201-204,206-207 153, 154, 159-162, 164, 178, 192, 217, 224,
Magic and miracle 190-1 225,226,227
Magical Papyri 16,21, 32, 33, 38-39,47, 50, 51, Narrative and historicity 131-132
52, 69, 82, 96, 112, 139, 141, 157, 158, 160, Necromancy 29,208,212,213
210,214,226 Noah 51, 215
Mark 2
— priority of 53 Oenomaus of Gadara 30
Mastema 154 Ornias 18, 35
Mechanical aids 20, 46, 157-159, 164, 173, 177,
205,227 Palestinian Judaism 14
Megara 139 Panthera, Jesus ben 192
276 Indexes

Parable(s) 106, 171 — cross and defeat 142,222

— of the Net 222 — defeat of45,50,55,98,106,108,111,112,113,
— of the returning spirits 13 114, 115, 117, 125, 126, 127, 142, 168, 170,
— of the Sheep and the Goats 222 186, 187, 188, 189,219-224 227,228
— of the Strong Man 13,98, 111-113, 117, 135, — falling 126, 127
138, 167, 170,219,227,228 — two stage defeat 223-224,228
— of the Wheat and the Tares 220,221,222-224 Scepticism 2
Peregrinus of Mysia 29,30, 190 Sceva 31,32
Pharisees 15,40,49,104,106,107,116,117,140, — sons of 16,30,31,32,42,47,66,139,210,226
178,200,211 Scribes 29, 58, 104, 180,200,210
Pigs 71, 72-77, 85, 86, 154, 155, 156, 157, 164, Semyaza 223
172, 177,226 Seventy (Two) disciples 126
Power-authority — Mission of 123, 125
— for exorcism 20,22,23,34-35,38-40,42-44, — Return of 115, 125, 140
51,68,106-109,152,159,160,161,163,164, Simeon ben Yose 23,46,48, 158, 160, 178,227
165, 173, 178,200, 217,225,227,228 Socrates 28
— demonic 200,208 Solomon 18-20, 35-36, 38, 39, 51, 52, 82, 139,
— God 106,165 160, 183
Prayer 13, 150, 162-163, 166,211,222 Son of David 18,35, 66, 102,182,183,184,220,
— in exorcism 13,17,20,44,51,52,97,159,160, 227
162-164,211,227 Son of God 9,66, 81,82, 141, 147,149, 150-152
Principalities and powers 49 Sounds in incantations 39,51
Proof of exorcism 20,25,26,74,75,155,164,173 Spells 27,69, 70,75, 160,163, 193, 195
Prophet(s) 64,67,145, 171,209,214 Spirit(s) 17,18,22,28,35,37, 38,44,45,49,50,
— Christian 29-30, 139, 167-168 55,66,67,73,75, 140, 186,187
— the Baptist 210 — of the dead 75
— false 139, 179, 190, 192,202 — deaf and dumb 95, 157, 162
— messianic 109, 136 — demonic 83
Psalms 37-38,187 — of divination 30
Pythagoras 23,49 — the divine 37
— dumb 92,. 103, 138
— of error 186
Q 54,55,65,66,98,101,102,103,104,106,107, — eschatological 217, 218, 228
108, 109, 110, 111, 115, 116, 119, 120, 123, — evil 1,8, 13, 18, 34, 36,37,38,43,44, 45,46,
124, 126,138, 170, 178,219 49, 75, 95, 97, 119, 120, 136, 138, 140, 152,
Quadratus 195,197,204,206,207 154,157,160,162,182,183,184,186,198,199
Qumran Community and Scrolls, see Dead Sea — of holiness 185
Scrolls — of infirmity 55, 56, 138
— of Judas Iscariot 1
— kindly 95
Rab 150 —unclean 60,83,89,118,124,144,162,168,176,
Rabbis 46,52,59,70,109,137,139,140,151,158, 198,199
159, 161, 181, 183, 188, 209, 210, 211, 212, — of understanding and sanctification 186
213,227 — wicked 185
Rabbinic literature 10, 16, 21, 22-23,43, 47,49, see also (Demons)
50,63,150,151,157,160,169,178,179,184, Spirit/finger saying 98, 108-110, 127, 165, 167,
200,209,210,226 170,217,222,228
Rebuking evil 45,46,68,69, 95,115, 138 Spittle 141, 158
Ring (finger) 35, 36, 39, 157 Stada, ben 192
Roots 36,43, 157 Strange Exorcist 16,40-43,47, 52,97, 107, 109,
125,139,210,218,224, 226
Sarah 43,44,46 Supernatural, the 20
Satan 38,44,45,55,105,106,109,115,116,117, Synoptic(s)
151, 178, 181, 184, 185, 186, 188, 198, 199, — healing stories 3
207,214,223,227 — traditions 8
 Names and Subjects 277

Synoptic Problem 5 3 - 5 4 Vowels in incantations 39

Syrophoenician woman and daughter 8 8 - 9 0 , 1 3 8 ,
144, 145, 146, 156
Water 26, 2 8 , 4 3 , 50, 51, 63, 75, 76, 86, 93, 141,
146, 155, 157, 186
Taxo 188
Temalion, ben 2 3 , 4 8 , 158
Temptations, the 5 5 , 1 1 1 , 1 1 2 , 1 1 4 - 1 1 7 , 1 2 6 , 1 9 1
Zakkai, Johanan ben 4 3 , 4 9
Transfcring demons 5 1 , 7 5 , 7 6 , 8 6 , 1 5 4 , 1 5 5 , 1 5 7 ,
Zeno Papyri 14
226
 Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament
of the first and the second series
Alphabetical index

Appold, MarkL.: The Oneness Motif in the Fourth Gospel. 1976. Volume IIH.
Bachmann, Michael: Sünder oder Übertreter. 1991. Volume 59.
Bammel, Ernst: Judaica. 1986. Volume37.
Bauernfeind, Otto: Kommentar und Studien zur Apostelgeschichte. 1980. Volume22.
Bayer, Hans Friedrich: Jesus' Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection. 1986. Volume 11/20.
Betz, Otto: Jesus, der Messias Israels. 1987. Volume42.
- Jesus, der Herr der Kirche. 1990. Volume52.
Beyschlag, Karlmann: Simon Magnus und die christliche Gnosis. 1974. Volume 16.
Bittner, WolfgangJ.: Jesu Zeichen im Johannesevangelium. 1987. Volume 11/26.
Bjerkelund, Carl / . . T a u t a E g e n e t o . 1987. Volume 40.
Blackburn, Barry Lee: 'Theios Aner' and the Markan Miracle Traditions. 1991. Volume 11/40.
Bockmuehl, Markus N. A.: Revelation and Mystery in Ancient Judaism and Pauline Christianity.
1990. Volume 11/36.
Böhlig, Alexander: Gnosis und Synkretismus. Part 1.1989. Volume 47-Part 2.1989. Volume 48.
Böttrich, Christfried: Weltweisheit-Menschheitsethik-Urkult. 1992. Volume 11/50.
Büchli, Jörg: Der P o i m a n d r e s - ein paganisiertes Evangelium. 1987. Volume 11/27.
Bühner, Jan A.: Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium. 1977. Volume U/2.
Burchard, Christoph: Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth. 1965. Volume 8.
Cancik, Hubert(Ed.): Markus-Philologie. 1984. Volume33.
Capes, DavidB.: Old Testament Yaweh Texts in Paul's Christology. 1992. Volume 11/47.
Caragounis, Chrys C.: The Son of Man. 1986. Volume38.
Crump, David: Jesus the Intercessor. 1992. Volume II/49.
Deines, Roland: Jüdische Steingefäße und pharisäische Frömmigkeit. 1993. VolumeII/52.
Dobbeler, Axel von: Glaube als Teilhabe. 1987. Volume 11/22.
Dunn, James D. G. (Ed.): Jews and Christians. 1992. Volume 66.
Ebertz, MichaelN.: Das Charisma des Gekreuzigten. 1987. Volume 45.
Eckstein, Hans-Joachim: Der Begriff der Syneidesis bei Paulus. 1983. VolumeII/10.
Ego, Beate: Im Himmel wie a u f E r d e n . 1989. Volume II/34.
Ellis, E. Earle: Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity. 1978. Volume 18.
- The Old Testament in Early Christianity. 1991. Volume54.
Feldmeier, Reinhard: Die Krisis des Gottessohnes. 1987. Volume 11/21.
- Die Christen als Fremde. 1992. Volume64.
Fossum, / a r / E . : The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord. 1985. Volume36.
Garlington, Don B.: The Obedience of Faith. 1991. Volume 11/38.
Garnet, Paul: Salvation and Atonement in the Qumran Scrolls. 1977. Volume II/3.
Grösser, Erich: Der Alte Bund imNeuen. 1985. Volume35.
Green, JoelB.: The Death of Jesus. 1988. Volume II/33.
Gundry Volf, Judith M.: Paul and Perseverance. 1990. Volume 11/37.
Hafemann, ScottJ.: Suffering and the Spirit. 1986. VolumeII/19.
Heckel, Theo K.: Der Innere Mensch. 1993. VolumeII/53.
Heckel, Ulrich: Kraft in Schwachheit. 1993. VolumeII/56.
- see Hengel.
Heiligenthal, Roman: Werke als Zeichen. 1983. Volume 11/9.
Hemer, C o / m T h e Book of Acts in the Setting ofHellenistic History. 1989. Volume49.
Hengel, Martin: Judentum und Hellenismus. 1969, 3 1988. Volume 10.
- DiejohanneischeFrage. 1993. Volume67.
Hengel, Martin and Ulrich Heckel (Ed.): Paulus und das antike Judentum. 1991. Volume 58.
Hengel, Martin and Anna Maria Schwemer (Ed.): Königsherrschaft Gottes und himmlischer Kult.
1991. Volume 55.
Herrenbrück, Fritz: Jesus und die Zöllner. 1990. Volume 11/41.
Hofius, Otfried: Katapausis. 1970. Volume 11.
- D e r Vorhang vor dem Thron Gottes. 1972. Volume 14.
- D e r Christushymnus Philipper 2,6 —11.1976, 2 1991. Volumel7.
280 Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

- Paulusstudien. 1989. Volume51.

Holtz, Traugott: Geschichte und Theologie des Urchristentums. Ed. by Eckart Reinmuth
and Christian Wolff. 1991. Volume 57.
Hommel, Hildebrecht: Sebasmata. Volume 1.1983. Volume 31. - Volume 2.1984. Volume32.
Kamiah, Ehrhard: Die Form der katalogischen Paränese im Neuen Testament. 1964. Volume 7.
Kim, Seyoon: The Origin of Paul's Gospel. 1981, 2 1984. Volume II/4.
- » T h e > S o n o f M a n < « a s t h e S o n o f G o d . 1983. Volume30.
Kleinknecht, Karl Th.: Der leidende Gerechtfertigte. 1984, 2 1988. Volume H/13.
Klinghardt, Matthias: Gesetz und Volk Gottes. 1988. Volume H/32.
Köhler, Wolf-Dietrich: Rezeption des Matthäusevangeliums in der Zeit vor Irenaus. 1987.
Volume II/24.
Korn, Manfred: Die Geschichte Jesu in veränderter Zeit. 1993. Volume H/51.
Kuhn, KarlG.: Achtzehngebet und Vaterunser und der Reim. 1950. Volumel.
Lampe, Peter: Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten. 1987, 2 1989.
Volume II/18.
Lieu, SamuelN. C. .Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China. 1992. Volume63.
Maier, Gerhard: Mensch und freier Wille. 1971. Volume 12.
- Die Johannesoffenbarung und die Kirche. 1981. Volume25.
Markschies, Christoph: Valentinus Gnosticus? 1992. Volume 65.
Marshall, Peter: Enmity in Corinth: Social Conventions in Paul's Relations with the Corinthians.
1987. Volume 11/23.
Meade, David G.: Pseudonymity and Canon. 1986. Volume39.
Mengel, Berthold: Studien zum Philipperbrief. 1982. Volume 11/8.
Merkel, Helmut: Die Widersprüche zwischen den Evangelien. 1971. Volume 13.
Merklein, Helmut: Studien zu Jesus und Paulus. 1987. Volume 43.
Metzler, Karin: Der griechische Begriff des Verzeihens. 1991. Volume II/44.
Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm: Gesetz und Paränese. 1987. Volume H/28.
- Heidenapostel aus Israel. 1992. Volume 63.
Nissen, Andreas: Gott und der Nächste im antiken Judentum. 1974. Volume 15.
Okure, Teresa: The Johannine Approach to Mission. 1988. Volume 11/31.
Philonenko, Marc(Ed.): L e T r ö n e d e D i e u . 1993. Volume69.
Pilhofer, Peter: PresbyteronKreitton. 1990. Volume H/39.
Pöhlmann, Wolfgang: Der Verlorene Sohn und das Haus. 1993. Volume 68.
Probst, Hermann: Paulus und der Brief. 1991. Volume 11/45.
Räisänen, Heikki: Paul and the Law. 1983, 2 1987. Volume29.
Rehkopf, Fnedncft.'Dielukanische Sonderquelle. 1959. Volume 5.
Reinmuth, Eckhardt: see Holtz.
Reiser, Marius: Syntax und Stil des Markusevangeliums. 1984. Volume IUI 1.
Richards, E. Randolph: The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. 1991. VolumeII/42.
Riesner, Rainer: Jesus als Lehrer. 1981, 3 1988. Volume II/7.
Rissi, Mathias: Die Theologie des Hebräerbriefs. 1987. Volume 41.
Röhser, Günter: Metaphorik und Personifikation der Sünde. 1987. Volume 11/25.
Rüger, Hans Peter: Die Weisheitsschrift aus der Kairoer Geniza. 1991. Volume 53.
Sänger, Dieter: Antikes Judentum und die Mysterien. 1980. Volume U/5.
Sandnes, KarlOlav: Paul - O n e of the Prophets? 1991. Volume 11/43.
Sato, Migaku:QundProphetie. 1988. VolumeII/29.
Schimanowski, Gottfried: Weisheit und Messias. 1985. Volume 11/17.
Schlichting, Günter: Ein jüdisches Leben Jesu. 1982. Volume 24.
Schnabel, Eckhard}.: Law and Wisdom from Ben Sira to Paul. 1985. Volume 11/16.
Schutter, William L.: Hermeneutic and Composition in I Peter. 1989. Volume 11/30.
Schwartz, Daniel R.: Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. 1992. VolumeöO.
Schwemer, A.M.: see Hengel.
Scott, James M.: Adoption as Sons of God. 1992. Volume I¡148.
Siegert, Folker: Drei hellenistisch-jüdische Predigten. Part 1.1980. Volume20. - P a r t 2.1992.
Volume 61.
- Nag-Hammadi-Register. 1982. Volume26.
- Argumentation bei Paulus. 1985. Volume34.
- Philon von Alexandrien. 1988. Volume 46.
 Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

Simon, Marcel: Le christianisme antique et son contexte religieux I/II. 19X1. Volume23.
Snodgrass, Klyne: The Parable of the Wicked Tenants. 1983. Volume 27.
Spangenberg, Volker: Herrlichkeit des Neuen Bundes. 1993. Volume ¡1155.
Speyer, Wolfgang: Frühes Christentum im antiken Strahlungsfeld. 1989. Volume 50.
Stadelmann, Helge: Ben Siraals Schriftgelehrter. 1980. Volume II/6.
Strobel, August: Die Studie der Wahrheit. 1980. VolumeH.
Stuhlmacher, Peter (Ed.): Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. 1983. Volume28.
Tajra, Harry W.TheTrialofSt. Paul. 1989. Volume 11/35.
Theissen, Gerd: Studien zur Soziologie des Urchristentums. 1979,31989. Volume 19.
Thornton, Claus-Jürgen: Der Zeuge des Zeugen. 1991. Volume56.
Twelftree, Graham: Jesus the Exorcist. 1993. Volume 11/54.
Wedderburn, A.J.M.: Baptism and Resurrection. 1987. Volume 44.
Wegner, Uwe: Der Hauptmann von Kafarnaum. 1985. VolumeIl/14.
Wilson, Walter T.: Love without Pretense. 1991. Volume 11/46.
Wolff, Christian: see Holtz.
Zimmermann, Alfred E.: Die urchristlichen Lehrer. 1984,21988. Volume 11/12.

Fora complete catalogue please write to

J. C. B. Möhr (PaulSiebeck), P. O. Box2040, D-72010 Tübingen