Was Jesus an Exorcist?

The synoptic evangelists agree that the public career of Jesus could best be summed up in the following way:

His mission was primarily that of a prophet (Mark 1:15), teacher (Luke 4:15), and healer (Luke 4:40, 13:32), or exorcist (Luke 4:41, 6:17-19); his message was the announcement of the impending arrival of the reign or kingdom of God (Luke 4:43).¹

I would have said healer and exorcist based on the Q saying (Matthew 12:28=Luke11:20) attributed to Jesus.  In other words his exorcisms, casting demons out of people unfortunate enough to have been possessed by them, and his healings of diseases and infirmities are two sides of the same activity, for in the view of the synoptic evangelists illness is also caused by demons (Mark 9:14-29/Matthew 17:14-21/Luke 9:37-43a). Hence exorcizing demons, healing the sick, and proclaiming the kingdom are all aspects of the emerging reign of God, which brings the end of the age. Therefore Jesus is generally described as an apocalyptic prophet who announces the blessings of the soon-to-arrive kingdom, of which his exorcisms and healings are a foretaste in the present.  Such is the default understanding of Jesus on the part of the authors of the synoptic evangelistic tracts, a view that is shared by the confessing church and by many (if not most) in the contemporary academic community (but not by the Gospel of John).²

 

            "A belief in the existence and activity of demons is not limited to the New Testament. Some conception of evil spirits or demons was held almost universally by the religions of the ancient world."³  But not all people in antiquity shared this view of possession by evil spirits and the therapeutic activity of exorcising them.  For example, the satirist Lucian of Samosata (2nd century AD) ridicules the gullibility of people who were willing to believe all sorts of things about a supernatural world, and uses exorcism of evil spirits as an example of their gullibility.⁴  Hippocrates of Cos (5th century BC), the most famous physician of antiquity, regarded possession (what he calls the "sacred disease") as due to natural causes, and the idea that it is due to divine action was the result of superstition, gullibility, and quackery. The real source of this serious disease is to be found in the brain, and it can be cured without recourse to purifications or magic.⁵  Among the things that Marcus Aurelius (Roman Emperor, 2nd century AD) claimed he learned was to be incredulous about sorcerers and imposters regarding the driving out of spirits. ⁶

 

            Doubt is cast on the historical value of this general picture of Jesus emerging from the synoptic gospels by a number of the sayings of Jesus that the evangelists preserve, and in particular on the therapeutic value of exorcism.  For example, the narrative parables, in the main, contain no trace of the apocalyptic features the synoptic evangelists associate with the career of Jesus. Nevertheless one of his stories does describe demon possession, but it in fact casts doubt on the general efficacy of exorcism.  The story is found in the earliest gospel Q (Luke 11:24-26=Matt 12:43-45), which Matthew and Luke repeat with minor differences—in short, the story is virtually verbatim.  Oddly the Jesus Seminar printed Matthew's version in grey (meaning the ideas in this version are close to Jesus' own) and Luke's version was printed in pink (meaning Jesus probably said something like this), even though the differences are only stylistic and few in number.⁷  Here is the story in Luke's version:

 

When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through waterless places seeking rest; and finding none he says, 'I will return to my house from which I came.' And when he comes he finds it swept and put in order. Then he goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter and dwell there.

 

            Luke's concluding statement (11:26, "and the last state of that man becomes worst than the first") is the Q interpretation of the story and is repeated by Matthew (12:45); Matthew (12:45) adds another interpretation: "So shall it be also with this evil generation." While the story reflects the widespread superstition in antiquity that demons possess people, it regards the practice of exorcism as futile.  In that sense it challenges the traditional image of Jesus as an exorcist.  You will recall that there are no accounts of demon possession or exorcisms in the Gospel of John.  This short story seems to link Jesus to the attitudes expressed by Lucian, Hippocrates, and Marcus Aurelius.

 

            Why would Jesus cast doubt on the therapeutic value of his own exorcisms, do you suppose? Or was this story not told by Jesus? Have the synoptic evangelists simply capitalized on a tendency in the Jesus tradition to see Jesus as an exorcist and developed it further?  After all, they had no personal knowledge of Jesus.

 

How does it seem to you?

 

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University

 

¹F. C. Grant, "Jesus Christ" IDB, vol. 2:882.

²See C. W. Hedrick, The Wisdom of Jesus, 164-179 for a summary of academic views of Jesus at the end of the twentieth century.

³D. G. Reese, "Demons," ABD, vol. 2:140.

⁴Lucian, Lover of Lies, 16, and 31-32.

⁵Hippocrates, The Sacred Disease, I, 1-4; II, 1-46; V, 1-21; VI, 1-2; XXI, 22-26.

⁶Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, I.6.

⁷Funk and Hoover, Five Gospels, 189, 330-31.

The Null Hypothesis, Epilepsy, and Evil Spirits

"A null hypothesis is a type of hypothesis used in statistics that proposes that no statistical difference exists in a set of given observations. The null hypothesis attempts to show no variation exists between variables, or that a single variable is no different than zero. It is presumed to be true until statistical evidence nullifies it for an alternative." http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/null_hypothesis.asp

 

               As I understand it: the null hypothesis is the point where discussion bogged down in responses to my last blog (June 25, 2016): Gene suggested that we might be mired in a null hypothesis—that is to say, it is just as plausible to believe in spirits as not to believe in them. He asked Jim to suggest a scientific study showing that not believing in spirits is a more reasonable position than accepting that there were such entities as spirits. In this brief essay I will try to move us forward by attempting to show that it is more plausible to attribute the effects of illness, disease, and mental abnormalities to natural causes than to possession by unseen spirits.

 

               In the common tradition shared by Matthew, Mark, and Luke the three evangelists report the same story, each in his own way. The current generally-accepted theory of their relationship is that Mark wrote first, and then Mark's narrative was used as a source independently by Mathew and Luke. Mark (9:14-29) recounts that a boy, possessed by a mute spirit (9:17, i.e., a spirit causing muteness), was brought to the disciples who could not "cast it out" (9:18). The description of the spirit's effect on the boy is frightening (9:20-22). Jesus casts the spirit out, adding that it was also a spirit causing deafness (9:25-26). Luke's narrative (9:37-43a) is shorter and attributes the boy's ailment simply to "a spirit" (9:38), which later turns out to be "an unclean spirit" (9:42), which Jesus "rebukes and heals the boy" (9:42).

 

               Matthew's narrative (17:14-21) is also shorter than Mark and adds that the boy is an epileptic (17:15) and, more to the point, describes his epilepsy as caused by a demon (17:18), which Jesus rebukes and cures the boy. The word translated epilepsy is literally translated "moon struck," for "in the ancient world epileptic seizure was associated with the transcendent powers of the moon."* Matthew gives the disease its "proper" medical term for antiquity, but regards epilepsy as a disease caused by demon possession.

 

               Today the medical profession (and most of the Western world) does not regard epilepsy as caused by demon possession. In the 21st century epilepsy is thought to be "caused by abnormal activity in brain cells": The Mayo Clinic http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/epilepsy/symptoms-causes/dxc-20117207

 

               Medical practitioners have shown that it is more effective to treat epilepsy with medication than it is to subject a patient to an exorcism: http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/epilepsy/diagnosis-treatment/treatment/txc-20117241

 

               The history of the diagnosis and treatment of epilepsy, which brings the rational world to a medical explanation for epilepsy, is anything but reassuring.  The stigma attached to epilepsy lasted well into the 1990s and its treatment has not always been competent: A brief history of epilepsy: http://nawrot.psych.ndsu.nodak.edu/courses/465Projects05/epilepsy/History.htm

 

               Hence, I offer this single statistic, a single variable: that is, epilepsy responds to medical treatment. This datum shows, conclusively in my judgment, that believing epilepsy is caused by evil spirits is a flawed perception of reality and may very well be dangerous to the welfare of those afflicted with epilepsy if their immediate caregivers persist in believing that epilepsy is caused by evil spirits. While it is only a single variable, I suggest that the number of variables will greatly multiply if one makes a study of other illness and diseases, previously thought to be caused by evil spirits, which with the advent of modernity have been shown to be the result of natural causes.

 

               Nevertheless, not all who live in the 21st century are really completely a part of the 21st century, and persist in the belief of evil spirits.  A case in point is Dr. Richard Gallagher, a board-certified psychiatrist, who is described as a professor of clinical psychiatry at New York Medical College.  Mr. Gallagher seems clearly to believe in demon possession. http://wapo.st/293X0vb?tid=ss_mails Has Mr. Gallagher matched my single variable with multiple variables of his own?  If so, we are still mired in the null hypothesis—that is to say, because of Mr. Gallagher's testimony about exorcising evil spirits, it is as reasonable to seek help from exorcists for illness, disease, and mental abnormalities, as it is to seek help from medical professionals.

 

Where do you come down on this statement: exorcism and medical treatment are two equally valid ways of treating epilepsy?

 

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University

 

*F. W. Danker and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed.; Chicago and London: University of Chicago, 2000), 919.

An Allusion in Search of a Narrative: Betraying Jesus

The tradition about Judas Iscariot, the betrayer of Jesus, may be a simple case of early Christian creative fiction.  The earliest mention of betrayal comes in a liturgical text associating "the night on which [Jesus] was betrayed" with the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:23-25).  No further description is given and no betrayer named.  Paul did not know the stories about Judas' betrayal of Jesus in the early Christian gospels, which in his day had not yet been written.  Paul's passing allusion to a cryptic betrayal was a mystery in search of a narrative to clarify it.

 

A generation or so later (around 70 C.E.), Mark's Passion Narrative (chaps. 14-16) begins with a plot by the chief priests and scribes to arrest Jesus "by stealth" for they were afraid of starting a riot (Mark 14:1-2)—one assumes their fear derived from the popularity of Jesus with the crowds (Mark 11:18-19).  Judas Iscariot is portrayed as an insider in Jesus' circle who offered "to betray him," and the chief priests offered him an unstated amount of money for the service (Mark 14:10-12).  What was being betrayed is unclear. One assumes that Judas promised to disclose a place where Jesus could be arrested away from the crowds, for it happened that way (Mark 14:32-50).  Judas came with a rabble organized "by the chief priests, scribes and elders," to Gethsemane and betrayed Jesus with a kiss.  Jesus, however, was a public figure and his whereabouts were clearly known (Mark 11:15-13:1), as Jesus himself complained at his arrest (Mark 14:49), alluding mysteriously to an unnamed scripture being "fulfilled."  It strains credulity to think that his whereabouts out of the public eye could not easily have been known without an informer.  Judas' motives are unknown.  He asked for nothing, although the priests promised him an unspecified amount of money.  What happened to Judas is also unknown.  Mark apparently lost interest in continuing his story.

 

Sometime after Mark was written, the Judas tradition underwent significant developments.  In Matthew the chief priests and elders plot to take Jesus "by stealth and kill him" (Matt 26:3-4). Judas volunteers to betray Jesus, asking for an unspecified consideration in return: "What will you give me if I deliver him to you?" (Matt 26:14-15), and they paid him "thirty pieces of silver."  Matthew, prompted by what he regarded as a "prophecy," has turned Mark's unstated amount of money into "thirty pieces of silver" (Zechariah 11:12; cf., Exodus 21:32)—as the "prophecy" foretold.  Judas came with a rabble organized by the chief priests and elders to Gethsemane, and betrayed Jesus with a kiss (Matt 26:47-50).  Later, conscience-stricken, Judas repented, returned the thirty pieces of silver to the temple, and hanged himself (Matt 27:3-5).  The chief priests, regarding the thirty pieces of silver as "blood money," purchased a potter's field, which according to Matthew, fulfills a prophecy (Matt 27:7-10) in Zechariah 11:13 (not Jeremiah!).  In so doing, Matthew made an unfortunate association between Judas the betrayer of Jesus and the good shepherd of Zechariah chapter 11.

 

Sometime later, unaware of Matthew's narrative, Luke described Judas as the "pawn" of Satan.  Under the influence of an evil power, Judas did not come to the chief priests and scribes seeking money, 22:3-6, but simply offered to betray Jesus because Satan had "entered into" him (Luke 22:3).  He was given money, but that was not his motive (Luke 22:4-6). His motive was not rational but demon inspired.   Judas then led the crowd to the Mount of Olives, and among them were officers of the temple, chief priests, and elders (22:39, 47-54).  Luke completes the story of Judas in his second volume (the Acts of the Apostles).  Under the influence of what Luke regards as "prophecies" (Psalm 69:26; 109:8), he describes the death of Judas (Acts 1:16-20) as falling, breaking "open in the middle," and his bowels gushed out.

 

At the end of the first century in John's story there is no indication of money for information. Judas has become the helpless puppet of the Devil; Jesus knew ahead of time what Judas would do (John 13:11), and described him as a devil (John 6:70-71)—not simply "demon possessed," as Luke does. John cites a "prophecy" about a specific act of betrayal (Psalm 41:10), apparently unknown to the other evangelists. The character of Judas is castigated as only pretending to be interested in the plight of the poor, for he was really a thief (John 12:4-8), who betrayed his friends by taking money from the group's money box (John 12:6; 13:29). Twice it is said of Judas that the devil put it into his heart to betray Jesus (John13:2, 27).  While the chief priests and Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus (John 11:47-53), there was no collusion between Judas and the priests to accomplish it.  Judas, prompted by Jesus (John13:27), procures a "band of soldiers" (John 18:2-3) and leads the band of soldiers with their captain and officers of the Jews to a garden to seize Jesus (John 18:1-12).  Judas' fate is not described in John.

 

The Pauline allusion to an ambiguous betrayal has found four different narratives in a half century: (1) a dubious idea that an insider provided unnecessary information in exchange for financial considerations, shaped by figurative readings of unstated "scriptures" (Mark); (2) an enhancement of Mark's narrative, shaped by figurative interpretations ("prophecies") of Hebrew Bible (Matthew); (3) an enhancement of Mark's narrative attributing the betrayal to demonic possession, shaped by figurative interpretations ("prophecies") of Hebrew Bible (Luke); a mythical narrative of the transmogrification of Judas into a devil, shaped by figurative interpretations ("prophecies") of Hebrew Bible (John).

 

Where is the history in these imaginative fictions?  All four are clearly shaped by early Christian hermeneutic.  In Luke and John the betrayal is accomplished by the superstition (the ancient pre-scientific worldview) that the world is inhabited by demons.  Mark's depiction of Jesus as a public figure is a serious obstacle to the idea that an informer is even necessary.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University