Healing and Exorcism in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161589362, 9783161589379, 316158936X

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich)

Mitherausgeber/Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) ∙ James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) ∙ Janet Spittler (Charlottesville, VA) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

511

Healing and Exorcism in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity Edited by

Mikael Tellbe and Tommy Wasserman With the assistance of

Ludvig Nyman

Mohr Siebeck

Mikael Tellbe, Born 1960; Academic Dean and Lecturer in New Testament Studies at Örebro School of Theology, Sweden. orcid.org/0000-0002-1556-5376 Tommy Wasserman, born 1970; Professor of Biblical Studies at Ansgar Teologiske Høgskole, Kristiansand, Norway. orcid.org/0000-0002-8047-4796 Ludvig Nyman, born 1988; PhD student at Lund University and part-time Lecturer in New Testament Studies at Örebro School of Theology, Sweden. orcid.org/0000-0001-8578-530X

ISBN 978-3-16-158936-2 / eISBN 978-3-16-158937-9 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-158937-9 ISSN 0340-9570 / eISSN 2568-7484 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2019  Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany.  www.mohrsiebeck.com 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 and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Preface On March 8 to 9, 2018, Örebro School of Theology hosted the conference “Healing and Exorcism in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity” with generous support from the Swedish Research Council. The conference brought together fifty scholars and students from six different countries who offered main papers, responses, short seminar papers and participated in stimulating discussions. As organizers and editors, we take this opportunity to thank all the conference participants who gave valuable input, in particular the respondents to main papers: Prof. Greger Andersson, Dr. Tobias Hägerland, Prof. James Kelhoffer, Dr. Rikard Roitto, Dr. Gunnar Samuelsson, Dr. David Davage (Willgren), and Dr. James Starr. For this volume, we have selected a number of excellent contributions by leading scholars from Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the USA who focus on different aspects of healing and exorcism in Second Temple Judaism, in emerging Christianity, and in the early church from historical, literary, and socio-cultural perspectives. It is our hope that these studies will shed new light on the topic of healing and exorcism in ancient times, a topic that continues to draw attention from a great number of scholars from around the world. Finally, we are very grateful to the Program Directors of Theology and Jewish Studies at Mohr Siebeck, Katharina Gutekunst and Elena Müller, as well as the series editor Prof. Dr. Jörg Frey for accepting the volume in WUNT II and for seeing it through to publication. Örebro, August 2019 Mikael Tellbe Tommy Wasserman Ludvig Nyman

Table of Contents Preface ........................................................................................... V Abbreviations ............................................................................. XII

Mikael Tellbe Introduction ................................................................................... 1

Part I Healing and Exorcism in Second Temple Judaism and Emerging Christianity

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer Dumping your Toxic Waste Abroad: Exorcism and Healing in Zechariah’s Vision Report and Beyond ............................................... 11 1.

Zechariah 5:1–4 ................................................................................. 12

2.

Zechariah 5:5–11 ............................................................................... 18

3.

Zechariah 3 ........................................................................................ 22

4.

Conclusion ......................................................................................... 28

Cecilia Wassén The Impurity of the Impure Spirits in the Gospels ........................... 33 1.

Jesus and Exorcism ............................................................................ 33

2.

The Term Impure Spirits in the Gospels ............................................ 35

VIII

Table of Contents

3.

Different Kinds of Impurity: Moral and Ritual Impurity ................... 36

4.

Impure Spirits in Early Jewish Literature........................................... 38

5.

Conclusion ......................................................................................... 50

Sigurd Grindheim Exorcism, Forgiveness, and Christological Implications................ 53 1.

Power over Demons in Second Temple Judaism ............................... 54

2.

Jesus’s Power over the Demons ......................................................... 59

3.

Jesus’s Forgiveness ............................................................................ 67

4.

Conclusion ......................................................................................... 72

Susan R. Garrett “The Miracle That Jesus Cannot Do” .................................................. 77 1.

Mark’s Epistemological Obsession .................................................... 78

2.

Jesus’s Failure to Enlighten the Twelve ............................................. 82

3.

Satan’s Modus Operandi .................................................................... 85

4.

Exorcising Satan ................................................................................ 88

Steve Walton Why Silence? Reflections on Paul and Jesus Silencing Demonised People in Luke-Acts............................................................ 91 1.

Setting the Scene ................................................................................ 91

2.

Surveying the Scholarship ................................................................. 92

3.

Studying the Sources.......................................................................... 97

4.

Circling back to Luke-Acts .............................................................. 102

5.

Summary and Conclusion ................................................................ 110

Table of Contents

IX

Graham H. Twelftree Healing and Exorcism in the Early Church ...................................... 113 1.

First Case Study: Paul ...................................................................... 113

2.

Second Case Study: Mark ................................................................ 121

3.

Third Case Study: Johannine Literature ........................................... 130

4.

Conclusion ....................................................................................... 135

Larry W. Hurtado The Ritual Use of Jesus’s Name in Early Christian Exorcism and Healing ................................................................................................ 141 1.

Exclusivity of Jesus’s Name ............................................................ 142

2.

The Early Christian Devotional Pattern ........................................... 149

3.

The Simplicity of Method ................................................................ 154

4.

Summary .......................................................................................... 158

Part II Healing and Exorcism in the Early Church

Jennifer W. Knust and Tommy Wasserman The Wondrous Gospel of John: Jesus’s Miraculous Deeds in Late Ancient Editorial and Scholarly Practice ................................. 165 1.

The Kephalaia in a World of Wonders............................................. 166

2.

Dividing Up the Gospels .................................................................. 170

3.

The Old Greek Chapters – Kephalaia in John .................................. 174

4.

The Elusive Origin of the Kephalaia ................................................ 177

5.

A Gospel Filled with Wonders ......................................................... 182

6.

What John Means............................................................................. 190

Table of Contents

X

Karl Olav Sandnes Ancient Debates on Jesus as Miracle Worker: Emic and Etic Perspectives................................................................................................ 197 1.

Celsus on Jesus’s Miracles ............................................................... 198

2.

Origen Responds: The Miracles Are Subordinated .......................... 202

3.

Sossianus Hierocles on Jesus’s Miracles ......................................... 211

4.

Eusebius Responds........................................................................... 213

5.

Summary .......................................................................................... 215

Carl Johan Berglund How “Valentinian” Was Heracleon’s Reading of the Healing of the Son of a Royal Official? ............................................................. 219 1.

Perspectives on Heracleon ............................................................... 219

2.

The Identity of the Royal Official .................................................... 224

3.

The Perilous State of Mortals........................................................... 228

4.

The Consequences of Law and Sin .................................................. 230

5.

The Process of the Healing .............................................................. 233

6.

Conclusion ....................................................................................... 235

The Use of Scripture in Cyril of Jerusalem’s Homily on the Paralytic by the Pool (CPG 3588): Interpreting the Litter of Solomon ...................................................................................................... 241 1.

Cyril’s Use of Scripture ................................................................... 242

2.

Cyril’s Context and His Audience between Criticism and Role-Modeling ................................................................................. 243

3.

A Christological Paragraph .............................................................. 247

4.

From the Bed of the Paralytic to the Litter of Solomon ................... 248

5.

A Philological Analysis of the Litter as Compared to the Cross ...... 250

6.

Conclusion ....................................................................................... 254

Table of Contents

XI

Anthony John Lappin Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε: Demons and Their Temples in the Second Half of the Fourth Century ..................................................... 259 1.

Daphne ............................................................................................. 261

2.

The Serapeum .................................................................................. 266

3.

From Silence to Acceptance............................................................. 269

List of Contributors .................................................................................. 283 Index of References........................................................................................ 285 Index of Modern Authors ............................................................................... 307 Subject Index.................................................................................................. 313

Abbreviations Abbreviations follow the list of abbreviations in The SBL Handbook of Style: For Biblical Studies and Related Disciplines (2nd ed., ed. Billie Jean Collins et al. [Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014]). Abbreviations of the Greek papyri follow the Checklist of Editions of Greek and Latin Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets (5th ed., ed. John F. Oates et al. BASPSup 9 [Oakville: American Society of Papyrologists, 2001]). The online version is available at http://papyri.info/docs/checklist. In addition, the following abbreviations are used: Acts Tim. AJEC Anon. Bruc. BAM CGal CJOD CJul EC FTS JLRS JSHJ JSJSup Jul. Orat. KfA LHJS Lib. Or. NGWG.PH RNBC SBTS Soz. Hist eccl. TiLSM VCSup W

Acts of Timothy Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity Anonymous of Bruce (Codex) Köcher, Franz. Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963 ff.) Julian, Contra Galilaeos Contraversions: Jews and Other Differences Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julianum Early Christianity Frankfurter Theologische Studien Journal of Law, Religion and State Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Supplements to Journal for the Study of Judaism Julian, Orationes Kommentar zu frühchristlichen Apologeten Library of the Historical Jesus Studies Libanius, Orationes Nachrichten von der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse Readings: A New Biblical Commentary Sources for Biblical and Theological Study Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs Vigiliae Christianae Supplements Field numbers of tablets excavated at Warka

Introduction Mikael Tellbe This book is the result of a research conference on “Healing and Exorcism in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity,” hosted by Örebro School of Theology, Sweden, in March 8 to 9, 2018. About fifty scholars and students met for two rewarding days of lectures, seminars, and discussions. The conference was generously funded by the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet). Over the years, the topic of healing and exorcism in Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity has engaged a great number of scholars from around the world with numerous publications – and it continues to do so.1 In Jewish and 1 It will suffice to mention some significant works from the last twenty years: Michael Becker, Wunder und Wundertäter im frührabbinischen Judentum: Studien zum Phänomen und seiner Überlieferung im Horizont von Magie und Dämonismus, WUNT II 144 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002); Richard H. Bell, Deliver Us from Evil: Interpreting the Redemption from the Power of Satan in New Testament Theology, WUNT 216 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); Gideon Bohak, “Jewish Exorcism Before and After the Destruction of the Second Temple”, in Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? On Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple, eds. Daniel S. Schwartz and Zeev Weiss, AJEC 78 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 277–300; Audrey Dawson, Healing, Weakness and Power: Perspectives on Healing in the Writings of Mark, Luke and Paul (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008); Andrew Dauton-Fear, Healing in the Early Church: The Church’s Ministry of Healing and Exorcism from the First to the Fifth Century, Studies in Christian History and Thought (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009); Theodore de Bruyn, “What Did Ancient Christians Say When They Cast out Demons? Inferences from Spells and Amulets”, in Christians Shaping Identity from the Roman Empire to Byzantium: Studies Inspired by Pauline Allen, eds. Geoffrey Dunn and Wendy Mayer; VCSup 132 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 64–82; Audrey Dawson, Healing, Weakness and Power: Perspectives on Healing in the Writings of Mark, Luke and Paul (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008); Jan Dochhorn, Susanne Rudnig-Zelt, and Benjamin Wold, eds., Das Böse, der Teufel und Dämonen – Evil, the Devil, and Demons, WUNT II 412 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016); Eric Eve, “The Miracles of an Eschatological Prophet”, JSHJ 13 (2015), 131–149; Henrike Frey-Anthes, “Concepts of ‘Demons’ in Ancient Israel”, WO 38 (2008), 38–52; Jan-Olav Henriksen and Karl Olav Sandnes, Jesus as Healer: A Gospel for the Body (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016); Craig S. Keener, Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011); James A. Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark, WUNT II 112 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000); Todd E. Klutz, “The Grammar of Exorcism in the Ancient Mediterranean World: Some Cosmological, Semantic, and Pragmatic Reflections on How

2

Mikael Tellbe

Christian texts from this period, healing, magic, and exorcism are often interrelated, not least due to the widespread belief that human suffering and sickness were caused by demons. This notion can also be found in the teachings of Jesus, the early Christ-believers and the emerging church; early Christian texts attest that the practice of praying for the sick and exorcising demons were very regularly exercised. In particular, the conference in Örebro focused on the ideological and theological meaning of healing and exorcism during the specific period, i.e., ca. 500 BCE to 400 CE, from a historical, literary, and socio-cultural perspective. The current volume mainly consists of revised versions of the main papers presented at the conference, as well as a couple of short papers. The book is divided into two parts: part I, “Healing and Exorcism in Second Temple Judaism and Emerging Christianity,” and part II, “Healing and Exorcism in the Early Church.” While part I focuses on biblical texts relating to the theme of healing and exorcism, part II examines the transmission, reception and interpretation of these texts in early Christian writings and artefacts.

Exorcistic Prowess Contributed to the Worship of Jesus”, in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, eds. Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis, Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 63 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 156–165; idem., The Exorcism Stories in Luke-Acts: A Sociostylistic Reading, SNTSMS 129 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Diethard Römheld, eds., Die Dämonen – Demons: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003); Reimund Leich, “Mashbiaʿ Ani ʿAlekha: Types and Patterns of Ancient Jewish and Christian Exorcism Formulae”, JSQ 13 (2006), 319–343; Esther Miquel, “How to Discredit an Inconvenient Exorcist: Origin and Configuration of the Synoptic Controversies on Jesus’ Power as an Exorcist”, BTB 40 (2010), 187–206; Cheryl S. Pero, Liberation from Empire: Demonic Possession and Exorcism in the Gospel of Mark, StBibLit 150 (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2013); John J. Pilch, Healing in the New Testament: Insights from Medical and Mediterranean Anthropology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000); Eric Sorensen, Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity, WUNT II 157 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002); Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Myth of Rebellious Angels: Studies in Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Texts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017); Graham H. Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007); idem., Paul and the Miraculous: A Historical Reconstruction (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013); idem., ed., The Nature Miracles of Jesus: Problems, Perspectives and Prospects (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2017); Clinton Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels, WUNT II 185 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004); John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton, Demons and Spirits in Biblical Theology: Reading the Biblical Text in Its Cultural and Literary Context (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2019); Keith Warrington, The Miracles in the Gospels: What Do They Teach Us about Jesus? (London: SPCK, 2015); Walter T. Wilson, Healing in the Gospel of Matthew: Reflection on Method and Ministry (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014); Amanda Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist: His Exorcisms in Social and Political Context, LNTS 459 (London: T&T Clark, 2012).

Introduction

3

Part I opens with the article “Dumping your Toxic Waste Abroad: Exorcism and Healing in Zechariah’s Vision Report and Beyond,” in which Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer (University of Aberdeen) investigates the theme of exorcism and healing as portrayed in Zechariah’s vision report and its later reception. Tiemeyer interacts with three main texts and visions, Zech 3:1–10; 5:1–4, and 5:5–11, exploring how they, each in their distinct manner, portray the expulsion of evil. These three vision accounts are predominantly concerned with the spatial evicting of evil from a geographical area and their subsequent exportation to a distant land. In this sense, they portray types of “elimination rites,” i.e., rites that involve the spatial removal of a physically understood pollution through the agent of a living substitute, with the ultimate aim of producing a restored and healed land. As such, they show strong affinity with ancient Near Eastern exorcist texts which prescribe how demons can be expelled from a person or an area. They further stand in the tradition of Lev 16 and the elimination rites associated with the celebration of the Day of Atonement. In later reception, these same texts have been understood to relate to exorcism of evil from human beings or, alternatively, have generated new curse-texts which seek to ward off evil, reflecting a dualistic fight between good and evil. In this transferred sense, they testify to the extended use of biblical texts and to their elasticity to serve new purposes only hinted at by their original authors. In the next essay, “The Impurity of the Impure Spirits in the Gospels,” Cecilia Wassén (Uppsala University) pays attention to the fact that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels in their descriptions of Jesus’s work as an exorcist frequently call the evil spirits “impure.” She argues that this expression most likely goes back to the historical Jesus. This raises questions about what Jesus may have meant by the term: was it just a negative label in general or did he view the evil spirits as literally impure? If he did, in what way would they have been impure? She discusses the possible meanings of the alleged impure nature of the spirits by examining the use of the expression in the Gospels and the Jewish sources, including the Pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Wassén concludes that by calling the spirits “impure” Jesus highlights their cunning nature and their ability to lead people astray. Further, evil spirits who manifested themselves in defiling diseases such as scale diseases were considered impure by nature. Hence, when Jesus battled the impure spirits in exorcisms, he was fighting evil powers that he also considered impure in different ways. His exorcisms were sure signs that the kingdom of God was approaching, the time when Satan and his evil minions, the evil and impure spirits, would finally be conquered and diseases and impurity of all kinds would be no more. In the study “Exorcism, Forgiveness, and Christological Implications,” Sigurd Grindheim (Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Stord) compares the early Jesus traditions with accounts from the literature of Second Temple Judaism, in which prophets and select individuals perform exorcisms and proclaim the forgiveness of sins. In the New Testament there is neither any

4

Mikael Tellbe

suggestion that sin is forgiven through exorcism or that forgiveness is necessary for an exorcism to be effective. The reactions to Jesus’s acts of exorcism and forgiveness show that he was not understood in the same category as known exorcists or prophets. He was seen as claiming for himself a role that no human being could claim. The exorcism and forgiveness stories are linked, however, in that they both show the inherent and instantly effective personal authority of Jesus. Grindheim highlights the fact that the accounts in the Synoptic tradition portray Jesus as acting with an inherent authority in a way that is not clearly paralleled elsewhere in the surviving relevant sources. This distinctiveness, he concludes, has a significant Christological implication: it reflects an understanding that Jesus acted in God’s place with the same authority as God himself. Susan R. Garrett (Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary) maintains in the study “The Miracle That Jesus Cannot Do” that there is one miracle that Jesus cannot do in the Gospel of Mark, namely to open the minds of human beings. Jesus intends to reveal the mystery of the kingdom of God to his disciples (Mark 4:11–12), but – to his evident frustration – Satan continues to hold a grip on the psyche of foe and friend alike (8:33). By recounting the two-stage healing of the blind man at Bethsaida (8:22–26), Mark conveys that a second intervention is needed for full (spiritual) sight. Paradoxically, this second intervention only happens when Jesus relinquishes control and permits himself to be given over into enemy hands (14:41). On account of Jesus’s fidelity throughout the testing that ensues, God raises Jesus to the right hand of power and puts the Enemy under his feet (12:36). Garrett concludes that this event is the most important exorcism of all – the exorcism of Satan from a place of authority over human lives. Thereafter humans can, at last, think the things of God. In the next contribution, “Why silence? Reflections on Paul and Jesus Silencing Demonised People in Luke-Acts,” Steve Walton (Trinity College, Bristol) examines the silencing of demonised people through deliverance by Paul and Jesus in two key incidents in Luke-Acts (Acts 16:16–18; Luke 4:31–37). It is easy to be puzzled at a number of levels by the story of Paul’s deliverance of the slave girl with the python spirit in Philippi (Acts 16:16–18). In particular, she appears to speak the truth about Paul and his companions, and their message (v. 17) – and yet by narrating the deliverance of the slave girl, Luke clearly regards the python spirit as providing opposition to their gospel ministry. A variety of interpretations of this story have been suggested. Walton proposes that the parallel that naturally springs to mind is Jesus’s silencing of the demonised man in the synagogue of Capernaum (Luke 4:31–37) – the only occasion in Luke where Jesus silences a demon. As in Philippi, the demonised person appears to speak the truth about the speaker (Jesus), and yet Jesus prevents him from speaking further along those lines. Through consideration of key features of the stories in conversation with accounts of deliverance from around

Introduction

5

the same period in the Jewish and Greco-Roman worlds, Walton then considers what particular point(s) Luke communicates to believing Jewish and pagan ears through the feature of silencing. He concludes that commanding demons and spirits to be silent is a distinctive feature of the ministry of Jesus and his followers in the first century world, and that this silence is designed to avoid misunderstanding of Jesus and his mission, of the gospel message, and (in Luke specifically) to avoid premature and partial disclosure of Jesus’s identity. In the study “Healing and Exorcism in the Early Church,” Graham H. Twelftree (London School of Theology) examines the letters of Paul, the Gospel of Mark (and the Longer Ending separately), and the Johannine literature, particularly the Fourth Gospel, as three case studies, demonstrating that there was a very wide difference in approaches to healing and especially exorcism in the Christianities represented. Paul says nothing directly about his own practice of healing and exorcism. However, in light of both his demonology including the notion of an ongoing threat from spiritual beings, and the fact that he reminded his readers that the miracles were part of the coming of the gospel to them, it is most probable that this experience included healing and exorcism. Whereas Paul nowhere in his letters claims to have the gift of healing or exorcism or report his involvement in such activity, the book of Acts, supposing that it provides credible historical data, reports that Paul on occasion conducted healings and exorcisms. The Gospel of Mark, on the other hand, gives healing and exorcism a clear and obvious priority in both its portrait of Jesus and the portrait of his disciples. For Mark, healing and especially exorcism were part of Jesus’s battle with Satan, a battle his followers carried on beyond Easter. The Longer Ending of Mark provides an early example of how the Gospel was read. The emphasis on healing and exorcism is maintained in the ministry of the community, with an emphasis on the need for belief on the part of those performing the healings and exorcisms. In the third case study on the Johannine literature, Twelftree argues that healing is profoundly important in the Fourth Gospel’s portrait of Jesus, for it is in his healings that God is most clearly seen as incarnate. Finally, he concludes that these three examples of healing and exorcism in early Christianity hold in common the importance of healing as a continuing expression of the gospel or what was reported as important in the ministry of Jesus. The most common method of effectuating that healing, even if not in exorcism, was probably using “the name of Jesus.” While this method did not directly emulate the healing methods of Jesus, it profoundly expressed an emulation of his ministry. In the article following, “The Ritual Use of Jesus’s Name in Early Christian Exorcism and Healing,” Larry W. Hurtado (University of Edinburgh) observes that, on the one hand, the use of Jesus’s name in early Christian accounts of healing and exorcism can be fitted within the larger pattern of the invocation of powerful names, e.g., demons, angels, etc., in the texts and inscriptions about Roman-era exorcism and magic. On the other hand, the preferred

6

Mikael Tellbe

invocation of Jesus – to the exclusion of other beings/powers – suggests something distinctive within that larger pattern. Jesus was invoked by name, but the variations in phrasing indicate that earliest Christians looked to the power and person of Jesus, rather than to the power of any form of words. The earliest Christian texts thus advocate a ritual practice that is tied to a relationship of trust and obeisance to the person of Jesus. Unlike non-Christian practices (pagan and Jewish), earliest Christian exorcistic and healing practices reflect, and were part of, a constellation of devotional practices in which Jesus was uniquely central. Hurtado concludes that this particular, even singular, focus on Jesus’s name and the power therein likely reflects the unique status accorded to the risen and exalted Jesus in early Christian circles, providing an identifiable character to early Christian “miracle-working.” Introducing part II, the article “The Wondrous Gospel of John: Jesus’s Miraculous Deeds in Late Ancient Editorial and Scholarly Practice” by Jennifer W. Knust (Duke University, Durham) and Tommy Wasserman (Ansgar Teologiske Høgskole, Kristiansand) focuses on the early reception of the Gospel of John. They demonstrate the strong interest in Jesus’s miracles in the production and use of Gospel books, as particularly reflected in the Old Greek Chapters (kephalaia) and their accompanying titles (titloi). Late ancient Gospel editors placed the divisions at the start of miracle stories, parables, or major speeches by Jesus; miracles, in particular, were each assigned a separate kephalaion. Though the purpose of this paratextual device remains elusive, highlighting the wonder-working powers of Christ appears to have situated the Gospel of John at the centre of a broader philosophical debate about the nature of divine intervention in the material world. The “chapters” also provided ready access to Christ’s miracles, implicitly confirming the unanimity of the Gospels on the miraculous “facts” of the incarnation and thereby confirming the efficacy of Christian faith. Today, it is rare to find a critical edition of the New Testament that prints the Old Greek Chapters, though the Nestle-Aland edition does include the kephalaia numbers in the margins. Overlooking them, however, misses the earlier significance of John as a gospel filled with wonders. In the study “Ancient Debates on Jesus as Miracle Worker: Emic and Etic Perspectives,” Karl Olav Sandnes (MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society, Oslo) maintains that the way the miracles of Jesus were viewed by others was a matter of perspective. Sandnes distinguishes between views taken by insiders and outsiders, taking the latter as his point of departure. The article examines two debates, Celsus versus Origen and Hierocles versus Eusebius: Celsus’s perspectives on the miracles of Jesus are responded to by Origen, and Hierocles’s view is addressed by Eusebius. No attempt is made to deny that Jesus had a reputation for being a healer and miracle worker. The primary model of explanation to outsiders was magic or sorcery. Hierocles also points out that this aspect of Jesus’s ministry served as proof of his divinity. Eusebius turns some of Hierocles’s arguments upside-down, throwing doubt

Introduction

7

on the source upon which Hierocles based his arguments. Origen develops a more constructive approach, arguing that the miracles of Jesus were subordinated to moral transformation, bringing changes to its beneficiaries. Jesus thus acted in accordance with Logos. These debates demonstrate how larger perspectives come into play. Hence, Sandnes concludes that the disagreements over Jesus’s miracles were due more to differences in religious “systems” than to different views on the miracles themselves. Carl Johan Berglund (Stockholm School of Theology) raises the question: “How ‘Valentinian’ Was Heracleon’s Reading of the Healing of the Son of a Royal Official?” Berglund notices that the interpretation of a Johannine healing story (John 4:46–54) by the second-century Christian teacher Heracleon has in previous scholarship been presumed to be determined by “Valentinian” sectarian doctrines. Heracleon has been said to identify the royal official in the story with the Maker (δημιουργός), an inferior divinity who has created the material world, and his son as one of three categories of human beings whose eternal fate are determined by their spiritual, animated, or material inherent nature. Berglund attempts a novel reading of Heracleon’s interpretation, presuming neither that Heracleon subscribes to the ideas associated with “Valentinian” teachers by heresiological authors, nor that Origen of Alexandria always refers to Heracleon’s comments using verbatim quotations. Berglund argues that the identification of the royal official with the Maker is inferred by Origen based on heresiological presumptions. Furthermore, he proposes that Heracleon used Synoptic and Pauline parallels to read the story as a metaphor of humanity’s perilous state as afflicted with the disease of sin, and in dire need of salvation. Thus, Heracleon’s interpretation of the healing of the son of a royal official may be understood without reference to sectarian doctrines, as an analysis of a Johannine pericope using the methodology of Greco-Roman literary criticism and by use of Pauline and Synoptic parallels. The “Valentinian” character of Heracleon’s exegesis may be entirely in the eyes of Origen and later interpreters. Barbara Crostini (Uppsala University) presents a close analysis of one of Cyril of Jerusalem’s homilies on Jesus as a miracle worker: “The Use of Scripture in Cyril of Jerusalem’s Homily on the Paralytic by the Pool (CPG 3588): Interpreting the Litter of Solomon.” How can Cyril’s use of Scripture in this text shed light on his presentation of Jesus as healer in the episode of the paralytic by the pool at Bethesda (John 5:1–18)? Cyril’s vivid evocation of the places and dialogues in the Gospels draws the audience into the healing scene, not least by contrasting Jesus’s attitude with that of professionals such as doctors. Cyril spreads his web of intertextual references very wide. Among them, he pays special attention to Song of Songs 3:9–10, where the litter of Solomon, similar to the paralytic’s bed, is described and interpreted as an allegory of the Passion of Christ. Reviewing the terms of this comparison helps elucidate the meaning of the object described in the Hebrew Scriptures. Cyril’s intertextual

8

Mikael Tellbe

exercises surely stretched the lateral thinking of his audience, presupposing both an excellent knowledge of the Old Testament and a readiness to read through it the reality of the Incarnation. More importantly, it tells us that for Cyril keeping in mind the suffering of Christ is a precondition for understanding his power of healing and his promise of salvation. Just as Tiemeyer opens the volume with a consideration of the expulsion of evil beings from the landscape, so Anthony John Lappin (independent scholar), in “Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε: Demons and Their Temples in the Second Half of the Fourth Century” focuses on the presence of demons and other spiritual beings in spaces (particularly temples) and objects (above all, statues). His article analyses how Christians dealt with these spiritual presences in the shifting political climate of the times, where the purification of spaces and statues became a ritual of significant public importance. Exploring the period between the struggle over the Antiochian shrine of Daphne (351–362 CE) and the siege and destruction of the Alexandrian Serapeum (391–392 CE), Lappin examines how such elimination rites were understood. He also focuses on how the process of expelling spirits, silencing oracles, “decommissioning” statues of the gods for subsequent burial, storage, or even decorative display, was carried out by a range of actors who were not necessarily, or even primarily, Christians. Only in very rare exceptions can Christians be identified as enthusiastic and violent suppressors of pagan cults, and in general they only occupied sacred spaces and pagan temples which had already been vacated due to the widespread collapse of sacrificial worship and political suspicion of oracular sites. In conclusion, these articles on the whole demonstrate the importance of the theme of healing and exorcism in Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity, and in particular the central role of Jesus as a healer and exorcist. The function, transmission, and interpretation of the miracle stories in Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity will continue to be debated. Hopefully, this anthology will be a valuable contribution to the on-going discussions.

Part I

Healing and Exorcism in Second Temple Judaism and Emerging Christianity

Dumping your Toxic Waste Abroad: Exorcism and Healing in Zechariah’s Vision Report and Beyond* Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer Zechariah’s vision report (Zech 1:7–6:15) is filled to the brim with the weird and the marvellous. In the present paper, I shall explore the notion of exorcism and healing as portrayed in the vision report and in its later reception. I shall interact with three main texts – Zech 3; 5:1–4; and 5:5–11 – and explore how they, each in a distinct manner, portray the expulsion of evil. At times, I shall use the term “exorcism,” a term derived from the Greek ἐξορκισμός. In its original sense, it means “to bind by oath,” and denotes the practice of evicting demons or other spiritual entities from a person or an area.1 The vision accounts in Zech 3; 5:1–4; and 5:5–11 are predominantly concerned with evicting evil spatially from a geographical area and exporting them elsewhere. In this sense, they portray types of “elimination rites,” i.e., rites that involve the spatial removal of a physically understood pollution through the agent of a living substitute.2 In later reception, these same texts have been made to refer to exorcism of evil from a human being. In this transferred sense, they testify to the extended use of biblical texts and to their elasticity to serve new purposes that were only hinted at by their original authors. I shall begin my discussion with the two portrayals of spatial expulsion of evil in Zech 5. I shall highlight their shared thematic affinity – both accounts envisage a harmful flying object that is not self-guided but being caused to move by other forces – and discuss the germane parallels in ancient Near Eastern texts. I shall then turn to Zech 3 and demonstrate how the original account of God’s rebuke of the Accuser became transformed in later reception into a key element in elimination rituals. In my discussion, I shall avoid the term “demon.” We are rather dealing with a wide range of diverse and divergent threatening creatures that occur at border situations, i.e., in areas between sacred/domestic space and hostile space, and that can be fought against by apotropaic rituals. The Hebrew Bible contains a

This title was inspired by the article by Diana Edelman, “Proving Yahweh Killed his Wife (Zechariah 5:5-11),” BibInt 11 (2003): 335–344. 1 “Exorcism.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorcism (last accessed 2019-09-27). 2 Bernd Janowski, “Azazel,” DDD, 129. *

12

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

wide range of such creatures.3 I shall thus define each creature within its own textual context.

1. Zechariah 5:1–4 Zech 5:1–4 tells us about a curse – i.e., a speech act that places some form of misfortune upon an object4 – that flies across the land and enters the houses of select culprits. This vision account can be subdivided into three parts: a) The visual impression (vv. 1–2); b) The Angel’s explanation of the images (v. 3); c) A divine oracle which elucidates the images further (v. 4).5 Verses 1–2 speak of a something, the exterior of which looks like a scroll. These two verses do not go beyond the level of appearance: they report what Zechariah sees. Verse 3 identifies this flying object as a “curse”6 that is “going out across the whole land/earth” (‫)היוצאת על פני כל הארץ‬. Verse 4 adds 3 Henrike Frey-Anthes, “Concepts of ‘Demons’ in Ancient Israel,” WO 38 (2008): 38. For a longer discussion, see eadem, Unheilsmächte und Schutzgenien, Antiwesen und Grenzgänger: Vorstellungen von “Dämonen” im alten Israel, OBO 227 (Fribourg: Academic Press/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007). 4 For a discussion of the application of speech act theory on curses, as well as the differences between our modern understanding of curses up and against earlier forms of understandings, see Jonathan Culpeper and Elena Semino, “Constructing Witches and Spells: Speech Acts and Activity Types in Early Modern England,” Historical Pragmatics 1 (2000): 97–116. They highlight the difference between a modern understanding of a curse as a wish (an expressive, to use John R. Searle’s categories) and historical understandings of a curse as statements that alter the status or condition of an object (a declaration, to use Searle’s categories). For the application of speech act theory on ancient Near Eastern ‘magical’ speech, a category into which both curses and apotropaic rituals fall, see the substantial discussion by Marian Broida, Forestalling Doom: “Apotropaic Intercession” in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, AOAT 417 (Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 2014), 26–38, 44–46. Contrary to Culpeper and Semino, she defines a curse as an “expressive causative illocutionary act” (35). Looking at the issue from an emic perspective, she argues that ritual speech was believed to accomplish something in the ancient world and thus should be understood to constitute an illocutionary act within that context (45). For J. L. Austin’s original discussion of speech act theory, see How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962). For the later modification by John R. Searle, see “A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts” in Language, Mind and Knowledge, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1975), 356–361. 5 Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions: An Exegetical Study of Zechariah’s Vision Report, LHBOTS 605 (London: T&T Clark, 2015), 178. 6 It should be noted that the LXX preserves a different reading here: καὶ ἰδοὺ δρέπανον πετόμενον (“and behold a flying sickle”). Cf. further below.

Dumping your Toxic Waste Abroad

13

information by claiming that God is responsible for the situation: “‘I brought it forth’, speech of the Lord of Hosts” (‫)הוצאתיה נאם ה' צבאות‬. The curse in Zech 5:1–4 is clearly a harmful entity, seeing that it enters a house and destroys it by “consuming it” (v. 4b, ‫)ולנה בתוך ביתו וכלתו ואת עציו ואת אבניו‬. Curses can be understood as a form of possession insofar as they represent a palpable, supernatural force that takes over a person, object, or area. A curse needs to be removed or broken, and this can be done through apotropaic rituals. The specific apotropaic rituals associated with breaking a curse can by analogy be understood as a type of exorcism. Breaking a curse brings healing and enables the victim to be restored to full health, both spiritually and physically. As Kitz phrases it, protective maledictions seek to restore harmony. “They are exorcistic. They seek to drive away and destroy hostile forces so as to safeguard what is left behind.”7 This “curse” enters and consumes the houses of the one who steals and the one who swears falsely (v. 4aβ, ‫)ובאה אל בית הגנב ואל בית הנשבע בשמי לשקר‬. The fate of the thief and the perjurer is, however, uncertain due to the ambiguity of the Hebrew verb ‫( נקה‬v. 3): are they being punished or acquitted? As I have argued elsewhere, verse 3 can best be understood to mean that the culprits have “so far been acquitted,” thus implying that their situation is due to change imminently.8 The destruction of their houses (v. 4) may accordingly constitute this pledged punishment. A small number of scholars have highlighted the affinity of curses with demons. Tigchelaar in particular connects the flying scroll/curse in Zech 5:1–4 with the first Arslan Tash incantation.9 This text describes how two flying demons, “the Flyer” (‫ )עפתא‬and “the Strangler” (‫)חנקת‬, are being barred from the owner’s house and court (lines 4–8). Tigchelaar’s interpretation deserves a full hearing because it alone (unlike the plethora of other extant explanations) explains in a satisfactory manner why the scroll is flying: 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

and say to the stranglers: the house I enter, you shall not enter; and the courtyard I tread, you shall not tread.10

7 Anne Marie Kitz, Cursed Are You! The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2014), 240–242, 246, 275. 8 Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions, 197–198. 9 Arslan Tash, ancient Hadātu, is located in modern day northern Syria in the Aleppo Governorate. 10 For a recent translation and discussion of the first inscription from Arslan Tash, see K. J. Cathcart, “The Phoenician Inscription from Arslan Tash and Some Old Testament Texts (Exodus 12; Micah 5:4–5[5–6]; Psalm 91),” in On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham

14

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

In this incantation the demons are being told to stay away because an ’lt ‘lm has been made with the owner of the house. The Ugaritic expression ’lt ‘lm is normally translated as “eternal covenant,” yet Tigchelaar argues that the translation “oath” or “curse” better captures the meaning of the first word ’lt, a cognate of the Hebrew ‫“( אלה‬covenant”). He further suggests that the imagery in Zech 5:1–4, as well as its meaning, is inspired by that found in the Arslan Tash incantation. In both texts, the image of the flying item is connected with the concepts of covenant and curse. In Zech 5:3, a curse will fall upon the thief and the perjurer, not because they have sinned but because they have broken the stipulations of the covenant.11 The fear of evil entering into a house and the need to expel in order to protect life is also a prevalent topic in Mesopotamian incantation texts. The šēp lemutti is a Mesopotamian ritual text, so called because of the recurring phrase šēp lemutti ina bit amēli parāsu (“to block the foot of evil into a man’s house”), which outlines rituals that prevent evil from entering into a house. Part of this ritual is the fashioning of clay figurines of the seven sebettu (chthonic gods, cf. further below), positioned at the outer gate, and the seven apkallū (the seven antediluvian sages), positioned in the private rooms, to serve as apotropaic devices to ward off evil (obv. lines 18–19, 160–166, 170–174, 300–308).12 The Mesopotamian incantation text called bīt mēseri (“House of Confinement”) testifies to the related ritual šēp lemutti that is used when someone is already ill, i.e., have come under demonic attack. Figurines are made of the seven apkallū (the seven antediluvian sages) and positioned in the ill person’s room.13 These texts do not form strict parallels to Zech 5:1–4, yet they emphasize the perceived need to protect a house from evil entering it from the outside. In my view, it is unlikely that the author of Zech 5:1–4 was familiar with either of these three incantation texts and thus unlikely to have alluded consciously to them. At the same time, they have a bearing on our understanding

Ivor Davies, ed. J. K. Aitken, K. J. Dell, and B. A. Mastin, BZAW 410 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011), 88. 11 Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers, and Apocalyptic, OtSt 35 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 56–57. 12 For the reconstructed text and English translation, see F. A. M. Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective Spirits: The Ritual Texts (Styx Publications, 1992), 6–23. For the identification of the depicted beings, see pages 58–65, 71–73. A second apotropaic ritual, preserved on the same tablet, seeks to hinder demons approaching someone’s house (33). 13 See Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective Spirits, 105–117, for further discussion. Cf. also Helge Kvanvig, Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical, and Enochic: An Intertextual Reading, JSJSup 149 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 129–131; and Rykle Borger, “The Incantation Series Bīt Mēseri and Enoch’s Ascension to Heaven,” in I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11, ed. Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura, SBTS 4 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 230–231, referring to Tablet III, rev. 12’–15’.

Dumping your Toxic Waste Abroad

15

of the scroll/curse in Zechariah. They highlight the thematic similarity of what the curse in Zech 5:3–4 is doing with what the demons in the incantation texts are barred from doing, i.e., entering a house. This affinity, in turn, suggests that the flying scroll/curse in Zech 5:1–4 can be conceptualized as a malevolent entity (demon), the only difference being that, in the case of Zechariah, God is responsible for sending it out (5:4). Exod 11–12 and the killing of the first-borns is probably the most wellknown biblical example of a destructive force, sent by God, entering into a house. God/“the Destroyer” (‫ )המשחית‬did not enter those houses (12:23b, ‫ )ופסח ה' על־הפתח ולא יתן המשׁחית לבא אל־בתיכם לנגף‬that were protected by the blood on the door frames (12:7a, ‫ולקחו מן־הדם ונתנו על־שׁתי המזוזת ועל־‬ ‫ ;המשׁקוף‬12:13a, ‫היה הדם לכם לאת על הבתים אשׁר אתם שׁם וראיתי את־הדם‬ ‫)ופסחתי עלכם‬.14 The smearing of the blood serves as an apotropaic ritual, which bars “the Destroyer” from entering the house and thus cancels the predicted destruction, or as a kind of pre-emptive exorcism. The affinity between Zech 5:3–4 and Exod 11–12 is strengthened by the textual similarity between Exod 11:4–6 where YHWH will “go out” (v. 4, ‫ )יוצא‬in the midst “of all the land of Egypt” (v. 6, ‫ )בכל ארץ מצרים‬and Zech 5:3 where the curse “goes out over the face of the whole earth/land” (v. 3, ‫)היוצאת על פני כל הארץ‬.15 In a sense, the curse in Zech 5:3–4 functions on the same level as God/“the Destroyer” in Exod 11–12, i.e., both are God-sent forces that enter houses in order to destroy. The notion of evil as a destructive force that creeps into a house is found also in Jer 9:20 (Eng. 9:21) where “Death” is depicted as climbing into the window and into a house (‫)כי עלה מות בחלונינו בא בארמנותינו‬. As Cathcart points out, “Death” is here portrayed as a demon that slays.16 It is possible that Gen 4:7 belongs to this category as well, as it speaks of something “crouching at the door” that Cain should “rule over” ( ‫לפתח חטאת רבץ ואליך תשׁוקתו ואתה‬ ‫)תמשׁל־בו‬. Ps 91 also attests to the idea of protecting a dwelling place from evil. Verses 5–6 refer to evil that seeks to harm and verse 10 reads like an incantation: “evil will not befall you; and plague will not draw near to your tent” ( ‫לא תאנה אליך‬ ‫)רעה ונגע לא יקרב באהלך‬. In fact, Targum Jonathan here actually speaks of “demons” (‫מזיקי דאזלין בליליא‬/‫)שידין‬.17 Presumably because of these aspects, Ps 91 was recited at Qumran to ward off demons.18 The Psalm is possibly also hinted at in Luke 10:17–20 where Jesus gives the disciples power over the

Cathcart, “Arslan Tash,” 89–91, with accompanying bibliography. Michael R. Stead, The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8, LHBOTS 506 (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 194–195. 16 Cathcart, “Arslan Tash,” 93. 17 Cathcart, “Arslan Tash,” 95–98. 18 Matthias Henze, “Psalm 91 in Premodern Interpretation and at Qumran,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, ed. Matthias Henze (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 182–185. 14 15

16

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

enemy.19 There may also be echoes of this notion in Matt 12:43–45 // Luke 11:26, where Jesus speaks of an impure spirit leaving a person and then, not finding a new home, returns to the “house” that it left (v. 44, τότε λέγει εἰς τὸν οἶκόν μου ἐπιστρέψω ὅθεν ἐξῆλθον καὶ ἐλθὸν εὑρίσκει σχολάζοντα σεσαρωμένον καὶ κεκοσμημένον) and enters it anew, accompanied by seven other spirits (v. 45a, τότε πορεύεται καὶ παραλαμβάνει μεθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ἑπτὰ ἕτερα πνεύματα πονηρότερα ἑαυτοῦ καὶ εἰσελθόντα κατοικεῖ ἐκεῖ, cf. below).20 The notion that God commands a force, employed to bring destruction, is known from other parts of the Hebrew Bible as well, and more than one biblical text portray God’s entourage as deadly (e.g., 2 Sam 24:16–17 [ ‫וישלח ידו המלאך‬ ‫ ;]ירושלם לשחתה‬2 Kgs 19:35 [‫ ;]ויצא מלאך ה' ויך במחנה אשור‬cf. Rev 15:6). Of particular interest here is Ezek 9:1–2, where, using the same root ‫ שחת‬as in Exod 12:23, God is in charge of the six plus one men “appointed over the city” (v. 1b, ‫ )פקדות העיר‬who each hold “a destroying tool in his hand” (v. 1b, ‫ואיש‬ ‫ )כלי משחתו בידו‬to kill (vv. 8–11). This notion of seven deadly spiritual beings in Ezek 9:1–2 is reminiscent of the Mesopotamian chthonic deities of war and destruction often referred to as the Divine Seven (sebetti). In the Erra legend, for example, Erra, the god of pestilence and the leader of the sebetti, lures Marduk to the netherworld and, meanwhile, destroys Babylon. In parallel, the sebetti feature as positive forces against evil demons (šiptu) in many Babylonian incantation texts and apotropaic rituals (cf. above).21 Thus, in a similar manner to the seven men in Ezek 9 and the curse in Zech 5, the sebetti not only bring destruction but also combat evil. 22 Turning to the issue of divine responsibility, Zech 5:4 assigns the origin of the curse to God. This blurring of the border between God and evil or, expressed more correctly, this strict adherence in much of the Hebrew Bible to the view of a single omnipotent and almighty deity leads ultimately to the divine origin of evil. Notably, neither Exod 11–12 nor Ezek 9 differentiates in any salient manner between God and the lurking evil. This conflation can be observed even more distinctly in Jacob’s struggle at night with a “man” in Gen 32:23–33 (v. 24b, ‫)יאבק אישׁ עמו עד עלות השׁחר‬, and in God’s attempt to kill Moses (or his son) in Exod 4:24–26 (v. 24b, ‫)ויפגשׁהו ה' ויבקשׁ המיתו‬.

See, e.g., Henze, “Psalm 91,” 185, who argues that Luke 4:10–11 picks up the language of Ps 91:11–12, and Craig A. Evans, “Jesus and Psalm 91 in Light of the Exorcism Scrolls,” in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Contribution, ed. Peter W. Flint, Jean Duhaime, and Kyung S. Baek, EJL 30 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2011), 552–554. 20 Cf. Daniel Bodi, The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra, OBO 104 (Fribourg: Academic Press/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 98. 21 Bodi, Poem of Erra, 99–110. Cf. Tamara M. Green, City of the Moon God: Religious Traditions of Harran, RGRW (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 31–33. 22 Cathcart, “Arslan Tash,” 91, who writes that the language of Ezek 9:7 ( ‫טמאו את הבית ומלאו‬ ‫ )את החצרות חללים צאו יצאו והכו בעיר‬is “almost incantatory.” 19

Dumping your Toxic Waste Abroad

17

In sum, Zech 5:1–4, Exod 11–12, and Ezek 9 all portray God as responsible for sending out entities that bring destruction upon his own people. In parallel, Exod 11–12, as well as Ps 91, the Arslan Tash inscription, and the Mesopotamian ritual texts, speaks of ways to protect oneself from that same kind of evil. In view of this thematic affinity, I suggest that Zech 5:1–4, alongside many of the other aforementioned texts, can be labelled as “anti-exorcist” tales insofar as (1) God is responsible for sending evil, and (2) the evil enters into the victim (in this case their house) rather than being expelled from it. At the same time, Zech 5:1–4 is a “tale of exorcism” in the sense that God banishes the wickedness that originally inhabited the house: the curse causes the house to be cleansed. God’s willing agents are thus doing their allotted destructive work, with the result that the house is left cleansed and free from evil. 1.1 Later Reception Zech 5:1–4 was understood to be related to exorcism in its later reception. In particular, the Jewish community in Acmonia in the first century BCE alluded to the text and to the notion of a flying curse in its funerary inscriptions: [And whoever introduces another body] he will have to reckon with the highest God and may the sickle of the curse come into his house [and leave no-one behind.]23

This inscription speaks of warding off someone who would seek to violate the sanctity of the grave. It refers to “the sickle of the curse,” a reading clearly based on the LXX of Zech 5:1b (καὶ ἰδοὺ δρέπανον πετόμενον). Two other funerary inscriptions, also from Acmonia, may also allude to Zech 5:1–4: […] After these two have been buried, whoever breaks open (the tomb) may an iron broom (σἀρον σιδαροῦν) mangle his house and (the same) to the one who advised him. […] But after the two have been buried, if anyone shall open or cause injury (to the tomb) may the iron broom (σἀρον σιδαροῦν) go into (his) house (εἴσελθον τὸν οἶκον).24

As Trebilco argues, the term “iron broom” (σάρον σιδαροῦν) used here is probably a synonym for “sickle,” possibly chosen because it would be a more appropriate weapon of judgment than a huge sickle.25 There is also a further similarity between the LXX expression εἰσελεύσεται εἰς τὸν οἶκον in Zech 5:4a and the phrase εἴσελθον τὸν οἶκον used in the last inscription: the curse/iron broom enters a house.26

23 For the translation and further discussion, see Paul R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, SNTSMS 69 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 74–75, 135. 24 See Trebilco, Jewish Communities, 74–75, 135. 25 Trebilco, Jewish Communities, 76. 26 Trebilco, Jewish Communities, 76.

18

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

None of these three inscriptions speak of exorcism proper. Rather, they are using the text of Zech 5:1–4 as the inspiration for creating new curses.27 As such, however, they – like Zech 5:1–4 – form what I above called “anti-exorcistic texts,” namely texts that encourage an evil entity to enter into something. In the present context, a curse will enter the house of a person who disturbs the buried ones, in the same way as the curse in Zech 5:1–4 would the houses of the thief and the perjurer. Moreover, the only way to get the curse out of the house would be to perform an apotropaic ritual, i.e., an exorcism.

2. Zechariah 5:5–11 The following vision account in Zech 5:5–11 widens the scopes of the exorcism, the cleansing, and the healing as it moves beyond individual people’s houses and envisages a nation-wide scenario. It features the same set of dramatis personae as Zech 5:1–4, namely airborne agents of God who – like the curse in Zech 5:1–4 – bring about purification. This time around, however, all the actors are female. Zechariah sees a measuring basket (epha), identified with “their eye” (MT)/“their sin” (LXX) of the land (v. 6, ‫זאת עינם בכל הארץ‬, MT).28 Inside this basket, a woman sits who, in turn, is identified as “wickedness” (v. 8, ‫זאת‬ ‫)הרשעה‬. As I have argued elsewhere, this woman is probably a figurine depicting a female deity, i.e., a symbol of idolatry, as only a figurine would fit into a vessel suitable for measuring an epha.29 Two stork-like women then bring the basket, presumably with the women still inside, to Shinar (vv. 9–11, cf. Gen 11:2) where it/she is set “in its/her place” (‫)והניחה שם על מכנתה‬. The identity and character of the flying women are a matter of dispute: are they God’s faithful servants, more specifically a type of female cherubim, or are they rather their opposite, namely a type of anti-cherubim? Although good arguments exist on both sides of the debate, the evidence ultimately points in favour of seeing these winged women as female counterparts of the cherubim in Ezek 8–11 and, as such, forming God’s servants who carry out his will.30

Trebilco, Jewish Communities, 77. The exact understanding of this phrase is not germane to the main argument of this article. For an extended discussion of the two variant readings, see Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions, 212–219. 29 Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions, 221–226, with accompanying bibliography. 30 Tiemeyer, Zechariah and His Visions, 227–233, with accompanying bibliography. See also idem, Zechariah’s Vision Report and Its Earliest Interpreters: A Redaction-Critical Study of Zechariah 1–8, LHBOTS 626 (London: T&T Clark, 2016), 195. 27 28

Dumping your Toxic Waste Abroad

19

Zech 5:9–11 depicts a kind of elimination ritual31 whereby impurity is disposed of and transported to a remote area.32 The removal of the woman thus accomplishes the liberation of the land, the re-establishment of the created order, and the renewal of life in the land.33 Within the Hebrew Bible, Zech 5:5– 11 brings to mind the Azazel ritual of Lev 16. As Körting has demonstrated, just as the second goat Azazel (Lev 16:8, 10, 26) is removed into the sphere of chaos of the wilderness, so the woman in the basket is transported to a remote place. Körting further argues that, when reading Zechariah’s vision report synchronically, the removal of the woman in the basket in Zech 5:9–11 is portrayed as the necessary result of the promise in Zech 3:9 of the removal of the sin of the land (cf. further below).34 Looking to the ancient Near East, the removal of “wickedness” in Zech 5:9– 11 has clear parallels in the Mesopotamian concept of removing demonic forces.35 The so-called Šurpu-series, a series of rituals for removing a curse or a ban preserved to us on tablets from the Middle Babylonian period (1350– 1050 BCE), offers a fruitful comparison with Israelite elimination rituals.36 As shown by Kitz, the Šurpu-series testifies to a two-step process of exorcism. The demons must first be dislodged and dismissed from their immediate location (lines 36–37). They can then be banished to a remote place such as a wilderness, a wasteland, or the Netherworld (lines 47–50).37 Thus, both Zech 5:9– 11 and the Šurpu-series depict how evil is exorcised, a spatial area cleansed, and its toxic waste dumped abroad. Other Assyrio-Babylonian exorcistic texts (CT 23.15–22+, CT 23.19–21, BAM 323, and W 23287:91–98) offer additional parallels. Cranz has noted the resemblance in terms of conceptualization and elimination of evil between these texts and the depiction of the woman in the basket in Zech 5:5–11. In her view, the biblical imagery, namely “the corporeal representation and disposal of an unwanted entity,” shows “a strong affinity with ancient Near Eastern Janowski, “Azazel,” 129. Cf. David P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature, DSSBL 101 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 5, 273 n150. See also Corinna Körting, “Sach 5,5–11: Die Unrechtmäßigkeit wird an ihren Ort verwiesen,” Bib 87 (2006): 487. 33 Körting, “Sach 5,5–11,” 486–488. 34 Körting, “Sach 5,5–11,” 488–489. Looking at Zechariah’s vision report diachronically, however, Zech 5:9–11 is probably the earlier text. 35 James Alan Montgomery, Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913), 87. 36 M. J. Geller, “Šurpu Incantations and Lev. V. 1–5,” JSS 25 (1980): 181–192. In discussing the affinity between the two sets of texts, he does not argue that the rituals preserved in Lev 5:1–6 originated in the Šurpu Incantations; rather that “similar psychological processes were at work” (191–192). 37 Kitz, Cursed Are You, 239–245. For the publication of the texts, as well as the whereabouts of the tablets, see 241–242 n71–72. 31 32

20

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

elimination rituals.”38 Rather than postulating any form of direct influence of Assyrian texts upon Zech 5, however, she argues that the similarities stem from a shared cultural ethos.39 In her comparative analysis, Cranz emphasizes the role of figurines in incantations describing the ritual journey of evil to the Netherworld: they embody the thing that they represent.40 In particular, many of these Assyrian rituals prescribe the symbolic burial of a figurine in a sealed vessel/basket.41 Cranz concludes by postulating three similar aspects between the Assyrio-Babylonian rituals and Zech 5:5–11. First, the woman in the epha parallels the figurines. Second, the entity is placed in a vessel of everyday use. Third, both sets of texts dispatch the entity “on a journey which removes it from the sphere of ritual enactors or prophets.”42 Thus, Zech 5:5–11 envisages, just like the Assyrio-Babylonian rituals, wickedness in concrete, human form, to be contained in a vessel, and then either sent back to its place of origin or as far away as possible.43 At the same time, there are salient differences. First, while the Assyrio-Babylonian rituals are largely individual, Zech 5:5–11 is communal and encompasses the whole land. Second, while the Assyrio-Babylonian rituals can be repeated many times, Zech 5:5–11 depicts a single, permanent event.44 Summing up, the notion of expulsion of evil and its transportation to a remote place is of particular relevance in the present context of understanding Zech 5:5–11 as a tale of exorcism: personified wickedness is first dislocated from Yehud and then transported far away to Shinar, a place chronologically, theologically, and geographically remote.45 2.1 Later Reception The notion in Zech 5:5–11 of expelling personified evil, understood either as personified or in a more abstract form, is found in many later texts. I do not claim that all of these instances are examples of direct influence; my aims are far more modest: I wish to highlight the conceptual similarity between Zech 5:5–11 and a select number of later texts and, in view of this similarity, explore

38 Isabel Cranz, “Ritual Elements in Zechariah’s Vision of the Woman in the Ephah,” Bib 96 (2015): 586. Her discussion is mainly based on texts found in JoAnn Scurlock, MagicoMedical Means of Treating Ghost-Induced Illnesses in Ancient Mesopotamia, AMD III (Leiden and Boston: Brill/Styx, 2006). 39 Cranz, “Ritual Elements,” 587. 40 Cranz, “Ritual Elements,” 589. 41 Cranz, “Ritual Elements,” 590–592. 42 Cranz, “Ritual Elements,” 593–594. 43 Cranz, “Ritual Elements,” 595. 44 Cranz, “Ritual Elements,” 595–597. 45 Cf. Cranz, “Ritual Elements,” 594.

Dumping your Toxic Waste Abroad

21

how Zech 5:5–11 can be read as a biblical prototype for the exorcism of evil with the aim of purification and subsequent healing. 2.1.1

The Gadarene Demoniac (Mark 5:1–20)

The notion of removing/exorcising personified wickedness/demonic forces from the land and later also from a person appears in the New Testament. In the narrative in Mark 5:1–20, for example, Jesus frees a demon-possessed man in Gerasa/Gadara. The exorcised demons beg Jesus not to be sent out of the area (v. 10) but instead into a herd of swine (v. 12). Jesus gives the demons permission to enter the swine (v. 13), whereupon the swine stampede into the Sea of Galilee and drown.46 The Markan narrative shares with Zech 5:5–11 the spatial dimension of dumping your toxic waste abroad in order to cleanse your own habitat. The demons plead with Jesus not to be sent “out of the country” (v. 10, ἀποστείλῃ ἔξω τῆς χώρας), only to end up in the (Gentile-owned) swine and subsequently end up at the bottom of a lake. Likewise, in Zech 5:11 wickedness is being disposed of in a Gentile country. It can also (very tentatively) be argued that the swine in Mark 5 fill the same narrative function as the stork-like women in Zech 5 insofar as they are unclean animals (Lev 11:7; Deut 14:8 versus Lev 11:19 and Deut 14:18) and thus suitable for carrying away the unclean demons. In a sense, the stork-like women in Zech 5:9–11, the curse in Zech 5:3–4, and the swine are all God’s vehicles for purifying the land of evil. After the performance of the miracle, the people ask of Jesus to “depart from their borders” (v. 17, ἀπελθεῖν ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρίων αὐτῶν).47 Reading the Markan narrative together with Zech 5 opens up the fascinating possibility that also Jesus forms, to some extent, a parallel to the curse and the stork-like women. Jesus has driven out evil and has thus become associated with it. It follows that Jesus, like the evil that he drove out, is being spatially removed. 2.1.2

The Story of Hanina ben Dosa

There are also some intriguing thematic similarities between Zech 5:5–11 and the rabbinic story of Hanina ben Dosa in the Talmud (b. Pesaḥ.112b). This narrative tells of the encounter between Agrat bat Mahlat, queen of the demons, and Hanina ben Dosa, a first century Jewish rabbi and miracle worker. Hanina 46 For the history of composition of Mark 5:1–20 and its relation to the parallel narratives in Matt 8:28–34 and Luke 8:26–39, see Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus. WUNT II 54 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 72– 87. 47 Scholars have suggested various possible reasons for the people’s reaction. Craghan, for example, argues that the people were upset because of the loss of the swine (John F. Craghan, “The Gerasene Demoniac,” CBQ 30 (1968): 527. In contrast, Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 78, maintains that the people’s request is a natural request given their fear (v. 15).

22

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

declares that Agrat will never wander upon inhabited land. In response, Agrat begs Hanina to grant her some space, whereupon he concedes that she can have the nights of the Sabbath and of the fourth day.48 This narrative, like Zech 5 and Mark 5:1–20, has a spatial dimension to the expulsion. Agrat’s request to grant her some space (albeit temporal rather than geographic) reverberates not only the demons’ plea not to be sent out of the area (Mark 5:10) but also the stork-like women’s act of bringing the woman of wickedness out of the land and into Shinar. 2.1.3

The Interpretation of Zechariah by Didymus the Blind

Turning from conceptual similarity to actual reuse and application, a few commentators have appealed to Zech 5:5–11 as a proof-text for exorcism. Didymus the Blind, for instance, in his commentary to Zechariah, connects the two winged women who have an unclean spirit in their wings with the narrative of exorcism in Matt 12:43–45 where Jesus drives out the unclean spirits. When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44 Then it says, “I will return to the house I left.” When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order.45 Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation. (NIV) 43

Contrary to the sense of Zech 5:9–11 advocated above, Didymus the Blind argues that the stork-like women are false spirits/false views and as such represent either the devil or the antichrist. These associations are brought about by the fact that the stork is an unclean animal (Lev 11:19).49

3. Zechariah 3 Our third text from Zechariah’s vision report, namely the account of the cleansing of Joshua the High Priest (Zech 3), also contains an example of expulsion of evil, yet with a unique twist.50 This vision account offers a glimpse of the heavenly council in action. The reader encounters a scene containing Joshua the High Priest, the Angel of YHWH, and the Accuser (‫( )השטן‬v. 1), as well as

For a brief discussion of the parallels between Mark 5:12 and b. Pesaḥ. 112b, see Craig A. Evans, The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: Matthew-Luke, vol. 1 (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2003), 185. 49 Didymus the Blind, Commentary on Zechariah, FC111, trans. Robert C. Hill (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2006), Zech 5 (pages 108–111). 50 Zech 3 is probably the chronologically youngest of the vision accounts in Zech 1–6. Cf. Körting, “Sach 5,5–11,” above. 48

Dumping your Toxic Waste Abroad

23

YHWH himself (unless identified with the aforementioned Angel) (v. 2). YHWH “rebukes” (root ‫ )גער‬the Accuser, in the sense that the Accuser is brought into submission and his control over a human being is wrestled from him.51 There is, however, no trace of formulaic language and nothing hints at an exorcism insofar as no evil is being expelled.52 At this point, Joshua was wearing filthy garments (v. 3) but he is subsequently dressed in clean finery (vv. 4–5). The vision account ends with the removal of sins from the land in a single day (v. 9, ‫ )ומשתי את עון הארץ ההיא ביום אחד‬which may be a reference to the Day of Atonement.53 Despite the abovementioned acknowledgement that the verb ‫ גער‬in itself does not convey an act of exorcism, Zech 3 nevertheless contains tantalizing aspects that are suggestive of exorcism. In particular, the link between the rebuking of the Accuser (v. 2), the cleansing of the High Priest symbolized by his change of clothing (vv. 4–5), and the cleansing and healing of the land (v. 9) paint a picture of removal of evil and subsequent healing of the land, on par with those in Zech 5. In parallel, Zech 3 differs from the accounts in Zech 5 in two ways. First, in Zech 3, it is Joshua’s sin (v. 4, his own and/or that which he carries on behalf of someone else in his role as High Priest) that stands in the centre and God who removes it from him (‫)העברתי מעליך עונך‬. Thus, in contrast to Zech 5:3–4 where God sends the curse “to do the dirty work,” and in Zech 5:9–11 where the stork-like women carry out the removal of sin, in Zech 3 God himself performs the removal of the sin of the land (vv. 2, 9). Second, while the guilty ones are being punished in Zech 5:1–4 and Zech 5:5– 11 (the people in the house, the woman in the basket), in Zech 3 Joshua goes free due to God’s choice of Jerusalem (v. 2). The role of the Accuser is pertinent to this issue. Although the Accuser is the one being rebuked, he does not represent evil in the same way as the figurine does in Zech 5:5–11. Furthermore, there is no evidence that he is being sent anywhere, even though he disappears from the readers’ view after verse 2. It is the sin – that of Joshua and that of the people – that plays the role of the figurine and is removed and sent away. In parallel, there are some intriguing conceptual similarities between Zech 3 and the other two vision accounts vis-à-vis exorcism and healing. As already noted, the Accuser does not play the same narrative role as the figurine in Zech 5:5–11. Instead, and rather surprisingly, he plays the same role as the curse and

51

Howard Clark Kee, “The Terminology of Mark’s Exorcism Stories,” NTS 14 (1968): 235,

237. 52 Jan Joosten, “The Verb ‫‘ גער‬to Exorcize’ in Qumran Aramaic and Beyond,” DSD 21 (2014): 354. 53 See further Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, “The Guilty Priesthood (Zech 3),” in The Book of Zechariah and Its Influence, ed. Christopher M. Tuckett (Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2003), 9– 11.

24

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

the stork-like women do. All these four characters are God’s agents, whose task it is to point out and destroy evil. Thus, in his role as the Accuser, part of the Divine Council, his job is to carry out “God’s dirty work.” The difference between the account in Zech 3 and the two accounts in Zech 5 lies simply in the outcome of the account: while God accepts the work of the curse and the stork-like women, God rejects the work of the Accuser due to his choice of Jerusalem. Zech 3 may thus be categorized as a partly failed attempt at exorcism or, maybe preferably, as a redirected one. Joshua, in his role as the carrier of sin, should have been expelled from the land yet God, due to his choice of Jerusalem, alters the plans. The sin itself is expelled (v. 9) but the carrier (Joshua) is allowed to stay. Moreover, the Accuser, who should have carried out the expulsion, is relieved from his task and instead God himself performs it. God thus ends up doing the same work as the curse and the winged women in Zech 5 and with the same result: sin and impurity have been expelled. This interpretation fits well with the claim in Zech 3:9 that [God] ‫משתי את‬ ‫עון הארץ ההיא‬. Scholars have debated the understanding of the verb ‫משתי‬. The Paal form is elsewhere an intransitive verb with the sense “depart, be removed” (e.g., Isa 54:10) rather than the expected transitive sense (“I have removed”).54 Following Rogland’s recent suggestion, I propose rendering this expression as “I have departed” (with God as the subject) and the following ‫ את‬as “with.”55 In this way, God, like the two winged women, departs with the sin (and thus carries it away). It also supports the link between Zechariah’s vision report and the Day of Atonement. We have already discussed the possible allusion in Zech 5:5–11 to Lev 16, where the figurine, like the second goat, is being sent away (Lev 16:8–10). Here, I wish to suggest that Zechariah’s vision report as a whole, when read sequentially, offers a loosely anchored illustration of the proceedings of the Day of Atonement. In Zech 3, Joshua is vindicated and cleansed so that he can perform the Day of Atonement when the guilt of the land (v. 9, ‫ )עון הארץ‬will be eliminated. This scene can be understood as an enactment of Lev 16:9 – Aaron brings forward the first goat and offers it as a sin offering (v. 9, ‫( )ועשהו חטאת‬even though the word of guilt/sin differs). Subsequently, Zech 5:5–11 can likewise be seen as the enactment of Lev 16:10: the figurine, like the second goat Azazel, is removed alive far away from the community to Shinar. This banishment of sin/guilt, in turn, fits with the notion of exorcism in general: demons are not necessarily killed but cast out, i.e., expelled, and subsequently transported to where they can do no harm to the person/place that they had inhabited. In Zechariah’s vision report, the overarching impression is that of evil being exorcised and the land being cleansed and healed. Anew, the toxic waste is moved elsewhere beyond and outwith its borders. BDB, s.v. ‫מושׁ‬. Max Rogland, “Verb Transitivity and Ancient Hebrew ‫ מושׁ‬in Zechariah 3:9,” VT 63 (2013): 497–498. 54 55

Dumping your Toxic Waste Abroad

25

3.1 Later Reception Later texts dealing with exorcism have often alluded to Zech 3 for three reasons: 1. The later identification of the role of the Accuser (‫ )השטן‬with the personified Satan/the devil; 2. The transformation of the verb ‫ גער ב‬into a technical term for exorcism; 3. The notion that God and the Accuser battle over the fate of a human being. We shall here explore four examples – Didymus the Blind’s commentary to Zech 3, Jewish Aramaic magical texts, Jude 9, and the Oxyrhynchus papyrus P.Oxy. xxxiv 2684 (P78) – to illustrate the use of Zech 3 in later contexts of exorcism. 3.1.1 The Accuser Becomes Satan Many later retellings of Zech 3, as well as texts with more tenuous connections to Zech 3, convey the idea that the Accuser equals a demon that needs to be exorcised. In other words, the Accuser has been transformed from being God’s tool who removes the evil into an evil being who needs to be removed. This process began already in the Church Fathers’ commentaries to Zech 3. For instance, Didymus the Blind wrote that the scene between Joshua and the Accuser actually portrays Jesus (an identification supported by the shared name, as well as their shared priestly role) and the devil. To emphasize this point, Didymus brings John 13 (v. 2, “The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already prompted Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, to betray Jesus”; v. 27, “As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him. So Jesus told him, ‘What you are about to do, do quickly’,” NIV), as well as Eph 4:27 (“and do not give the devil a foothold,” NIV), and Isa 14:13–14 (the hubris of the light bearer whom he associates with the devil) into conversation with Zech 3:2.56 In this way, Didymus the Blind helps laying the foundation for an interpretation of Zech 3 that actually stands at logger-heads with the plain meaning of the biblical text: the Accuser in later reception becomes identified with the one who brings sin rather than the one who removes sin. In parallel, Joshua’s role in this new scenario is transformed into the vicarious sufferer who, as a type for Christ, both carries the sin and intercedes on behalf of sinners before the Father.57 This exegetical tradition, although it violates certain aspects of the biblical account, nevertheless highlights one of the less overt nuances of Zechariah’s Didymus the Blind, Commentary on Zechariah, 66–69. See, e.g., Cyprian, Test. 12.2.13 (ANF 5:521) and Theodoret of Cyr, Comm. Zech. 3:1–6 (PG 81:1892), 239. 56 57

26

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

vision report, namely that the removers of sin are not “figures of light” (cf. Zech 5:1–4). In Zech 5:1–4 it is the curse, an inherently destructive force, that removes sin. Less clearly, in Zech 5:5–11, the allusion to the unclean storks may hint at the winged female characters’ borderline character. Even though all three sets of characters – the Accuser, the curse, and the women – are God’s obedient servants, part of their description allude to their “darkness.” They are not alone among God’s servants to have these shady aspects, however. As we have already seen above, they share that with God’s entourage as portrayed in Exod 11–12 and Ezek 9:1–11. 3.1.2 The Verb ‫גער ב‬ The Hebrew phrase ‫“( גער ב‬to rebuke”), as uttered by God to the Accuser in Zech 3:2, is employed in later texts featuring exorcist rituals. This phrase, as well as its Greek translation, became a technical term used in the context of rebuking evil spirits already in the Second Temple Period. Kee, for example, has shown that the term ‫ גער ב‬was commonly used in Jewish exorcism traditions (such as in the Qumran scrolls: 1QM XIV,10; 1QHf IV, 6; 1QapGen XX, 28–29), with the sense of subjugating evil spirits.58 More recently, Joosten has argued that the verb ‫ גער ב‬in Jewish Aramaic in magical texts, such as in two amulets from the Land of Israel and in another two texts from Egypt (an amulet found in the Cairo Geniza and an exorcist text), is a technical term for exorcism. This use, even though not attested in the earlier Zech 3:2, is nevertheless inspired by this verse and forms a so-called “delocutive derivation.” Once this verb had acquired this new meaning, later uses of it should not necessarily be understood as conscious allusions to Zech 3:2.59 With this word of caution, we should thus not relate to the abovementioned Qumran texts as strict cases of textual reception. Even so, they constitute cases where the ideas related to expulsion and deportation of sin, present in Zech 3:2 in embryonic form, have given birth to a wider set of loosely related texts that deal with forms of exorcism. 3.1.3

The Epistle of Jude

One of the more intriguing pieces of later reuse of Zech 3 is found in Jude 9, as well as in the different texts that constitutes its presumed underlying textual sources. These texts develop the notion, present in Zech 3:2, that the Accuser is being rebuked by God for wishing to harm a human being (namely Joshua).

58 Kee, “Terminology,” 232–246. See also Jennifer Nyström, “Jesus’ Exorcistic Identity Reconsidered: The Demise of a Solomonic Typology,” in Jesus and the Scriptures: Problems, Passages and Patterns, ed. Tobias Hägerland, LNTS 552 (London: T&T Clark, 2016), 75–76. 59 Joosten, “Verb ‫גער‬,” 352–355. For a bibliography on the Aramaic texts, see notes 19–23

Dumping your Toxic Waste Abroad

27

But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" (Jude 9, NIV)

The Greek phrase Ἐπιτιμήσαι σοι κύριος in Jude 9, corresponds to God’s words in the LXX Zech 3:2 (ἐπιτιμήσαι κύριος) (MT, '‫)יגער ה‬, thus suggesting that Jude alludes to the vision account in Zech 3. This impression is strengthened by the allusions in Jude 22–23 to Zech 3:1–5.60 Thus, despite the fact that the phrase ἐπιτιμήσαι κύριος may at this point already have become a technical term for exorcism, I nevertheless propose that we are dealing with a sustained allusion to Zech 3 throughout the Epistle of Jude. Many scholars have sought to reconstruct the textual source(s) that lay before the author of Jude. Following the reconstruction of Bauckham, verse 9 in Jude appears to be a free rendering of a now no longer extant ending of the socalled Testament of Moses, as supported by a number of Christian sources.61 For instance, Origen mentions how Michael disputed with the devil about Moses’s body: And in the first place, in the book of Genesis, the serpent is described as having seduced Eve; regarding whom, in the work entitled The Ascension of Moses (a little treatise, of which the Apostle Jude makes mention in his Epistle), the archangel Michael, when disputing with the devil regarding the body of Moses, says that the serpent, being inspired by the devil, was the cause of Adam and Eve’s transgression. (Origen, Princ. 3.2.1, my italics)

The traditions around Moses’s unusual burial probably originate in Deut 34:1– 6. Verse 6 states that [God] buried Moses in Moab (‫)ויקבר אתו נגי בארץ מואב‬.62 Even though the opening 3m.sg. form of the verb ‫ ויקבר‬can easily be understood as referring to a plural subject (“they [the people of Israel] buried him”), the proximity to God as the subject in the preceding verse has given rise to the notion that God himself buried Moses. Jude 9 raises the question of the exact reasons behind the debate between the archangel and the devil vis-à-vis Moses’s body. While Jude itself does not hint at the reasons behind this dispute, other later texts are more forthcoming. According to the Slavonic Life of Moses 16, the reason is Moses’s killing of the Egyptian (Exod 2:12). For the allusion to Zech 3:1–5 in Jude, see Harm W. Hollander, “The Attitude towards Christians who are Doubting: Jude 22–3 and the Text of Zechariah 3,” in The Book of Zechariah and Its Influence, ed. Christopher M. Tuckett (Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2003), 123– 134. 61 This is not the place for an in-depth discussion of these sources. See further Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, WBC 50 (Waco: Word Books, 2010), 65–76, and John J. Collins, “The Testament (Assumption) of Moses,” in Outside the Old Testament, ed. M. de Jonge. Cambridge Commentaries on the Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 200, vol. 4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 145–158. 62 See especially the rabbinic traditions preserved in b. SotÊah 14a and b. Sanh. 39a. 60

28

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

For the devil contended with the angel, and would not permit his body to be buried, saying, ‘Moses is a murderer. He slew a man in Egypt and hid him in the sand’. Then Michael prayed to God and there was thunder and lightning and suddenly the devil disappeared; but Michael buried him with his (own) hands.63

It is worth noting, with Bauckham, that the devil in this text maintains his ancient role of accuser and, as in Zech 3:2, he has a legitimate case.64 Summing up, the Epistle of Jude offers an intriguing re-reading of Zech 3, albeit one that has been much influenced also by other sources. 3.1.4

A Case of Reception of Reception: The Epistle of Jude and Amulets

The Oxyrhynchus papyrus P.Oxy. xxxiv 2684 (P78) appears to contain four verses from the Epistle of Jude.65 As Wasserman has argued recently, the link between Jude 9 and the material in Zech 3:2, via the Testament of Moses, makes Jude an eminently suitable text for a protective amulet against demonic forces. The material in Zech 3:2, as well as in Jude 9, testifies to a battle between God and his opponent and could as such be employed for apotropaic purposes to bring hostile powers under control.66 This use of Jude 9, and more tenuously, also of Zech 3:2, demonstrates yet again how later reception has been able to bring out nuances of exorcism from texts where such connotations are present yet dormant.

4. Conclusion In this article, I have attempted to shed new light upon the notion of exorcism, in the spatial sense of removal of evil/sin from the land of Israel and dumping it in a place far away, as found in Zechariah’s vision report. We have established that Zechariah’s vision report contains an intriguing type of “anti-exorcist” tales where God is responsible for both sending the evil in the first place and for expelling it to a place outwith the realm of Judah. In one case God does the dirty work himself (Zech 3), whereas in others God uses proxies to transport the evil beyond the borders of the land (Zech 5). These proxies are M. R. James, The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament: Their Titles and Fragments (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2007) 47–48 (translation of the German translation in N. Bonwetsch, “Die Mosessage in der slavischen kirchlichen Litteratur,” in NGWG.PH [1908], 607) (my italics). 64 Bauckham, Jude, 69–70. 65 For a discussion of the papyri, their appearance, and their current whereabouts, see Tommy Wasserman, “P78 (P.Oxy. xxxiv 2684): The Epistle of Jude on an Amulet?” in New Testament Manuscripts: Their Texts and Their World, ed. Thomas J. Kraus and Tobias Nicklas, TENTS 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 137–160. 66 Wasserman, “Epistle of Jude on an Amulet,” 157–158. 63

Dumping your Toxic Waste Abroad

29

God’s faithful servants, yet they are in parallel also creatures of darkness and, as such, able to handle evil. Later reception subsequently transformed these vision accounts into tales of exorcism proper. They were understood to reflect a dualistic fight between good and evil and were, as such, used as part of apotropaic rituals of expulsion.

Bibliography Ancient Authors Didymus the Blind. Commentary on Zechariah. FC 111. Translated by Robert C. Hill. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2006. Origen. De principiis. English translation by Paul Koetschau and G. W. Butterworth in On First Principles. Cathedral Library; TB 311N. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. Theodoret of Cyr. Commentary on Zechariah. PG 81. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1864.

Modern Authors Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962. Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. WBC 50. Waco: Word Books, 2010. Bodi, Daniel. The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra. OBO 104. Fribourg: Academic Press/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Bonwetsch, N. “Die Mosessage in der slavischen kirchlichen Litteratur.” Page 607 in NGWG.PH. Göttingen: Lüder Horstmann, 1908. Borger, Rykle. “The Incantation Series Bīt Mēseri and Enoch’s Ascension to Heaven.” Pages 224–233 in I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11. Edited by Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura. SBTS 4. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Broida, Marian. Forestalling Doom: “Apotropaic Intercession” in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. AOAT 417. Münster: Ugarit Verlag, 2014. Cathcart, K. J. “The Phoenician Inscription from Arslan Tash and Some Old Testament Texts (Exodus 12; Micah 5:4–5[5–6]; Psalm 91).” Pages 87–99 in On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies. Edited by J. K. Aitken, K. J. Dell, and B. A. Mastin. BZAW 420. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Collins, John J. “The Testament (Assumption) of Moses.” Pages 145–158 in Outside the Old Testament. Edited by M. de Jonge. Cambridge Commentaries on the Writings of the Jewish and Christian World 200 BC to AD 200. Vol. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Craghan, John F. “The Gerasene Demoniac.” CBQ 30 (1968): 522–536. Cranz, Isabel. “Ritual Elements in Zechariah’s Vision of the Woman in the Ephah.” Bib 96 (2015): 586–598. Culpeper, Jonathan, and Elena Semino. “Constructing Witches and Spells: Speech Acts and Activity Types in Early Modern England.” Historical Pragmatics 1 (2000): 97– 116. Edelman, Diana. “Proving Yahweh Killed his Wife (Zechariah 5:5-11).” BibInt 11 (2003): 335–344.

30

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

Evans, Craig A. “Jesus and Psalm 91 in Light of the Exorcism Scrolls.” Pages 541–555 in Celebrating the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Canadian Contribution. Edited by Peter W. Flint, Jean Duhaime, and Kyung S. Baek. EJL 30. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2011. –. The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: Matthew-Luke. Vol. 1. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2003. Frey-Anthes, Henrike. Unheilsmächte und Schutzgenien, Antiwesen und Grenzgänger: Vorstellungen von “Dämonen” im alten Israel. OBO 227. Fribourg: Academic Press/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007. –. “Concepts of ‘Demons’ in Ancient Israel.” WO 38 (2008): 38–52. Geller, M. J. “Šurpu Incantations and Lev. V. 1–5.” JSS 25 (1980): 181–192. Green, Tamara M. City of the Moon God: Religious Traditions of Harran. RGRW. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Henze, Matthias. “Psalm 91 in Premodern Interpretation and at Qumran.” Pages 168–193 in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran. Edited by Matthias Henze. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Hollander, Harm W. “The Attitude towards Christians who are Doubting: Jude 22–3 and the Text of Zechariah 3.” Pages 123–134 in The Book of Zechariah and its Influence. Edited by Christopher M. Tuckett. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2003. James, M. R. The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament: Their Titles and Fragments. Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2007. Janowski, Bernd. “Azazel.” DDD, 128–131. Joosten, Jan. “The Verb ‫‘ גער‬to Exorcize’ in Qumran Aramaic and Beyond.” DSD 21 (2014): 347–355. Kee, Howard Clark. “The Terminology of Mark’s Exorcism Stories.” NTS 14 (1968): 232–246. Kitz, Anne Marie. Cursed Are You! The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2014. Körting, Corinna. “Sach 5,5–11: Die Unrechtmäsigkeit wird an ihren Ort verwiesen.” Bib 87 (2006): 477–492. Kvanvig, Helge. Primeval History: Babylonian, Biblical, and Enochic: An Intertextual Reading. JSJSup 149. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Montgomery, James Alan. Aramaic Incantation Texts from Nippur. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913. Nyström, Jennifer. “Jesus’ Exorcistic Identity Reconsidered: The Demise of a Solomonic Typology.” Pages 69–92 in Jesus and the Scriptures: Problems, Passages and Patterns. Edited by Tobias Hägerland. LNTS 552. London: T&T Clark, 2016. Rogland, Max. “Verb Transitivity and Ancient Hebrew ‫ מושׁ‬in Zechariah 3:9.” VT 63 (2013): 497–498. Scurlock, JoAnn. Magico-Medical Means of Treating Ghost-Induced Illnesses in Ancient Mesopotamia. AMD III. Leiden and Boston: Brill/Styx, 2006. Searle, John R. “A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts.” Pages 344–369 in Language, Mind and Knowledge. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1975. Stead, Michael R. The Intertextuality of Zechariah 1–8. LHBOTS 506. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia. “The Guilty Priesthood (Zech 3).” Pages 1–19 in The Book of Zechariah and Its Influence. Edited by Christopher M. Tuckett. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2003.

Dumping your Toxic Waste Abroad

31

–. Zechariah and His Visions: An Exegetical Study of Zechariah’s Vision Report. LHBOTS 605. London: T&T Clark, 2015. –. Zechariah’s Vision Report and Its Earliest Interpreters: A Redaction-Critical Study of Zechariah 1–8. LHBOTS 626. London: T&T Clark, 2016. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. Prophets of Old and the Day of the End: Zechariah, the Book of Watchers, and Apocalyptic. OtSt 35. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Trebilco, Paul R. Jewish Communities in Asia Minor. SNTSMS 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Twelftree, Graham H. Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus. WUNT II 54. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. Wasserman, Tommy. “P78 (P.Oxy. xxxiv 2684): The Epistle of Jude on an Amulet?” Pages 137–160 in New Testament Manuscripts: Their Texts and Their World. Edited by Thomas J. Kraus and Tobias Nicklas. TENTS 2. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Wiggermann, F. A. M. Mesopotamian Protective Spirits: The Ritual Texts. CM 1. Groningen: Styx Publications, 1992. Wright, David P. The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature. SBLDS 101. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.

The Impurity of the Impure Spirits in the Gospels Cecilia Wassén In their descriptions of Jesus’s work as an exorcist, the authors of the Synoptic gospels frequently call the evil spirits “impure.” As I will argue, it is likely that the expression goes back to the historical Jesus. This raises questions about what Jesus may have meant by the term: was it just an expression, or did he view the evil spirits as literally impure? If he did, in what way would they have been impure? I will discuss the possible meanings of the alleged impure nature of the spirits by examining the use of the expression in the gospels and (other) Jewish sources, including the Pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea Scrolls. I will address these questions by taking the conceptual links between disease, sin, and impurity into regard.

1. Jesus and Exorcism People in the time of Jesus knew that evil spirits existed and were deeply frightened of them. A wide range of Jewish texts from the Second Temple period take their existence for granted and testify to developed speculations about their nature and role in cosmos. Hence, texts such as Tobit and 4QExorcism ar (4Q560) reveal the names of demons;1 the Book of Jubilees and the Enochic traditions explain their origins and boundaries; apotropaic prayers and exorcistic spells provide tools for protection and defence; Tobit, the gospels, and Josephus’s writings provide stories about successful exorcisms. Jewish incantations and divine names made it into non-Jewish texts in the Greco-Roman world, which indicate their prevalence.2 In short, evil spirits were a real threat to people. In times when there were few effective medical remedies for illnesses and little to no knowledge about transmission of contagious diseases, 4Q560 1 I 3–5 reads: “the male Wasting-demon and the female Wasting-demon… O, Fever-demon and Chills-demon and Chest Pain-demon… O male Shrine-spirit and female Shrine-spirit, O you demons…” Translation from Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov, eds., Additional Genres and Unclassified Texts, vol. 6 of DSSR (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 227. The tale in Tobit features the evil deeds of “the wicked demon Asmodeus” (Tob 3:8). 2 Thomas Kazen, Jesus and Purity Halakhah: Was Jesus Indifferent to Impurity?, ConBNT 38 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2002), 310 n70. 1

34

Cecilia Wassén

evil spirits were blamed for all these evils; but they were blamed for more than causing diseases: people believed that they actively led people into sin. Therefore, protection against all evil influences by evil spirits was necessary, such as saying certain prayers and wearing powerful amulets, notably tefillin.3 In this milieu, Jesus got a reputation of being an effective exorcist and healer. There is no reason to doubt the general gist of the accounts in the Synoptic gospels on this point (John, as is well known, includes no narratives of any exorcism) and scholars in general do not question the historicity of this aspects of Jesus’s work.4 Stories about his exorcisms appear in different sources in the gospels (based on the four-source hypothesis). Mark provides several narratives about exorcisms and Q includes one short narrative about a dumb demoniac (dumb and blind in Matt 12:22 // Luke 11:14–15).5 Matthew adds a similar short story (about a dumb demoniac Matt 9:32–34) to Mark’s account and Luke claims that Jesus had cast out seven demons from Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:2; cf. Mark 16:9). A few embarrassing traditions further support the historicity behind the accounts: Jesus is accused of driving out the evil spirits with the help of Beelzebul (Mark 3:22) and there are traces of an occasion when Jesus’s disciples were not successful in driving out the evil spirits (Mark 9:18).6 According to Graham H. Twelftree, the dramatic and violent descriptions of Jesus’s exorcisms likely go back to the earliest reports, since there seem to have been some embarrassment about them in the early church.7 Although we cannot know the details of Jesus’s exorcisms, the accounts show beyond doubt that Jesus performed exorcisms and that it was an important part of his work.8 Furthermore, since evil spirits are often thought to be behind the physical attacks in form of illnesses, there is no reason to distinguish clearly between healings and exorcisms per se. Indeed, the very wording “dumb demoniac” (Matt 9:32) and “a blind and dumb demoniac” (Matt 12:22) demonstrates that physical impairment and evil demons are very closely linked 3 On the protective use of tefillin, see Yehudah Cohn, Tangled Up in Text: Tefillin and the Ancient World (Providence: Brown Judaic Studies, 2008), 113–115. Philip Alexander suggests that a text like 4Q560 could be copied and used as an amulet; see Philip S. Alexander, “‘Wrestling against Wickedness in High Places’: Magic in the Worldview of the Qumran Community,” in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After (Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1997), 329. 4 See James D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament, NTL (London: SCM, 1975), 44. 5 For this study I assume that the four-source hypothesis is correct. 6 The Beelzebul controversy belongs to the Marcan and Q overlap and Matthew and Luke have the story in slightly different versions. See John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 407. 7 Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus, WUNT II 54 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 71. 8 Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit, 44.

The Impurity of the Impure Spirits in the Gospels

35

together to the degree that the demon or spirit is manifested in these conditions. Luke’s wording “a demon that was dumb” clearly reflects this idea (11:14); he also explains that the woman with a crippled back had “a spirit of infirmity” (πνεῦμα ἀσθενείας) for 18 years (Luke 13:10). The overlap between healing and exorcism is apparent in Mark 7:32–35 where Jesus heals a deaf man with a speech impediment.9 He took him aside in private, away from the crowd, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spat and touched his tongue. (34) Then looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, “Ephatha,” that is, “Be opened.” (35) And immediately his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly.

Who is Jesus talking to? I assume it was the unclean spirit who possessed the body of the man. In other words, Mark does not distinguish clearly between Jesus’s healings and his exorcisms. The close affinity between the ailment and the evil spirit is evident in incantations from Qumran where the spirits are called by various forms of illnesses, such as headache (4Q560). The identification between diseases and evil spirits is also noticeable in instructions for priests examining a person suffering from scale disease in the Damascus Document, D, (4Q266 6 i). These texts will be examined below.

2. The Term Impure Spirits in the Gospels There is a major difference in the Synoptic gospels in the terminology related to evil spirits: whereas Mark has 11 occurrences of the expression τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἀκάθαρτον (with variations), Luke has five occurrences and Matthew only two, the same number as Acts.10 Many scholars argue that πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον is a Marcan redaction, because of his frequent use of the expression.11 Nevertheless, Clinton Wahlen in his book Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels disagrees. Given that the word ἀκάθαρτος is used only together with πνεῦμα, it appears to be a fixed expression which the gospel authors have received.12 Moreover, Mark prefers the term δαιμόνιον, which is

All biblical citations are from the NRSV. See Acts 5:16; 8:7. Clinton Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels, WUNT 185 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 177. 11 For example, Steffen Jöris argues that Mark is influenced by Zech 13:2 as part of his general interest in the messianic passages in Zechariah. Accordingly, Mark presents Jesus as “the messianic figure from Zechariah (one of many identities) in his dealings with ‘unclean spirits’” (66). Jöris emphasizes that the expression has the connotations of sin and impurity. See Jöris, “The Markan Use of ‘Unclean Spirit’: Another Messianic Strand,” ABR 60 (2012), 49–66. 12 Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity, 88. 9

10

36

Cecilia Wassén

evident in his summaries, in order to help his Greek speaking readers.13 The expression “impure spirit” is also found in Q which adds to the likelihood that Jesus called the spirits impure (Matt 12:43–45 // Luke 11:24–26 concerning the return of the impure spirit). The expression attributed to Jesus raises several questions. Was it just a negative label, or was there some substance behind the expression? Furthermore, if Jesus perceived the spirits as impure, in what sense would they have been impure and how would they have affected people? According to Loren Stuckenbruck “the expression suggests that the effect of the bad spirit is to make the victim ritually unclean and therefore unable to participate in the religious life of Israel.”14 According to Jöris, the expression unclean spirits is tied to “sin” and “impurity” and in Mark, while referring to demonic beings, the expression represents a “general impurity, predominantly connected to sin.”15 Were evil spirits believed to pollute their victims by making them ritually impure, or was their impure nature rather associated with sin? We need to delve further into the issue.

3. Different Kinds of Impurity: Moral and Ritual Impurity For these questions, the categories ritual and moral impurity as outlined by Jonathan Klawans are helpful. We should note that these categories are academic constructs, since ancient writers did not distinguish between them and used the same terms.16 Still, these kinds of impurities are different in nature 13 Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity, 106. Steffen Jöris (“The Markan Use of ‘Unclean Spirit’”) emphasizes that two expressions are not synonymous and that “unclean spirit” implies impurity of some sort. 14 Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Myth of Rebellious Angels: Studies in Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Texts, WUNT 335 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 174. 15 Jöris, “The Markan Use of ‘Unclean Sprit’,” 66. 16 The neat distinction between ritual and moral impurity in the Hebrew Bible as proposed by Jonathan Klawans, (Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism [New York: Oxford University Press, 2000]) has been criticized by among others Thomas Kazen, John Barton, and T. M. Lemos. Although I agree with them that the two spheres of ritual and moral impurity overlap in the Hebrew Bible to a greater degree than Klawans suggests, I find the terms helpful. Importantly, the expression “moral impurity” implies an understanding of sin as defiling in a real sense. See my discussion in Cecilia Wassén, “Moral Impurity in the Gospel of Matthew,” in Matthew Within Judaism: Israel and the Nations in the First Gospel, ed. Anders Runesson and Daniel Gurtner, ECL (Atlanta: SBL Press), forthcoming; John Barton, Sin, Impurity, and Forgiveness (Oxford University Press, 2014), 197–200; T. M. Lemos, “Where There Is Dirt, Is There System? Revisiting Biblical Purity Constructions,” JSOT 37:3 (2013): 265–294; Thomas Kazen, “The Role of Disgust in Priestly Purity Law,” JLRS 3:1 (2014), 62–92. Kazen has repeatedly criticized different aspects of Klawans’s theory. He claims that Klawans confuses the ontological (“real” versus “not real”) and linguistic levels (“literal” versus “metaphorical”).

The Impurity of the Impure Spirits in the Gospels

37

and have different effects. Regulations for attracting, transmitting, and purifying from ritual impurity is carefully detailed in Leviticus and Numbers: e.g., prescriptions for purification like that for regular impurity caused by childbirth, scale disease, menstruation, sexual intercourse, a corpse, and so on (Lev 12– 15; Num 19). Overall the priestly writers regulate the handling of these impurities in a neutral way. In the Hebrew Bible certain grave sins pose a threat to the land, namely some sexual sins (incest, sexual intercourse between men, sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman; cf. Lev 18:24–30), idolatry (Lev 19:31; 20:1–3; Jer 2:23), and murder (Num 35:33–34).17 There is no means of purification for this impurity: only punishment will purge the land; the sinners will be cut off from their people, i.e., killed (Lev 18:29); the land will “vomit out” not only those who commit these sexual sins but the people will be exiled (Lev 18:28). This perspective continues in the Second Temple period whereby grave sins, especially sins of sexual nature and idolatry, are considered defiling and impure, as Jonathan Klawans has demonstrated. The two kinds of sins, sexual transgression and idolatry, are frequently coined in purity terminology, which is evident in for example the Dead Sea Scrolls, Paul’s writings (Rom 1:24; 2 Cor 12:21; cf. Eph 5:5), and Rev 17:14. Nevertheless, in a development from the Hebrew Bible, sins in a wider sense are sometimes seen as defiling in Second Temple literature, which is evident especially in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In the sectarian literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls there is a tendency to view all kinds of sins as impure in the sense that they are defiling pure stuff. Hence, sinners are excluded from all pure things, including pure meals, according to the penal codes in Rule of the Community (1QS VI, 24–VII, 25), D (4Q266 frgs. 10 i–ii), and Miscellaneous Rules (4Q265). For example, 1QS VI, 24–25 states: These (are) the precepts by which they shall judge in an inquiry of the Community according to the cases: If a man among them is found who lies about property, and he knows (his deception), he shall be excluded from the midst of the pure-food of the Many ‫מתוך טהרת‬ ‫( רבים‬for) one year and be fined one fourth of his food.18

Hence, he finds the distinction between metaphorical and literal artificial. Kazen’s analysis is illuminating for understanding how the terminology of impurity has developed. But for questions of how purity functioned in society it is less helpful. Moral impurity, as Klawans defines it, causes defilement that has serious consequences for the temple, the land, and ultimately for the whole people. That sins and the consequences of sins in this sense (not in a literal sense as in material substance) are factual is evident. 17 Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 26–31. 18 All citations of 1QS are from the translation in James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Vol. 1, Rule of the Community and Related Documents (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994).

38

Cecilia Wassén

Furthermore, a sinner cannot become pure even if he purifies in water: He cannot be purified by atonement, nor be cleansed by waters of purification, nor sanctify himself in streams and rivers, nor cleanse himself in any waters of ablution. Unclean, unclean is he, as long as he rejects the judgments of God. (1QS III, 3–4)

In these texts the concept of impurity related to sin has widened to include all sinful behavior, not only sexual sins, idolatry, and murder. The connection between sin and impurity also appears in relation to impure spirits, sometimes in the context of disease.

4. Impure Spirits in Early Jewish Literature In various Jewish texts, we find close associations between evil spirits, disease, impurity, and sin. I will clarify the links between these concepts by highlighting two aspects of these rather loose, general thoughts about demonic activities: 1) The connection between impure spirits and sin, which appears in the sphere of moral impurity as already mentioned; and 2) Their connection to defiling diseases, which belongs to the sphere of ritual impurity. I am not arguing that we encounter any kind of a systematic demonology in these texts, but rather some reoccurring ideas associated with evil spirits. “Unclean” or “impure” spirit, πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον, is a uniquely Jewish expression that does not appear outside of the New Testament and Jewish writings. At the same time, it is not used frequently in Jewish writings. The Hebrew equivalent ‫ רוח טמאה‬appears only once in the Hebrew Bible, in Zech 13:2, which belongs to a late addition to the book. There is a range of different labels for evil spirits in the Dead Sea Scrolls, predominantly in constructions with ‫רוח‬, such as ‫ רוח רעה‬,‫ רוחי רשע‬although ‫ שדים‬is used a few times as well. But the expression ‫ רוח טמאה‬occurs only twice in the Scrolls, interestingly enough in both instances in apotropaic hymns (11Q5 XIX, 15 and 4QIncantation [4Q444] frgs. 1–4 i + 5 i 8). In addition, the similar wording ‫ ברוח נדה‬appears once, namely in 1QS IV, 22. The label “impure spirit” also occur in Testament of Benjamin, Jubilees, and Revelation. Revelation is interesting because impure spirits occur in a different context there than in the gospels and Acts. I will consider these instances below, but also other examples where evil spirits are linked to impurity. As mentioned, the expression “unclean spirit” occurs once in the Hebrew Bible, namely in Zech 13:2, in an oracle about the eschaton when the inhabitants of Jerusalem will be cleansed from their sins and impurities:

The Impurity of the Impure Spirits in the Gospels

39

13:1 On that day a fountain ( ‫ )ָמ ֣ק וֹר‬shall be opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin ( ‫ )ְלַח ַ ֖טּ את‬and impurity ( ‫)וְּל ִנ ָֽדּ ה‬. 13:2 On that day, says the LORD of hosts, I will cut off the names of the idols from the land, so that they shall be remembered no more; and also I will remove from the land the prophets and the unclean spirit ( ‫) ֥רוּ ַח ַה ֻטְּמאָ֖ה‬.

There are various interpretations as to what the unclean spirit may refer to. Many commentators compare the unclean spirit to the “spirit of favour (‫ )ֵח֙ן‬and supplication” that the Lord will pour out on the people, as mentioned earlier in Zech 12:10.19 They consider both kinds of spirits merely as human attitudes, the spirit of impurity being a negative, sinful attitude. Nevertheless, Armin Lange makes a strong case for considering the unclean spirit as an active demonic force, which, like the lying prophets, is a living being or reality that will be removed.20 Pointing to the evil influence of evil and impure spirits in Jewish writings, e.g., 1QS, he argues that “in Zech 13:2 current prophecy should be understood as one of the evil manifestations of a demon called ‘the spirit of impurity’.”21 For our purposes, it is significant that the expression “unclean spirit” is associated with sin, especially idolatry, which as mentioned is a sin that is considered defiling.22 The link between grave sins in the form of idolatry and sexual immorality is evident in Revelation, a text that is molded in Jewish traditional apocalyptic thoughts and ideas (with the added savior figure in Christ, the Lamb).23 In wellknown, memorable images, Rome, in the discourse called Babylon, appears as a whore – “the mother of whores and of earth’s abominations” – with whom kings of the earth fornicate. In a recurring theme, the discourse mixes 19 Zech 12:10: “And I will pour out a spirit of compassion and supplication on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that, when they look on the one whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn.” 20 Armin Lange, “Considerations Concerning the ‘Spirit of Impurity’ in Zech 13:2,” in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt, ed. Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and K. F. Diethard Römheld (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 254–268. 21 Lange, “Considerations Concerning the ‘Spirit of Impurity’ in Zech 13:2,” 265. 22 Cf. Rev 16:13 “And I saw three foul spirits (πνεύματα τρία ἀκάθαρτα) like frogs coming from the mouth of the dragon, from the mouth of the beast, and from the mouth of the false prophet. These are demonic spirits, performing signs, who go abroad to the kings of the whole world, to assemble them for battle on the great day of God the Almighty.” The prophecy in Zech 12:1–9 has most likely inspired the author of Revelation to make a connection between false prophets and impure spirits. We may compare the expression “unclean spirit” with the “spirit of fornication” which causes the people to engage in idolatry in Hos 5:4: “My people consult a piece of wood, and their divining rod gives them oracles. For a spirit of whoredom has led them astray, and they have played the whore, forsaking their God” (cf. 4:12). 23 For the Jewish character of Revelation see John W. Marshall, Parables of War: Reading John’s Jewish Apocalypse (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2001).

40

Cecilia Wassén

terminology of porneia (fornication) and impurity; these in turn are metaphors of various sins: murder of the saints (Rev 17:6; 18:24; 19:2), excessive wealth, and general depravity (18:3–24). Furthermore, the scarlet beast on which the woman sits is full of blasphemous names, which points to idolatry (17:3; cf. 13:1, 11–15). In contrast, as a foil to the whore and her “fornications,” the church appears as a bride, dressed in white, pure linen (19:8). The texts demonstrate the close link between sins and impurity: The woman was clothed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her fornication τὰ ἀκάθαρτα τῆς πορνείας. (Rev 17:4)24

In this context the impure spirits appear. Through “her” many sins the city has become a dwelling place of “impure spirits” (Rev 18:2): He called out with a mighty voice, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! It has become a dwelling place of demons, a haunt of every foul spirit (κατοικητήριον δαιμονίων καὶ φυλακὴ παντὸς πνεύματος ἀκαθάρτου), a haunt of every foul and hateful bird, a haunt of every foul and hateful beast.

The metaphor of a whore obviously also points to actual sins of sexual nature, which comes forth clearly in the punishment of the sinners in Rev 21:8: But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.

Here as well the sin of idolatry is prominent. The connection between impure spirits and offensive sins also becomes apparent in texts where impure spirits lead people astray, into sin (and become morally impure). This undertone of the label “impure spirit” is evident in a few instances where the expression appears in Jewish writings. Both 1 Enoch and Jubilees reflect developed speculations about the role of evil spirits in the world and provide etiologies for their existence. For this enterprise, the author of Jubilees is using and altering the Enochic traditions. Both narratives relate the origin of the evil spirits to the rebellious angels who took human wives in Gen 6, events that in the biblical narrative lead to the flood.25 According to the Book of the Watchers, the sexual union resulted in Giants, who brought violence and oppression to the earth (1 En. 7:3–6; 9:1, 9–10) and were subsequently punished by God (9:2–3, 10; 15:8) and cut off.

24 Cf. Rev 14:8: “Then another angel, a second, followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication’.” 25 Archie T. Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1–4 in Early Jewish Literature (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015).

The Impurity of the Impure Spirits in the Gospels

41

Nevertheless, their spirits came out of their bodies and these are called “evil spirits” and “strong spirits”:26 But now the giants who are born from the (union of) the spirits and the flesh shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, because their dwelling shall be upon the earth and inside the earth… They will become evil upon the earth and shall be called evil spirits (1 En. 15:8– 9).27

They will attack and corrupt people (1 En. 15:12–16:1). The spirits are not called “impure,” but the wrongful sexual union is condemned with the use of purity terminology when the author stresses the illegal mix between the holy, spiritual beings and the earthly women of flesh and blood: the watchers “defiled themselves” when taking daughters of the people (9:9; 15:3–4). The union is a violation against the natural order, which the author emphasizes by calling them “bastards,” mamzerim. Thereby, due to their mixed nature, mixed seed, they are inherently impure.28 This is the background to the mamzerim that appear in 4Q444 and in a list of demonic forces in 4Q511, which I will examine below.29 In Jubilees the evil spirits are called “impure demons.” In this text they are said to lead people into sin and attacking them physically. Jub. 10:1 reads: “impure demons began to mislead Noah’s grandchildren, to make them act foolishly, and to destroy them.”30 They also make people blind and kill them (10:3). The impurity of the demons is manifested in their leading the children into grave sins, i.e., idolatry, murder, and eating blood (Jub. 1:11; 7:27; 11:4– 5; 22:16–19).31 When Noah prays to the Lord for help, the good angels are commanded to bind them. However, in an interesting twist of events, the “chief of the spirits” Mastema, also called Satan, pleads with God to keep a tenth of them under his command, to which God agrees (Jub. 10:7–14). These demons are both causing illnesses and leading people into various sins. In defense, Noah is given instructions for healing the illnesses through herbs, but is also warned about their seductions (Jub. 10:12). We find the same theme of the evil powers leading the people into defiling sin in the sectarian literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is not surprising, given that both the Enochic traditions and Jubilees were popular literature at Qumran. For example, in an interpretation of Isa 24:17, D 4:12–5:15 explains how the ruler of the evil spirits, Belial, is leading the people to sin by trapping Wright, Evil Spirits, 145. Translation from James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 1, Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 21. 28 See Lange, “Considerations Concerning the ‘Spirit of Impurity’ in Zech 13:2,” 258. 29 See Stuckenbruck, The Myth of Rebellious Angels, 14–15. 30 Translation from James C. VanderKam, ed., The Book of Jubilees, CSCO 510 (Leuven: Peeters, 1989). 31 Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity, 35–36. 26 27

42

Cecilia Wassén

them in his “nets,” which concern transgressions of different laws. In turn, these serious transgressions cause defilement of the sanctuary. But during all those years Belial will run unbridled amidst Israel, as God spoke through the hand of the prophet Isaiah, son of Amoz, saying, “Fear and a pit and a snare are upon you, O inhabitant(s) of the land.” This refers to the three nets of Belial, of which Levi, the son of Jacob, said that he (Belial) entrapped Israel with them, making them seem as if they were three types of righteousness. The first is unchastity (‫)הזנות‬, the second arrogance, and the third defilement of the sanctuary. He who escapes from this is caught by that and he who is saved from that is caught by this. (CD IV, 12–19a)

The first of the nets is fornication, ‫הזנות‬, which is explained at great length and involves polygyny, sex during menstruation, and uncle-niece marriages. The defilement of the temple is primarily caused by fornication (CD V, 6–11). In other words, the worst kind of sins bring about moral impurity that defiles the sanctuary even from afar.32 It is also noteworthy that the whole population, except the insiders, is trapped by Belial which means that the sanctuary at the time of the writing of D is considered defiled because of sexual sins (CD IV, 18; V, 6–7). Ultimately it is Belial, the chief of the evil spirits, who is behind the defiling sins.33 That sexual sins cause moral impurity that defiles the temple in CD can be compared to the well known discourse on the two spirits from 1QS (1QS III, 13–IV, 26). Here, the chief evil spirit, the Angel of Darkness or the Spirit of Deceit (‫ ולרוח עולה‬III, 19; IV, 9, 20), rules over the “Sons of Deceit” who “walk in the way of darkness” (III, 21) and even causes the sons of righteousness to commit all their sins and iniquities (1QS III, 22). In his domain belong all kinds of sinful works and attitudes, such as falsehood, pride, and hypocrisy, but also defiling sins: “abominable works in a spirit of fornication and filthy ways in unclean worship” (IV, 10), ‫מעשי תועבה ברוח זנות ודרכי נדה בעבודת טמאה‬. Thus, in this case, the Spirit of Deceit causes both sexual sins and idolatry. Importantly, the term ‫תועבה‬, “abomination,” refers particularly to grave sexual sins that cause impurity in Leviticus (18:22–30; 20:13).34 Whereas the dark side is able to influence the Sons of Light at the present, this will cease at God’s visitation in the eschaton. It is noteworthy that God’s destruction of the evil domain and all the spirits is described as a cleansing, which it is, of moral impurity. But even more, God will destroy the impure spirit manifested in

32 See Paul Heger, Women in the Bible, Qumran and Early Rabbinic Literature: Their Status and Roles, STDJ 110 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 223–225; Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, 25. 33 Also in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (esp. T. Levi, e.g., 14:15–15:1) and the Psalms of Solomon (8:9) the defiling force of sexual sins threatens the purity of the sanctuary. See discussion by Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 52–59. 34 Klawans points out that the term ‫“ תועבה‬abomination” is only used concerning moral impurity, not ritual impurity; see Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 26, 172 n31.

The Impurity of the Impure Spirits in the Gospels

43

humans that defiles them. The Spirit of Deceit is effectively exorcised from the bodies of humans in a sort of “global exorcism.”35 It is tempting to read this purification as a metaphor, but the Spirit of Deceit, manifested in the flesh of humans, appear as real as the Holy Spirit that will destroy it. The effect of the Spirit of Deceit on humans is also tangible in temptations and “afflictions” ( ‫כול‬ ‫( )נגיעיהם‬1QS III, 23). In this context, we should note that the impure spirit again is linked to evil deeds, in this case terrible falsehood and wicked deeds. Then God will purify by his truth all the works of man and purge for himself the sons of man. He will utterly destroy the spirit of deceit from the veins of his flesh. He will purify him by the Holy Spirit from all ungodly acts and sprinkle upon him the Spirit of Truth like waters of purification, (to purify him) from all the abominations of falsehood and from being polluted by a spirit of impurity ( ‫)רוח נדה‬, so that upright ones may have insight into the knowledge of the Most High and the wisdom of the sons of heaven, and the perfect in the Way may receive understanding. (1QS IV, 20–22)

The expression “unclean spirit” appears in the Testament of Benjamin (in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs) where the patriarch admonishes his sons “If you continue to do good, even the unclean spirits will flee from you and wild animals will fear you” (5:2). Again, we see a close connection between sin and impure spirits as even righteous behavior makes for protection from unclean spirits. A similar belief is expressed in the sectarian literature from Qumran, e.g., quite explicitly in CD XVI, 45 concerning the initiation ritual: “And on the day when a man takes upon himself (an oath) to return to the Torah of Moses, the angel Mastema shall turn aside from him, if he fulfills his words.”36 Note the ending: “if he fulfills his words.” Hence, righteous living offers protection from evil spirits, but this is only possible through divine help in different ways: in the discourse of the two spirits, God of Israel and his Angel of Truth help the sons of light to resist the seductions by the Angel of Darkness (1QS III, 24–25). ‫ רוח טמאה‬appears in the prayer Plea for Deliverance in the Great Psalms Scroll from Cave 11 (11Q5 XIX) 11QPsa.37 The prayer is part of the non-canonical psalms in the long scroll.38 The prayer is apotropaic, used as protection

Stuckenbruck, The Myth of Rebellious Angels, 178. Cf. general views on how righteousness leads to healings and blessings, e.g., in Jub. 23. 37 The order of the psalms in the Qumran Psalm scrolls differ greatly from that of the Masoretic Text, starting from Ps 91 in MT. See James C. VanderKam and James Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (San Francisco: T&T Clark; HarperOne, 2002), 122–123. 38 Together with other previously unknown compositions, such as The Apostrophe to Zion, the Eschatological Hymn, David’s Compositions, and Three Songs against Demons. The Psalms scrolls also include six apocryphal psalms that were known prior to the discovery of the Qumran scrolls. See VanderKam and Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 125–128. 35 36

44

Cecilia Wassén

against evil spirits. Esther Eshel suggests that these prayers were recited at specific days that were considered dangerous.39 Forgive, O Lord, my sins, (14) cleanse me from my iniquities! Favour me with a constant and knowing spirit and let me not be shamed (15) by ruin. Let Satan have no dominion over me, nor an unclean spirit ( ‫ ;)אל תשלט בי שטן ורוח טמאה‬let neither pain nor the will (16) to evil rule in me (‫)מכאוב ויצר רע אל ירשו בעצמי‬. Surely You, O Lord, are my praise; in You I place my hope (17) all the day. (11Q5 XIX, 14–17)40

Armin Lange submits that both “‘satan’ and ‘spirit of impurity’ describe different types of demonic beings by whom the praying person fears to be ruled.”41 Rather than referring to the ruler of the evil forces, the term “satan” in this case corresponds to the older meaning of a type of heavenly being, well known from Job (cf. Num 22:22, 32; 1 Kgs 5:18; Job 1:6–12; 2:1–10; Zech 3:1–2; 1 Chr 21:1). Hence, he translates the lines: “Let not a satan (‫ )שטן‬or an unclean spirit have dominion over me; let neither pain nor or an evil inclination (‫ )יצר רע‬rule in me” (11Q5 XIX, 14–16).42 In this case, satan appears to be a demon-like figure who can be compared to the spirit of impurity, as an outside force. The outcome of such possession is both pain (illness) and doing evil. The impurity of the spirit here lies in its ability to cause people to sin through an evil inclination, which is more of an interior leaning connected to the “evil inclination”.43 Already in 1966 David Flusser pointed out the similarities between Jesus’s petition for protection, to be saved “from the evil one” in Matt 6:13, and the apotropaic prayers from Qumran.44 The other occurrence of an “impure spirit” in the extra-canonical texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls appears in the fragmentary 4Q444 Incantation, which is also an apotropaic prayer. Although much of the text is missing, the fragments reflect a dualistic anthropology whereby two spirits fight over control of the human, similar to the discourse on the two spirits in 1QS III, 13–IV, 26. (1) And as for me, because of my fearing God, he opened my mouth with his true knowledge; and from his holy spirit […] (2) truth to a[l]l [thes]e. They became spirits of controversy in my (bodily) structure; law[s of God …] (3) [… in] blood vessels of flesh. And a spirit of knowledge and understanding, truth and righteousness, God put in [my] he[art] (4) […] And strengthen yourself by the laws of God, and in order to fight against the spirits of wickedness ( ‫)ברוחי רשעה‬, and not (5) […] its judgments. vacat Cursed be (6) […] of the truth and of the Esther Eshel, “Genres of Magical Texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and K. F. Diethard Römheld eds., Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der Israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 396. 40 Translation from Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov, eds., Poetic and Liturgical Texts, vol. 5 of DSSR (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 193. 41 Lange, “Considerations Concerning the ‘Spirit of Impurity’ in Zech 13:2,” 261. 42 Lange, “Considerations Concerning the ‘Spirit of Impurity’ in Zech 13:2,” 260. 43 Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity, 43–44. 44 David Flusser, “Qumrân and Jewish ‘apotropaic’ Prayers,” IEJ 16:3 (1966): 194–205. 39

The Impurity of the Impure Spirits in the Gospels

45

judgement (7) […] until the completion of its dominion (8) [… ba]stards and the spirit of impurity ( ‫( )מ[֯מ ׄזרים ׄוׄרוח הטמאה‬9) […] and the thieve[s? …] (10) [… ri]ghteous ones ] (11) […] abominati[on (4Q444 frgs. 1–4 i + 5 [Col. I])45

Like the discourse on the two spirits in 1QS, there is an internal struggle between two spirits, which is explicitly referred to as a rib, a conflict, in the body (line 2). God helps the person by placing a good spirit that brings knowledge, understanding, truth, and righteousness, which serve as a protection against the evil spirit (line 3). Thereby living righteously and observing the laws is a protection against the evil spirits, which is emphasized in line 4. This message is reminiscent of CD XVI, 4–5, concerning the oath to live by the Torah of Moses as protection against Mastema, as I noted above. Warring spirits is also a theme in the apotropaic hymns Songs of the Maskil (4Q510 and 511), but these do not mention any impure spirits. These hymns also express a firm reliance on help from God and his powerful angels against demonic attack (4Q510 frg. 1 4–7): And I, the Instructor, proclaim His glorious splendor so as to frighten and to te[rrify] (5) all the spirits of the destroying angels, spirits of the bastards, demons, Lilith, howlers, and [desert dwellers …] (6) and those which fall upon men without warning to lead them astray from a spirit of understanding and to make their heart and their […] desolate during the present dominion of (7) wickedness and predetermined time of humiliations for the sons of lig[ht],46

Unlike the discourse on the two spirits and the Songs of the Maskil, the spirits are addressed directly in curses in 4Q444 Incantation (but see 1QS II, 4–9). Here the expression ‫ רוח טמאה‬follows right after the word ‫“( ממזרים‬bastards”), which most likely is based on the myth of the illegal mixing between the Watchers and the human women from the Enochic traditions. The term mamzerim implies that the spirits are impure in nature. Unfortunately, the rest of the list of demonic beings is missing, but “thieves” are included. Perhaps they are led by impure spirits, in contrast to the righteous, who are also mentioned. Evil spirits in general can cause people to sin, including committing particularly heinous crimes that are impure. This is nothing unique for spirits labelled “impure.” But in the cases where authors use the label “impure spirits” there is in often a link to their characteristic of causing people to sin as I have Translation from Parry and Tov, vol. 6 of DSSR, 168–169. Translation from Parry and Tov, vol. 6 of DSSR, 170–171. Cf. the exorcistic hymn, Apocryphal Psalmsa (11Q11) IV, 4–8 that threatens the demon by invoking God who will send “a powerful angel”. 11Q11 is made up of three non-canonical psalms and a version of Ps 91. See Alexander, “‘Wrestling against Wickedness in High Places,’” 325–329. For a discussion on exorcistic incantations and apotropaic hymns from Qumran, see Cecilia Wassén, “What Do Angels Have against the Blind and the Deaf? Rules of Exclusion in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Wayne O. McCready and Adele Reinhartz eds., Common Judaism: Explorations in SecondTemple Judaism, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008), 116–118. 45 46

46

Cecilia Wassén

demonstrated. It is no exaggeration that the label “impure spirit” often stresses the connection between the evil spirits and sin, in particular the ability of the evil spirits to lead people astray into sin. The impurity in these cases are of moral nature, i.e., moral impurity. The expression “impure spirits” is not the standard label for evil spirits, which raises the question as to why Jesus (likely) preferred this label. May the term “impure spirits” suggest that Jesus linked the illnesses, caused by the spirits, to sins? That God punished people through illnesses because of sins is a recurring idea in the Hebrew Bible. For example, Miriam was struck by scale disease for criticizing Moses (Num 12:1–15). Similarly, king Uzziah’s scale disease was due to his wrongful assumption of a priestly role according to 2 Chr 26:15–21 (cf. idolatrous activities of Jehoram in 2 Chr 21:11–18). Furthermore, according to the curses of the covenant, God will punish Israel with pestilence and other diseases if the people disobeys God’s will (Deut 28:21–22, 28, 35).47 A similar perspective surfaces in stories like 1Q20 GenApocryphon whereby God, the Most High, sends a spirit that afflicts both the Pharao and the Egyptian people with plagues because the Pharao has taken Sarai as a wife (1QapGen XX, 16–18). Another king, Nabonidus, in 4QPrayer of Nabonidus (4Q242, is punished with a bad disease by God and cured when he is praying to the true God. Often, therefore, repentance is considered a prerequisite for healing (Sir 38:10, 15).48 The other side of the coin is the sentiment that people should rely on God rather than on doctors in order to get relief (e.g., Exod 15:26; cf. Deut 7:14–15).49 This is the reason why medicine is listed together with medicinal roots as part of the evil things that Watchers teach human women (1 En. 7:1–2). As Stuckenbruck points out, authors of books like Jubilees (10:10–13) and Sirach (37:27–38:15; cf. Wis 7:15–16:20) take a different position on physicians and medicine.50 Hence, Sirach explains that physicians and medicines are part of God’s plan as he has created both (Sir 38:1–15). What was Jesus’s view on causes of sickness and demonic attacks? He appears to have assumed that individuals had a certain responsibility for their conditions. We may recall that Jesus in his healings sometimes forgives the people their sins. In Mark 2:5b he tells the paralytic whom he has cured, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” This saying recalls John 5:14 where Jesus tells the man he had healed at Bethesda, “See, you have been made well! Do not sin anymore, so that nothing worse happens to you.”51 In his study Jesus and the On these and other cases, see Stuckenbruck, The Myth of Rebellious Angels, 121. For the common view that illnesses are caused by punishment due to sin in Jewish writings, see further, Tobias Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins: An Aspect of His Prophetic Mission, SNTSMS 150 (Cambridge ; Cambridge University Press, 2012), 180–182. 49 See Stuckenbruck, The Myth of Rebellious Angels, 121–123. 50 Stuckenbruck, The Myth of Rebellious Angels, 123–124. 51 For Mark 2:5 compare Isa 33:24: “And no inhabitant will say, ‘I am sick’; the people who live there will be forgiven their iniquity.” See Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins. 47 48

The Impurity of the Impure Spirits in the Gospels

47

Forgiveness of Sins, Tobias Hägerland argues quite compellingly for the historicity behind these traditions, which he interprets in light of Jesus’s prophetic identity. Hence, there is reason to believe that Jesus thought that illnesses could be caused by sins.52 At the same time, illnesses are also the result of demonic attacks. How are these ideas combined? The underlying reasoning is likely that through sins a person open him-/herself up to attacks by spirits that cause illnesses and lead people further into the wrong ways. Impure spirits are only successful, however, if a person is not protected by God through his spirit. This is the basic message in Jesus’s saying in Q: When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it wanders through waterless regions looking for a resting place, but it finds none. Then it says, “I will return to my house from which I came.” When it comes, it finds it empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings along seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and live there; and the last state of that person is worse than the first. (Matt 12:43–45 cf. Luke 11:24–26)53

The saying demonstrates the need for protection against evil spirits.54 The “house” cannot be empty, i.e., a person needs the protection from God, through his Spirit. In line with Jesus’s general apocalyptic outlook, there is no neutral space between the spiritual forces. Although the anthropology is not developed here, it is tempting to compare this view with the discourse of the two spirits, among other early Jewish texts, that express the need for a good spirit – the spirit of light, Prince of Lights, or God’s spirit – to be a strong force in a human being. In sum, Jewish writings testify to the beliefs that impure spirits lead people into sin. The impurity of the spirits is hence related to moral impurity, i.e., impurity stemming from heinous, abominable crimes. The impure spirits also affect people physically by their attacks. A general, underlying idea is that through sins people open themselves up to demonic attacks and are therefore at least partly to blame for the ills they experience. There are a few passages in the gospels (Mark 2:5 in particular) that suggest that Jesus shared this fairly common view on diseases in that he forgives people their sins in connection to healing them. By calling the evil spirits impure, he alludes to the idea that by sinning a person opens him- or herself up to demonic attacks. These can be 52 Tobias Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins, 171–181. Against common perception, Hägerland explains that Jesus in Luke 13:1–5 does not deny the link between sin and misfortune. Instead Jesus affirms such a correlation in that the misfortunate people in these cases are not presented as innocent victims. The point is that everyone must repent, otherwise they will be punished. 53 Matt 12:45 continues, “So will it be also with this evil generation.” Nevertheless, that sentence is not from Q since Luke does not include it. 54 The explanation may indicate that Jesus’s patients were not always well permanently (obviously). This would be in line with the other hints that he was not always successful in healing and exorcism; e.g., Mark 6:5.

48

Cecilia Wassén

averted by the help of a more powerful spirit from God and by a righteous living, ideas that are familiar from the sectarian literature from Qumran (e.g., 1QS III–IV; CD; 4Q510–511; 4Q444). Nevertheless, evil spirits could also be impure by nature, which is particularly evident in the label mamzerim. The term emphasizes the unnatural nature, given that the spirits derive from the illegal mixing of two species, heavenly and earthly. There are also instances where the moral and ritual impurity of the victims of disease overlap, which are also relevant for ideas concerning the impure nature of impure spirits. Some serious diseases cause ritual impurity, i.e., scale disease and bodily discharges (Lev 13–15). Since a common belief was that diseases were caused by sin, both moral and ritual impurity play a part in these cases. The connection between sin and defiling disease is particularly plain in the case of scale disease, in light of the stories in the Hebrew Bible about Miriam (Num 12:1–15) and King Uzzia (2 Chr 26:15–21) which explicitly link scale disease to sin.55 Some texts from Qumran add to this picture. 4QTohorot A (4Q274) consists of regulations concerning cases when the impurity level increases in people who are already impure. The fragmentary beginning of the column provides stipulations concerning someone who is to stay from other impure and twelve qubits from the purity and any dwelling. There is a debate as to which kind of impurity is the object of the laws, but Kazen’s suggestion that the lines concern a person purifying from scale disease is compelling.56 The penitential tone is evident, which in turn implies that the person

55 Kazen (Jesus and Purity Halakhah, 305–310) highlights the exorcistic background to many of the elaborate purification rituals, e.g., the bird-rite for lepers, the burning of the red heifer, the scapegoat ritual, and the breaking of the calf’s neck. He points to an “amazing amount of magic and apotropaic demonic vestiges that can be found in spite of heavy monotheistic redaction of the texts” (306–307). 56 4Q274 1–4 reads: “(1) He shall begin to lay down his pleading. He shall recli[ne] on a bed of sorrow [and] dwell in a dwelling of groaning. He shall dwell separate from all the unclean and far from (2) what is pure (‫)הטהרה‬, twelve cubits, in his quarter of mourning, and he shall dwell as far as this distance northwest of any dwelling-house. (3) Anyone of the unclean (‫[ )הטמאים‬wh]o [touches] him shall bathe in water and launder his clothes and afterwards he may eat, for this is as it says: Unclean, unclean (‫)טמא טמא‬, (4) shall he cry all the days [the afflic]tion is [on him].” For this translation, see Thomas Kazen, Issues of Impurity in Early Judaism, ConBNT 45 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 67–68. Baumgarten suggests that the laws concern a zav while Milgrom argues for a scale diseased. See Joseph Baumgarten, “The Laws about Fluxes in 4QTohoraa (4Q274)” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness, 1–8; Jacob Milgrom, “4QTohoraa: An Unpublished Qumran Test on Purities” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989-1990, ed. Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H. Schiffman, STDJ 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 59–68; Kazen, Issues of Impurity in Early Judaism, 73.

The Impurity of the Impure Spirits in the Gospels

49

who is purifying from scale disease is somehow guilty for his suffering.57 The first lines read, “He shall begin to lay down his pleading. He shall recli[ne] on a bed of sorrow [and] dwell in a dwelling of groaning.”58 Along similar lines, although expressing a much harsher attitude, there is a reference to “one afflicted with skin disease or an uncle[an] flux” in a list of transgressors.59 These categories of people are likely objects of a curse. Although the text is fragmentary and the actual terms of cursing is missing, these transgressors will clearly be subject to God’s wrath (4Q270 2 II 17–18). Baumgarten explains that the diseases may be “symptomatic of sin.”60 It is also relevant for the connection between diseases, sin, and impurity that the evil spirits are identified quite closely with the actual diseases in some texts, like 4Q560, in which the exorcising speaker addresses the demons by their names. In this case, the demons personify the diseases: “the male Wastingdemon and the female Wasting-demon… O, Fever-demon and Chills-demon and Chest Pain-demon… I male Shrine-spirit and female Shrine-spirit, O you demons…” (4Q560 1 I 3–5).61 An instruction to priests concerning examination for scale disease in D appears to identify the disease with the evil spirit in a factual way: And the rule vacat for the scall of the head or the be[ard …] (6) […when the priest sees] that the spirit has entered the head or the beard, taking hold of (7) the blood vessels and the [malady has sprou]ted from beneath under the hair, turning its appearance to fine yellowish, for it is like a plant (8) which has a with a worm under it.62 (4Q266 6 i 5–8)

Baumgarten comments “It is thus possible to take the attribution of scale disease to the ‫ רוח‬in our text as involving the intrusion of evil or demonic influence.”63 Whereas the evil spirit takes hold of blood vessels and kills the hair, “the spirit of life pulsates up and down” in the blood vessels (line 12), which reflects a traditional view that ties blood and life together (Gen 9:3–4; cf. Lev 57 The perspective is reminiscent of the “penitential tone” which Joseph Baumgarten finds in the purification liturgies in 4Q512 (4QpapRitual of Purification B), which includes phrases such as “hidden acts of guilt” and “Blessed are You [… who has delivered me from al]l my transgressions, cleansed me from filthy shame, and atoned for me that I may enter.” See Joseph Baumgarten, “The Purification Rituals in DJD 7,” in Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 200–201. See frgs. 34 v; 29–32 vii. Translation based on Parry and Tov, vol. 5 of DSSR, 464–465. 58 Kazen, Issues of Impurity in Early Judaism, 67–68, 73–75. 59 Joseph Baumgarten, Ada Yardeni, and Stephen J. Pfann, Qumran Cave 4 V 13 The Damascus Document (4Q266–273), DJD 18 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 144–146. 60 Baumgarten, Yardeni, and Pfann, Qumran Cave 4 V 13 The Damascus Document (4Q266–273), 146. 61 Translation from Parry and Tov, vol. 6 of DSSR. 62 Translation by Joseph Baumgarten, in Qumran Cave 4 V 13 The Damascus Document (4Q266–273), . 63 Joseph Baumgarten, “The 4Q Zadokite Fragments on Skin Disease,” JJS 41 (1990), 162.

50

Cecilia Wassén

17:10–14). Given the view that the demons possess, or inhabits, people in the diseases it is quite natural that also the demons who manifest themselves in defiling diseases, i.e., pathological discharges and scale disease, were also considered impure by nature. The impure nature of the impure spirits was not lost on Mark who tells the tall tale about a Gerasene man, possessed by “an impure spirit,” who dwells among the tombs, i.e., an impure area, and whose spirits enter into impure swine when Jesus exorcises them (Mark 5:1–20).

5. Conclusion This study argues that the label “impure spirits” likely goes back to the historical Jesus and that the term “impure” should be understood in a sense that goes beyond a figurative meaning. In spite of the common use of the expression “impure spirits” in the gospels, it is not common in Jewish literature. Nevertheless, a survey of the labelling of the spirits as impure revealed that the label is associated with specific kinds of impurities. Hence, the general use of the expression in Jewish writings, apart from the gospels, suggests that the impure spirits are impure in two different ways: they lead people into severe sin, which is associated with moral impurity, and they are impure by nature. The first connotation fits well with Jesus’s view on diseases as caused by sinning. Hence, by calling the spirits “impure” Jesus highlights their cunning nature and their ability to lead people astray. Impure spirits can also be impure by nature. This is evident in the common label mamzerim for evil spirits, which points to their unnatural mix of natures that make them impure. In addition, evil spirits in a way manifest themselves in the diseases; thereby they are impure by striking people with defiling diseases such as scale disease. This aspect likely also plays a part in Jesus’s calling the spirits impure. Hence, when Jesus battled the impure spirits in exorcisms he was fighting evil powers that he also considered impure in different ways. His exorcisms were sure signs that the kingdom of God was approaching when Satan and his evil minions, the evil and impure spirits, would finally be conquered and diseases and impurity of all kinds would be no more.

Bibliography Alexander, Philip S. “‘Wrestling against Wickedness in High Places’: Magic in the Worldview of the Qumran Community.” Pages 318–337 in The Scrolls and the Scriptures: Qumran Fifty Years After. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1997. Baumgarten, Joseph. “The 4Q Zadokite Fragments on Skin Disease,” JJS 41 (1990), 153–165. Baumgarten, Joseph, Ada Yardeni, and Stephen J. Pfann. Qumran Cave 4 XIII: The Damascus Document (4Q266–273). DJD 18. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.

The Impurity of the Impure Spirits in the Gospels

51

Charlesworth, James H., ed. Rule of the Community and Related Documents. Vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. –. Damascus Document, War Scroll and Related Documents. Vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck / Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995. –. Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Garden City: Doubleday, 1983. Cohn, Yehudah. Tangled Up in Text: Tefillin and the Ancient World. Providence: BJS, 2008. Dimant, Devorah and Lawrence H. Schiffman, eds. Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls by Fellows of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1989–1990. STDJ. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Dunn, James D. G. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament. NTL. London: SCM, 1975. Eshel, Esther. “Genres of Magical Texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 395–414 in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der Israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt. Edited by Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and K. F. Diethard Römheld. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Flusser, David. “Qumrân and Jewish ‘apotropaic’ Prayers.” IEJ 16.3 (1966): 194–205. Hägerland, Tobias. Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins:An Aspect of His Prophetic Mission. SNTSMS 150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Heger, Paul. Women in the Bible, Qumran and Early Rabbinic Literature: Their Status and Roles. STDJ 110. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Jöris, Steffen. “The Markan Use of ‘Unclean Spirit’: Another Messianic Strand.” ABR 60 (2012): 49–66 Kazen, Thomas. Issues of Impurity in Early Judaism. ConBNT 45. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010. –. Jesus and Purity Halakhah: Was Jesus Indifferent to Impurity? ConBNT 38. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 2002. Klawans, Jonathan. Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Lange, Armin. “Considerations Concerning the ‘Spirit of Impurity’ in Zech 13:2.” Pages 254– 268 in Die Dämonen: Die Dämonologie der israelitisch-jüdischen und frühchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt. Edited by Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and K. F. Diethard Römheld. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Lemos, T. M. “Where There Is Dirt, Is There System? Revisiting Biblical Purity Constructions.” JSOT 37.3 (2013): 265–294. Marshall, John W. Parables of War: Reading John’s Jewish Apocalypse. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2001. Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Vol. 1. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Parry, Donald W., and Emanuel Tov, eds. Poetic and Liturgical Texts. Vol. 5 of DSSR. Leiden: Brill, 2005. –, eds. Additional Genres and Unclassified Texts. Vol. 6 of DSSR. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Stuckenbruck, Loren T. The Myth of Rebellious Angels: Studies in Second Temple Judaism and New Testament Texts. WUNT 335. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Twelftree, Graham H. Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus. WUNT II 54. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993.

52

Cecilia Wassén

VanderKam, James C., ed. The Book of Jubilees. Vol. 1: A Critical Text. Corpus Scriptorum Orientalium 510. Leuven: Peeters, 1989. VanderKam, James C., and James Flint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls. San Francisco: T&T Clark, 2002. Wahlen, Clinton. Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels. WUNT 185. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Wassén, Cecilia. “What Do Angels Have against the Blind and the Deaf?: Rules of Exclusion in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Page 115–129 in Common Judaism: Explorations in Second-Temple Judaism. Edited by Wayne O. McCready and Adele Reinhartz. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008. Wright, Archie T. The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.1–4 in Early Jewish Literature. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015.

Exorcism, Forgiveness, and Christological Implications* Sigurd Grindheim In the first century, evil spirits were perceived as a constant threat, and the need to have one’s sins forgiven was urgent. The Gospel traditions regarding Jesus’s forgiveness and exorcisms addressed these concerns, and they would be understood within a familiar framework. Within Second Temple Judaism, certain individuals were known to have power over demons and to be able to proclaim forgiveness. In this article, I will compare the Synoptic tradition with other accounts of individuals who could control the demons and who appear to have offered forgiveness of sins. My thesis is that the Jesus tradition differs from these accounts because Jesus acted with an inherent authority. Jews knew of human beings who banished demons and forgave sins, but only with an authority delegated from God. Jesus was different. Within a Jewish worldview, Jesus’s power only compares to the power of God himself. My investigation is limited to the portrait of Jesus as it is found in the Synoptic tradition, especially in the Gospel of Mark. While there are some differences between the individual Gospels, I will show that there is a coherent picture that emerges from all of them. This general understanding (if not each individual account) may therefore be assumed not only to reflect the interests of individual evangelists, but to represent the picture of Jesus as he was remembered in the early believing communities. However, it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the relationship between this picture and the historical Jesus. Another comment regarding my method is necessary as well. “Exorcism” is usually understood as the casting out of a demon that has taken possession of a human being. When human beings are possessed by a demon, the demon has entered the person and expresses its own personality through the words and actions of the possessed. These elements are characteristic of several of the Synoptic accounts, but this definition of exorcism imposes an unfortunate

* I am grateful to the participants at the conference “Healing and Exorcism in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity” in Örebro, March 8 to 9, 2018, and especially to Tobias Hägerland, who very generously and critically responded to my paper.

54

Sigurd Grindheim

limitation on the study of demons and their suppression in the New Testament and in Jewish literature.1 In the Gospel accounts, the demon’s personality frequently manifests itself in the host’s behavior and speech. As a result, the demoniacs may become selfdestructive (Mark 9:18; Matt 17:15) and violent (Mark 5:1–5). Not all the exorcism stories contain these elements, however. Luke describes a spirit with no other characteristics than the fact that it had crippled a woman for eighteen years, so that “[s]he was bent over and was quite unable to stand up straight” (Luke 13:11, NRSV). Demons also cause blindness (Matt 12:22), muteness (Mark 9:25; Matt 9:32; 12:22 // Luke 11:14), and deafness (Mark 9:25). In many cases, no symptoms are mentioned. About the Syro-Phoenician woman’s daughter, we only learn that she had an unclean spirit (Mark 7:25 par.). This picture is in accordance with the world-view that is presupposed in these writings: sickness and suffering are the result of evil and may be traced back to Satan and other evil personal beings even though demonic affliction may be distinguished from physical and mental illness (cf. Mark 1:32; Matt 4:24; Luke 7:21). My study will therefore focus on the accounts that describe demons afflicting human beings and the ways in which they may be subjected, and their activities thwarted.

1. Power over Demons in Second Temple Judaism The literature of Second Temple Judaism shows significant interest in demons. They are understood to be fallen angels that have considerable influence on the affairs of the world. Some of the references to demons also include descriptions of the ways in which they plague human beings, as well as the means to subjugate them. To my knowledge, the oldest such account is found in 1 Sam 16:14– 23. It is reported that “the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him” (1 Sam 16:14; cf. 18:10). There is no indication that this spirit took control of Saul’s faculties in the way that is so characteristic of the exorcism stories in the Synoptic Gospels. In any case, the evil spirit is made to depart from Saul thanks to David’s skill at playing the lyre (1 Sam 16:16–18, 23). The book of Tobit, usually dated between 250 and 175 BCE, gives an account of the terrible misfortune afflicting Sarah, the daughter of Raguel. She 1 The term “possession” is unfortunate. In the New Testament, a demon does not have a person, but a person “has a demon” (cf. Archie T. Wright, “The Demonology of 1 Enoch and the New Testament Gospels,” in Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels: Reminiscences, Allusions, Intertextuality, ed. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Gabriele Boccaccini, EJL 44 [Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016], 237).

Exorcism, Forgiveness, and Christological Implications

55

had been married seven times, but each one of her husbands had been murdered by the wicked demon Asmodeus before the marriage had been consummated. Tobias then learned from the angel Raphael an effective technique to remedy the problem. The smoke from burning a fish’s heart and liver would repel the demon (Tob 6:8). This cure proved so effective that the demon “fled to the remotest parts of Egypt” (Tob 8:2–3). In this case, the power to banish the demon resides in the technique taught by the angel. In the Watchers tradition, evil angels are responsible for corrupting human beings. In the Book of Watchers, from the first half of the second century BCE, Azaz’el and other evil angels taught humans the crafts of war and occult practices (1 En. 8:1–3). God commanded the archangels Raphael and Michael to bind these angels and punish them (1 En. 10:4–22). Enoch was then “given ... the word of understanding so that [he] may reprimand the Watchers” (14:3, OTP).2 The book of Jubilees, from the middle of the second century BCE, reports that “the polluted demons began to lead astray the children of Noah’s sons and to lead them to folly and to destroy them” (Jub. 10:1, OTP). Noah prayed to God for protection (10:3–6a), with the result that nine-tenths of the demons were bound and punished. The remaining one-tenth was excepted because Satan needed them to exercise his authority over human beings (10:6b–9). However, angels revealed the healing of all their illnesses to Noah (10:12–14). As in Tobit, God holds the power over the demons. He delegates it to his angels, and they may grant human beings the knowledge to thwart them. Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls evince considerable interest in demons, and their influence is seen to be more ethical than physical.3 The underlying conviction is that human beings are dependent on the superior power of God to withstand them. According to the “Treatise on the Two Spirits,” found in the Community Rule from Qumran (1QS III, 13–IV, 26), God placed two spirits within human beings, the spirit of truth and the Spirit of Deceit (1QS III, 17– 19; cf. 4Q544 II, 2–6; III, 1–2). The Spirit of Deceit, also called the Angel of 2 In the Apocalypse of Abraham (first to second century CE), the angel also teaches Abraham the words to say to Azaz’el (Apoc. Ab. 14:5–8). 3 Eric Sorensen, Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity, WUNT II 157 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 64. A predominantly ethical view of demonic affliction is also in evidence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, probably a Jewish work from the second century BCE which has undergone extensive Christian redaction (T. Reu. 3:2–7; T. Sim. 2:7; T. Gad 1:9; cf. Graham H. Twelftree, “Exorcism and the Defeat of Beliar in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” VC 65 [2011]: 176). The triumph over these demons depends on God’s protection (T. Zeb. 9:8; T. Dan 5:10–11), but it is necessary for human beings to cooperate with God by showing undivided commitment to him (T. Iss. 7:7; T. Dan 5:1; T. Naph. 8:4; T. Benj. 5:2; cf. also T. Sim. 6:2.6; T. Ash. 3:2). For the possibility that the Testaments make reference to exorcism, see Twelftree, “Exorcism and the Defeat of Beliar,” 179–186.

56

Sigurd Grindheim

Darkness, causes “the corruption of all the sons of justice” (1QS III, 21–22, transl. García Martinez and Tigchelaar). The sons of light are able to withstand this angel, however, through the assistance of “the God of Israel and the angel of his truth” (1QS III, 24).4 According to the Genesis Apocryphon, Pharaoh was afflicted by an evil spirit when he had taken Abraham’s wife as his own (1QapGen XX, 16–17). When Sarah was returned to Abraham, Abraham said that “I prayed that [he might be] cured and laid my hands upon his [hea]d. The plague was removed from him; the evil [spirit] was banished [from him] and he recovered” (1QapGen XX, 28–29, transl. García Martinez and Tigchelaar). In this case, God has the power to banish the spirit, and Abraham accesses this power through prayer. Other texts also show that demons could be repelled by appealing to God. In 4Q510 I, 4–5, a sage “declare[s] the splendour of [God’s] radiance in order to frighten and terr[ify] all the spirits of the ravaging angels and the bastard spirits, demons, Lilith, owls and [jackals …]” (transl. García Martinez and Tigchelaar). 4QExorcism appears to contain an adjuration to repel spirits (4Q560 I, ii, 5), but most of the contents of the adjuration have been lost. In any case, it shows that the authority over demons resides in a powerful incantation. The Apocryphal Psalms reflect the conviction that God has power over the evil spirits. Column IV contains a formula to expel demons, and this formula draws its authority from Yahweh: “YHWH will strike you with a [mighty] bl[ow] to destroy you” (11Q11 IV, 4, transl. García Martinez and Tigchelaar). Column V contains another “[incanta]tion in the name of YHW[H]” (11Q11 V, 4). Column VI includes, apparently also for the purpose of warding off demons, a quotation of Psalm 91, a Psalm that calls on Yahweh as refuge and fortress against evil. 4 The apparent contradictions between the cosmic dualism of the first (III, 13–IV, 14) and the psychological dualism of the second part (IV, 15–26) of this treatise have led literary critics to assume the composite origin of 1QS III, 13–IV, 26 (P. von der Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran, SUNT 6 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969], 22–26; Jérôme Murphy-O’Connor, “La genèse litteraire de la Règle de la Communauté,” RB 76 [1969]: 541–542; Mathias Delcor, “Qumran: Doctrines des Esséniens,” in DBSup, vol. 9, 963–964). Recent manuscript discoveries have confirmed that the manuscripts of 1QS unite different works. This material, however, does not warrant any conclusions as to the contents of the various layers (Sarianna Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule, STDJ 21 [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 91–92). The fact that the treatise was included in the Community Rule in its composite form allows us to conclude that at the time of the composition of 1QS the harmonization of the different statements in this treatise was assumed. Cf. Jean Duhaime, who concludes that the text in 1QS III, 13–IV, 26 is a coherent composition (“Cohérence structurelle et tensions internes dans l’Instruction sur les Deux Esprits [1QS III 13 - IV 26],” in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, ed. Florentino García Martínez, BETL 168 [Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003], 104–125).

Exorcism, Forgiveness, and Christological Implications

57

1.1. Solomon as Exorcist Several recent studies have sought to interpret Jesus’s exorcisms in light of the traditions regarding Solomon as an exorcist.5 However, the picture of Solomon that emerges from the sources that antedate the Synoptic Gospels is very sketchy, and it has little in common with the Jesus traditions. Solomon’s powers are mentioned in the Wisdom of Solomon, which dates from the turn of the era. It attests that Solomon was given by God knowledge of “the natures of animals and the tempers of wild animals, the powers of spirits and the thoughts of human beings, the varieties of plants and the virtues of roots” (Wis 7:20). As the first line moves from the general, animals, to the more specific, wild animals, the “spirits” in this case probably refers to the spirits of angels and humans.6 Such knowledge may include the knowledge required to exorcise evil spirits, but this understanding is only apparent in later sources. Solomon is first mentioned in connection with demons in the Apocryphal Psalms from Cave 11 in Qumran. In García Martínez’s translation of this scroll, we read: “Solomon, and he will invo[ke …] [… the spir]its and the demons” (11Q11 II, 2–3). This scroll shows that the traditions regarding Solomon and the demons are at least as old as the first century CE, but it offers little in terms of explaining the nature of his relationship with them. Column I probably contains a term for exorcism, so it is likely that Solomon invoked the demons in order to exorcise them, but we cannot be sure. He may have invoked them in order to benefit from their powers, as he does in the Testament of Solomon, which is considerably later (cf. below). Another possible reference to Solomon and the demons is found in Liber antiquitate biblicarum, but it is only a possibility. The work, which is usually dated to the beginning of the first century CE, includes the lyrics of the song that David sang to banish the evil spirit from Saul. This song concludes with a warning to the demon that “after a time one born from my loins will rule over you” (LAB 60.3). Daniel Harrington argues that Pseudo-Philo shows no apparent interest in the Messiah, and the son of David is therefore likely to be Solomon, who is known for his power over demons.7 However, Pseudo-Philo is also uninterested in Solomon; his name is only mentioned once as a time marker associated with the completion of the temple (22.9). Since the 5 Adela Yarbro Collins, “Mark and His Readers: The Son of God Among Jews,” HTR 92 (1999): 399; Pablo A. Torijano, Solomon, the Esoteric King: From King to Magus, Development of a Tradition, JSJSup 73 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 113–117; Jiři Dvořáček, The Son of David in Matthew’s Gospel in the Light of the Solomon as Exorcist Tradition, WUNT II 415 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016). 6 David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York: Doubleday, 1979), 175. 7 D. J. Harrington, “Pseudo-Philo,” in OTP, 2:373.

58

Sigurd Grindheim

Solomonic exorcism traditions that antedate LAB are meager, the identification of Solomon as the one born from David’s loins can only be tentative. In light of the pervasive eschatological undertone in the work, this demon-ruler may equally well be the Messiah.8 The nature and source of his rule is not explained. The earliest source that is explicit about Solomon’s exorcistic powers is Josephus’s Antiquities. In the words of Josephus, “God granted him knowledge of the art used against demons for the benefit and healing of men. He also composed incantations by which illnesses are relieved, and left behind forms of exorcisms with which those possessed by demons drive them out, never to return” (Ant. 8.45 [Thackeray, LCL]). Josephus has more to say about the nature of Solomon’s power, as he reports that “this kind of cure is of very great power among us to this day” (Ant. 8.46) exercised by the fellow Jew Eleazar. His cure worked as follows: he put to the nose of the possessed man a ring which had under its seal one of the roots prescribed by Solomon, and then, as the man smelled it, drew out the demon through his nostrils, and, when the man at once fell down, adjured the demon never to come back into him, speaking Solomon’s name and reciting the incantations which he had composed. Then, wishing to convince the bystanders and prove to them that he had this power, Eleazar placed a cup or footbasin 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. 8.47)

From this, Josephus concluded that “all men may know the greatness of [Solomon’s] nature and how God favoured him” (Ant. 8.47). Josephus thus implies that Solomon had his power from God. His account also shows that his power resided in incantations and foul-smelling objects that could repel the demons. Corroborating this understanding, Josephus also describes a root grown in a place called Baaras, a root that is very effective in banishing demons that have entered into human beings in order to kill them (J.W. 7.178–185). According to Josephus, a ring featured in Eleazar’s demon-repelling technique, although Josephus does not specifically attribute any powers to this ring. In the Testament of Solomon, however, Solomon’s ring becomes paramount. In its surviving form, the Testament may be as late as from the third century CE, but earlier parts may go back to the first century. This work reveals an elaborate understanding of the demonic world. Demons are responsible for all 8 There may well be a reference to the Messiah in Hannah’s assurance that “these words will endure until they give the horn to his anointed one and power be present at the throne of his king” (51:6). The history of Israel is controlled by God’s decision to grant them the land as a possession forever, and this promise serves as a guarantee that they will not be eradicated by their political enemies (4:1; 7:4; 9:4, 7; 13:10; 21:10; 23:12; 28:4; 30:7; 39:6–7; 49:3). During the time of slavery in Egypt, Amram asserted that “[i]t will sooner happen that this age will be ended forever or the world will sink into the immeasurable deep or the heart of the abyss will touch the stars than that the race of the sons of Israel will be ended” (9:3). The hope of a future resurrection repeatedly comes to expression (3:10; 19:12; 23:13; 28:8–9; 32:17; 51:5).

Exorcism, Forgiveness, and Christological Implications

59

kinds of suffering in the world, including sickness, suffering, and disaster, such as infant mortality (13.3–4) and waves on the sea (16.2). Many of their afflictions are also of a spiritual and ethical nature, and many demons attack families. The demon Asmodeus explains: “I am always hatching plots against newlyweds; I mar the beauty of virgins and cause their hearts to grow cold” (5.7; cf. also 7.5; 18.15, 22, 38). A number of demons are also occupied with creating war, oppression, and disharmony in society (5.7; 8.6, 7.8, 10; 18.16), as well as heresies and false religion (8.5, 9; 25.3–4). The Testament of Solomon does not make any clear distinction between physical and spiritual destruction; they are all related and caused by various demons (cf. 20.13). According to the Testament, the demons may be bound by invoking the name of the angel that binds them. Even more powerful is the ring that God has sent to Solomon. With this ring, and with the assistance of the archangel Ouriel (2.7), he may imprison all the demons (1.6–7, 9; 25.3–4). Even with the ring in his possession, however, Solomon’s power is merely a delegated power. God is the one who holds the authority over the demons (3.5), and Beelzebul, the prince of demons, can only be defeated in the name of the almighty God (6.8). God may revoke Solomon’s power, as in fact he does when Solomon falls in love with a beautiful Shummanite woman and agrees to sacrifice five locusts in the name of Rapham and Molech in order to have her (26.1–8). Evidently, the formidable powers of his ring depend upon Solomon’s undivided allegiance to the God of Israel. These accounts show that demons were attributed with extensive power and held responsible for a wide range of afflictions and misfortunes. Some people had the ability to control them, but their ability was not inherently their own. In a Jewish context, the God of Israel was the one who had power over the demons, and select individuals could share in this power when God granted it, either by answering prayer or by providing the objects or techniques with which to wield the power.

2. Jesus’s Power over the Demons The Gospel stories of Jesus’s confrontations with the demons stand in contrast to the accounts discussed above. In some cases, there is not even a confrontation. Jesus drives away the demon afflicting the Syro-Phoenician woman’s daughter without even meeting the daughter (Mark 7:29 par.). According to a Matthean summary, “he cast out the spirits with a word” (Matt 8:16). In the more detailed accounts, he does not depend on any adjurations, techniques, or objects, and he does not pray.9 He merely commands the demons and they are

9 Sorensen,

Possession and Exorcism, 136.

60

Sigurd Grindheim

compelled to do his bidding (Mark 1:25–26 par.; 9:25–26 par.). In contrast to other exorcism accounts, Jesus exercises his control of the demons with an inherent authority.10 The point may be illustrated by comparing with the disciples’ authority over the demons. They are empowered to cast out demons in Jesus’s name (Mark 6:7 par.; Luke 10:17–20; cf. Acts 19:13). In the case of Jesus himself, however, there is no appeal to other names.11 On one occasion, Jesus observes that a demon is of such a caliber that its “kind can come out only through prayer” (Mark 9:29). This restriction does not appear to apply to Jesus himself, however, as the Markan account includes no reference to Jesus praying in connection with his casting out the demon (9:25– 26). Apparently, the power that for other humans is only accessible through prayer is inherent in Jesus. Jesus’s authority dumbfounded his observers. According to the Gospel accounts, some of them were simply at a loss to explain it (Mark 1:27 par.), whereas others attributed Jesus’s powers to Beelzebul and claimed that Jesus was controlled by a demon (Mark 3:22, 30 par.; John 7:20; 8:48; 10:20).12 It would appear that he did not fit the category of known exorcists.13 When Jesus dismisses the claim that he owes his power to Satan, he adds: “But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his property without first tying up the strong man; then indeed the house can be plundered” (Mark 3:27). His words allude to Isa 49:24–25: “Can the prey be taken from the mighty, or the captives of a tyrant be rescued? But thus says the Lord: Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken, and the prey of the tyrant be rescued; for I will contend with those who contend with you, and I will save your 10 Similarly, Arseny Ermakov, “The Holy One of God in Markan Narrative,” HBT 36 (2014): 177. 11 Sorensen notes the difference, but claims that “Jesus performs exorcism by divine sanction implicitly” (Possession and Exorcism, 143). 12 See the discussion in Esther Miquel, “How to Discredit an Inconvenient Exorcist: Origin and Configuration of the Synoptic Controversies on Jesus’ Power as an Exorcist,” BTB 40 (2010): 187–206. 13 Some of the miracle accounts show Jesus using external means in connection with healings. He used saliva to heal a deaf (Mark 7:33) and a blind (Mark 8:23). These accounts do not constitute counterindications to the claim I am making above. It is important to distinguish between healing and exorcism. True, demon affliction and sickness are frequently linked in the Gospel accounts, as are exorcism and healing, but they are not equated (cf. Mark 1:32; Matt 4:24; Luke 7:21). The evangelists distinguish between the demonic afflictions and their symptoms, which may or may not include sickness. Conversely, not all sickness is attributed to demons. In the case of healing, the conventional method was not adjuration or other techniques, but prayer (Jos. Ant. 14.22; m. Taʿan. 3.8; m. Ber. 5:5; b. Ber. 34b; b. Taʿan. 24b), which is conspicuously absent in the accounts of Jesus’s healing activity. See also Sigurd Grindheim, God’s Equal: What Can We Know About Jesus’ Self-Understanding? LNTS 446 (London: T&T Clark, 2011).

Exorcism, Forgiveness, and Christological Implications

61

children.” The prophet’s context is the Babylonian exile. God promises to defeat Israel’s enemies and to set the captives free. God is mightier than the Babylonian ruler, and he will overpower him. Jesus applies this language to himself and to the conflict with Satan. The implication is that Jesus has fulfilled the promise spoken by the prophet, that he has done what the prophet announced that God would do. The enemy is no longer Babylon, but Satan and his spiritual army. Jesus has already tied up the strong man; he has already overpowered Satan. As a consequence, he is now able to plunder his house; he is able to rout the evil army of demons.14 As the divine warrior, he is triumphant in his war against Satan and his minions. The fact that Jesus claims the role of God himself in defeating the demons is also reflected in his accusation of his opponents. To explain his powers as deriving from Beelzebul is to commit the only unforgivable sin (Mark 3:29– 30). It is to attribute the works of God to Satan.15 Jesus does not claim that his authority over the demons is a delegated power; he claims that this authority is indicative of the fact that he has accomplished an even greater feat of strength: he has defeated the prince of demons himself.16 2.1 Mark’s Terminology Mark’s picture of Jesus as the divine warrior who has defeated the evil army is also reflected in his terminology. The word that is used for Jesus’s confrontations with the demons, ἐπιτιμάω (1:25; cf. 3:12; 9:25), corresponds to the

14 Similarly, Franz Annen, Heil für die Heiden: Zur Bedeutung und Geschichte der Tradition von besessenen Gerasener (Mk 5, 1–20 parr.), FTS 20 (Frankfurt: Josef Knecht, 1976), 195; Ernest Best, The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology, 2nd ed., SNTSMS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 15; Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 27 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 283; Sorensen, Possession and Exorcism, 141; Craig A. Evans, “Defeating Satan and Liberating Israel: Jesus and Daniel’s Visions,” JSHJ 1 (2003): 169; Miquel, “Inconvenient Exorcist,” 205. 15 Similarly, Clinton Wahlen, Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels, WUNT II 185 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 107. 16 In a recent study on the historical Jesus, Amanda Witmer has argued that Jesus gradually became more effective as an exorcist. Like other charismatic individuals, he faced an initial struggle with evil, and by emerging victorious from this struggle, he acquired his ability to perform healings and exorcism (Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist: His Exorcisms in Social and Political Context, LNTS 459 [London: T&T Clark, 2012], 97–150; cf. also Eric Eve, “The Miracles of an Eschatological Prophet,” JSHJ 13 [2015]: 149). This understanding appears to be more determined by perceived parallel accounts than by the evidence provided by the Gospel accounts. While the evidence suggests that Jesus faced an initial confrontation with evil, there is no indication that this confrontation made Jesus more powerful. According to the Gospel accounts, the initial confrontation resulted in Jesus’s ultimate victory, so that subsequent skirmishes could be compared to the plundering of someone who was already bound.

62

Sigurd Grindheim

Hebrew root ‫גער‬.17 ‫ גער‬and ἐπιτιμάω are unusual words to use in connection with an exorcism. They are not found in other exorcism stories from Josephus, the magical papyri, or the Rabbinic literature.18 Instead, ‫ גער‬is frequently used in connection with the eschatological victory of God. The word denotes God’s subjection of his cosmic enemies. When ‫ גער‬occurs in the Hebrew Bible, it is normally rendered “rebuke” or “threaten” in modern versions.19 But as Howard Clark Kee has shown, in most cases this is an inadequate translation. The word is often used in the context of God’s subjection of his enemies.20 In Ps 9:6 (ET 9:5), NRSV translates: “You have rebuked (‫ )געתת‬the nations, you have destroyed (‫ )אבדת‬the wicked; you have blotted out (‫ )םחית‬their name forever and ever.” As the parallelism shows, “rebuke” is rather weak. The verse describes a complete annihilation. Another illustrating verse is Isa 54:9, where God’s act of ‫ גער‬is compared to the flood at the time of Noah. Frequently, ‫ גער‬and its derivatives are used for God’s judgment – not merely his warning – of sinners (Deut 28:20; Isa 30:17; 51:20; 54:9; Mal 2:3; Ps 119:21) and the enemies of God and his people (Isa 17:13; 66:15; Ps 9:6; 68:31; 76:7; 80:17). Often the object of God’s ‫ גער‬is the sea and the waters, seen as the powers of chaos (2 Sam 22:16; Isa 50:2; Ps 18:16; 104:7; 106:9; Job 26:11).21 In the later prophets, the enemy can be personified, as in Mal 3:11, and identified with Satan, as in Zech 3:2. In the context of God’s

17 ‫ גער‬is normally rendered by ἐπιτιμάω in the Septuagint, Aquila, and Symmachus. A link is also indicated in Jude 9, which apparently cites the Testament of Moses. The text of the Testament of Moses is lost, but the biblical text on which the idea is based is Zech 3:2, which the Testament of Moses appears to have followed closely. Jude has the verb ἐπιτιμάω where Zechariah has ‫גער‬. Cf. Howard Clark Kee, “The Terminology of Mark’s Exorcism Stories,” NTS 14 (1968): 238–239. 18 Kee, “Terminology,” 239–41. 19 Jan Joosten observes that the meaning “rebuke” is scarcely able to explain the use of the verb for exorcisms. He suggests that the meaning “to exorcise” arose on the basis of Zech 3:2, according to which “the Lord said to Satan: ‘The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you!’” (Jan Joosten, “The Verb ‫‘ גער‬to Exorcize’ in Qumran Aramaic and Beyond,” DSD 21 [2014]: 347–355). If he is correct, this technical use of the verb implies that the exorcism is ultimately effected by God. The use of this verb for Jesus’s activity would then be another example of Jesus appearing in the role of God. 20 The force of the term varies depending on its subject. When used about human beings (e.g., Gen 37:10; Jer 29:27; Prov 13:1, 8; 17:10; Eccl 7:5; Ruth 2:16) its consequences are less dramatic than when used about God. Cf. James M. Kennedy, “The Root g‘r in the Light of Semantic Analysis,” JBL 106 (1987): 61. When Mark employs the word in connection with the suppression of God’s cosmic enemies it must be read in light of the latter usage. 21 For the association of the sea with powers hostile to God, see Suzanne Watts Henderson, Christology and Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark, SNTSMS 135 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 217–219.

Exorcism, Forgiveness, and Christological Implications

63

conflict with his enemies, ‫ גער‬has connotations of complete domination and victory.22 In the writings from Qumran, the verb ‫ גער‬belongs naturally in the War Scroll, with its portrayal of the eschatological war between God’s people and the armies of Belial. When God hands his people the definitive victory over the evil forces, the War Scroll praises him for having chased away (‫)גערתה‬ Belial’s spirits (1QM XIV, 10). Elsewhere, ‫ גער‬also describes God’s destruction of his people’s enemies (1Q16 IX–X, 2; 1QHa XXII, 6; 4Q169 I–II, 3; 4Q463 II, 3; 4Q491 VIII–X, i, 7).23 Other writings from the Second Temple period evince a similar use of the Greek equivalent, ἐπιτιμάω (Wis 3:10; Pss. Sol. 2:23). In the Genesis Apocryphon, ‫ גער‬occurs in connection with Abraham’s prayer for Pharaoh that the evil spirit may depart from him (1QapGen XX, 28– 29). Abraham is not the agent of the verb ‫גער‬, however; the verb is in the itpaal form. As the verb occurs in the context of a prayer, the presumed agent is God. Abraham’s role is to pray. When ἐπιτιμάω is understood against its Jewish background it becomes clear that it does not merely describe an exorcism or a relocation of a demon. Its connotations are of God’s victory over his enemies and the enemies of his people. It paints a picture of God as the divine warrior whose superior force eliminates his adversaries. It does not describe the authority of God’s agent, but the power of God himself.24 For Mark, it is therefore an apt term to use when he portrays the ministry of Jesus as God’s own coming to earth to defeat his cosmic enemies, the army of Satan. Tellingly, the same term is used when Jesus affirms his authority over the sea (Mark 4:39).25 The picture of Jesus as the divine warrior is corroborated by Mark’s account of the demons’ reaction as well. In Mark’s first account of Jesus’s encounter with evil spirits, there is no indication that more than one spirit is involved 22 Cf. Kee, “Terminology,” 235–236. André Caquot observes that the words from the ‫גער‬root “almost always denote a threatening manifestation of the anger of God” and that “God is viewed as a fierce warrior who ‘cries out’ in anger to drive away his enemies” (“‫ ָגַﬠר‬,” TDOT 2:51). Cf. Kennedy, “g‘r,” 58; Rikki E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark, WUNT II 88 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 154; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 193–194. 23 García Martínez translates ‫“ גער‬rebuke” (1Q16 IX–X, 2; 4Q463 II, 3) “threaten” (1QHa XXII, 6), “roar” (4Q169 I–II, 3), and “chase away” (4Q491 VIII–X, i, 7). The same critique must be raised against these translations as against the conventional translations of the Hebrew Bible. In all the instances where ‫ גער‬occurs in the Qumran Scrolls, the translation “eradicate” or something very similar will be appropriate. 24 After a thorough survey of the evidence, it is surprising that Kee can say that “the narrative is wholly compatible with the picture we have seen emerging from apocalyptic Judaism of God’s agent locked in effective struggle with the powers of evil” (“Terminology,” 244). No agent of God is mentioned in any of the available evidence from Second Temple Judaism. 25 Ethelbart Stauffer observes that “the unconditional lordship of Jesus is powerfully revealed in this ἐπιτιμᾶν” (“ἐπιτιμάω κτλ,” TDNT, 2:626).

64

Sigurd Grindheim

(contrast 5:9), but the spirit uses the plural in his question to Jesus: “Have you come to destroy us?” (1:24). Not only the spirit’s personal downfall is imminent, but the destruction of the whole evil army.26 Similarly, the word ἐκβάλλω, which Mark uses in his summary statements about Jesus’s exorcisms (1:34, 39), is not a common word for exorcism.27 It is, however, frequently used in the Septuagint for God’s driving out of Israel’s enemies.28 2.1 The Gerasene Demoniac The most elaborate exorcism story in the New Testament, the story of the Gerasene demoniac, is also the most idiosyncratic. In this account, Jesus asks for the demon’s name (Mark 5:9 par.). It is commonly assumed that knowledge of a demon’s name is a way to gain power over it.29 Therefore, many scholars see Jesus’s question as reflecting a power struggle between Jesus and the demon.30 If so, the story of the Gerasene demoniac may constitute an example of Jesus resorting to exorcistic technique. However, the evidence from Jesus’s Jewish context does not lend much support to this understanding.31 In the earliest Jewish accounts that describe the suppressing of demons, there is no indication that authority over the demons is associated with knowledge of their names. When demons are banished in Tobit, Josephus, and the Community Rule, as well as in the surviving fragments of the Apocryphal Psalms and 4QExorcism, no one calls out their names in order to overpower them. To my knowledge, there is only one pre-Christian Jewish example in which naming the demon is associated with having power over it. That example is found in Liber antiquitate biblicarum. David’s song includes a reference to the creation of the demon, and David says to the demon that “your name was pronounced” (LAB 60.2). In this case, however, the name 26 Kee, “Terminology,” 243; Robert C. Tannehill, “The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology,” Semeia 16 (1979): 65; Klaus Scholtissek, Die Vollmacht Jesu: Traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Analysen zu einem Leitmotiv markinischer Christologie, NTAbh 25 (Münster: Aschendorff, 1992), 111. 27 According to Twelftree, Luke 11:20 // Matt 12:28 is the first time ἐκβάλλω is used for exorcism (Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus, WUNT II 54 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993], 109). 28 Exod 23:28–30; 33:2; 34:11, 24; Deut 11:23; 29:27; 33:27; Josh 24:12, 18; Judg 6:9; 2 Sam 7:23; 1 Chr 17:21; Ps 43:3; 77:55; 79:9. Cf. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 110. 29 Campbell Bonner, “The Technique of Exorcism,” HTR 36 (1943): 44; Torijano, Solomon, 43–76. 30 J. D. M. Derrett, “Spirit-Possession and the Gerasene Demoniac,” Man 14 (1979): 288; John R. Donahue and Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of Mark, SP (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2002), 165–166. 31 Similarly, Andrew Burrow, “Bargaining with Jesus: Irony in Mark 5:1–20,” BibInt 25 (2017): 250–251.

Exorcism, Forgiveness, and Christological Implications

65

is not used to gain power over the demon in the setting of an exorcism. Rather, the demon is being reminded that it was created by God when he named it. There is no reflection on whether knowledge of the name would wield any power over it. The point is that God’s creative power is associated with God’s giving the demon its name in the first place. In the Testament of Solomon, which is dated later than the Synoptic Gospels, the names of the demons are highly significant. Solomon learns the names of the different demons as well as the name of the angel that binds them. However, knowledge of the demons’ names is not the means of Solomon’s power over them. He already has this power, as it has been given to him with the ring that binds all of them (T. Sol. 1.7). Because the demons are under his authority, they are forced to do his bidding. They have to reveal their names (2.1; 3.6; 4.3–4 etc.), and they have to obey Solomon when he instructs them to serve as free labor in the building of his temple (4.12 etc.). In the case of the Gerasene demoniac, I am not sure if the demon actually answers Jesus’s question or if the answer “Legion” is an attempt at evasion. In any case, Jesus’s knowledge of this name apparently has nothing to do with Jesus’s power to evict the demons.32 He does not repeat the name and he does not invoke it in order to cast them out. Instead, it appears to be the demon that tries to use its knowledge of Jesus’s name as a way to gain control over him. This demonic strategy is in evidence in several other exorcism stories as well, in which the demons demonstrate their knowledge of Jesus’s name. They address him as “Jesus of Nazareth... the Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24 par.), and “Jesus, Son of the Most High God” (Mark 5:7 par.).33 This apparent attempt at gaining power over Jesus is to no avail, however, as Jesus invariably responds by subjecting the demons.34 In the story of the Gerasene demoniac, the demon’s attempt at overpowering Jesus is even more pronounced; the demon is even quoted as resorting to an adjuration: “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me” (Mark 5:7). Adjurations are wellattested in exorcism accounts, including those of Lucian (Philops. 16), Josephus (Ant. 8.47), and 4QExorcism (4Q560 I, ii, 5), as well as in the incantations found in the Greek Magical Papyri (PGM IV.3007–3086). These adjurations would often contain an appeal to a powerful name, and later evidence shows several instances of appeals to Jesus’s name (PGM IV.1233, 3020; cf.

32 Similarly,

Annen, Heil für die Heiden, 160. Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 169. 34 Dietrich-Alex Koch argues that the naming demonstrates the demon’s knowledge of Jesus’s person and his superiority (Die Bedeutung der Wundererzählungen für die Christologie des Markus-Evangeliums, BZNW 42 [Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975], 57–61; cf. Best, Temptation and the Passion, 17; Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, WBC 34A [Dallas: Word, 1989], 57). 33

66

Sigurd Grindheim

Tertullian, Apol. 23:15; Justin, Dial. 30; 85; Origen, Cels. 1.6; Athanasius, Inc. 30.6; 32.4). In this case, the demon rather audaciously invokes the name of God, who is Jesus’s own father, as the demon has just established.35 In the context of Mark’s Gospel, the behavior of the demon serves to intensify the picture of hostility towards Jesus. In Mark’s storyline, the scribes from Jerusalem have accused Jesus of having an unclean spirit (3:30), and claimed that “[h]e has Beelzebul, and by the ruler of the demons he casts out demons” (3:22). Perhaps Mark intends the revelation of the demon’s name as “Legion” to show the extreme degree of hostility that Jesus is facing in this Gentile territory. The word also has strong military overtones and fills in the picture of Jesus as the divine warrior, subduing the army of Satan.36 In a setting of tombs and swine, evocative of death and excessive uncleanness (cf. Num 19:11), confronted with a Legion of demons, Jesus is subjected to an attempted exorcism by this audacious spokesperson of the demons. Jesus’s powers are still unmatched, however; he is not even seriously challenged by this formidable opponent.37 As soon as the demon has called attention to its powers, the demon begins to negotiate the terms of its capitulation, pleading to be allowed passage into the herd of swine (Mark 5:10–12). Finally, the story includes an element that is known from other exorcism stories: the demonstration of the demons’ exit, in this case their entrance into the swine.38 In Josephus’s account of Eleazar’s powers, the demon was 35 Bonner, “The Technique of Exorcism,” 44; Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 250; Burrow, “Bargaining with Jesus,” 242. 36 The emphasis on the strength of the demoniac may be seen as contributing to this picture of military conflict (Mark 5:3–4) and recalling the image of Jesus as the stronger one (Mark 1:7). J. D. M. Derrett has also noted several elements of military language in the passage, including the words ἀποστείλη (v. 10), which is used for a military command; ἀγέλη (vv. 11, 13), which refers to a military unit; and ὥρμησεν (v. 13), which shows armies plunging into battle (“Contributions to the Study of the Gerasene Domiac,” JSNT 3 [1979]: 5). Cf. Watts, New Exodus, 159. 37 The significance of Mark’s presentation can be clarified through a comparison with the Qumran community. In their understanding, all of life was determined by the conflict between the two spirits (1QS III, 15–24; 1QM XIII, 11–12). The children of light could be free from the influence of the evil spirit by participation in the community and observation of their rigorous rules of purity (1QS IV, 2–6). In contrast, Mark shows the universality of Jesus’s victory. It does not extend merely to a restricted space where strict purity is observed; Jesus claims his rule everywhere, even in the midst of the most flagrant uncleanness. In the world-view of the Qumran community, the overturn of the sphere of the evil spirit does not take place until God’s eschatological judgment (1QS IV, 26). While there is no reason to assume that Qumran’s doctrine of the two spirits serves as the direct background for the account in Mark 5:1–20, it does provide a snapshot of how one Jewish group understood the conflict with the domain of evil spirits. In contrast, there is a distinct finality to the exercise of Jesus’s rule in Mark’s story (cf. Peter Pimental, “The ‘Unclean Spirits’ of St. Mark’s Gospel,” ExpTim 99 [1988]: 173–175). 38 Bonner, “The Technique of Exorcism,” 49.

Exorcism, Forgiveness, and Christological Implications

67

instructed to overturn “a cup or footbasin full of water a little way off ” (Ant. 8.48) to demonstrate the success of the exorcism.39 Mark’s picture of the drowning swine is more spectacular, and may have been influenced by the memory of Israel’s exodus from Egypt. The demons’ demise may echo that of the Egyptians when they attempted to cross the Red Sea.40 As the drowning of the Egyptians demonstrates the complete victory of God over the army that threatened his people, so does the drowning of the swine demonstrate Jesus’s victory over the evil army.41 In Mark’s telling of the story, Jesus’s encounter with the Gerasene demoniac displays his complete superiority over the demons, a superiority that cannot be challenged.

3. Jesus’s Forgiveness I have discussed the significance of Jesus’s forgiveness repeatedly elsewhere, so I will here only briefly summarize the most important evidence and my interpretation of it.42 39 Cf.

also Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 4.20. Mark 1–8, 348; Burrow, “Bargaining with Jesus,” 248. In light of the pervasiveness of the exodus motif in Mark’s account (cf. Watts, New Exodus), I favor this interpretation. However, it is not necessarily incompatible with the popular interpretation that the Legion represents the oppressive military power of the Romans (Warren Carter, “Cross-Gendered Romans and Mark’s Jesus: Legion Enters the Pigs [Mark 5:1–20],” JBL 134 [2015]: 139–155). Nor is it incompatible with Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer’s intriguing suggestion in “Dumping your Toxic Waste Abroad: Exorcism and Healing in Zechariah’s Vision Report and Beyond” in the present volume, that the swine, by virtue of being unclean animals, are suitable for removing unclean spirits. 41 Interpreters disagree about whether Jesus tricked the demons or whether the demons tricked Jesus. Did the demons deceive Jesus to send them into the swine, so that Jesus himself would be banished from the region, as the people otherwise told him to leave (Otto Bauernfeind, as cited by Marcus, Mark 1–8, 345)? Or were the demons deceived to think they would be able to stay in the region by entering the swine, failing to consider the consequences of their own destructive nature, that the swine would perish? (Rudolf Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 2nd ed., FRLANT 29 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931], 225; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 345; Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 166). As Burrow points out, the idea that Jesus should have been deceived by the demons runs counter to the picture that Mark provides of Jesus as triumphant (“Bargaining with Jesus,” 248). On the other hand, Mark shows no interest in a possible deception of the spirits. He apparently does not even reflect on where the demons would have to be located after the drowning of the pigs. The theme of his account is the superior authority of Jesus. This authority does not reside in his powers of deception. Describing Jesus’s authority is the way in which Mark discloses Jesus’s identity as the Son of God, who inherently shares the powers of God (Mark 1:22, 27; 2:10; 3:15; 6:7). 42 Grindheim, God’s Equal; idem “Divine and Human Forgiveness: A Response to Tobias Hägerland,” SEÅ 80 (2015): 125–141. 40 Marcus,

68

Sigurd Grindheim

The most informative account of Jesus offering forgiveness is the story of the paralytic, which is found in Mark 2:1–12 par. In this account, Jesus not only forgives the paralytic’s sins, he also heals him. The combination of these two actions is important for our present purposes because Jesus refers to his healing as the warrant for his authority. The fact that he is able to heal serves as the proof that he has authority to forgive (Mark 2:10–12 par.). In this way, Jesus’s forgiveness is distinguished from the forgiveness pronounced by other figures within Judaism. Prophets could communicate the forgiveness of sins, but they did not forgive sins on their own authority. The point of this prophetic activity was that the forgiveness they proclaimed was not their own; it was God’s. Within the Jewish worldview, God was the one who forgave sin. In the Scriptures of Israel, God is the only one who is attributed with the forgiveness of sins in an absolute sense (Exod 34:7; Isa 43:25; 44:22; 55:7; Ps 103:3; 130:4). When human beings forgive sins, the forgiveness specifically concerns the sins committed against themselves (Gen 50:17; Exod 10:17; 1 Sam 15:25; 25:28). No one can forgive sins committed against others. Only God can do that.43 3.1 Prophets and Forgiveness On several occasions, the prophets of Israel declared that the sins of the people would be forgiven. However, the prophets are not the agents of forgiveness; they merely proclaim the forgiveness of God (Isa 33:24; LAB 30.7; Jos. Ant. 3.24; 7.153). One exception appears to be found in Josephus’s Antiquities. Tobias Hägerland has presented a very strong argument for reading Samuel as the subject of forgiveness in Ant. 6.92. A literal translation of the relevant sentence reads: “they began to implore the prophet as a mild and gentle father, to make God benevolent towards them and to forgive this sin.” It is likely that the subject of the two infinitives is the same. The subject of “make God benevolent” (τὸν θεὸν αὐτοῖς εὐμενῆ καταστῆσαι) must be Samuel, so it is reasonable that he is the subject of “to forgive this sin” (ταύτην ἀφεῖναι τὴν ἁμαρτίαν) as well.44 However, the context makes clear that the ultimate agent of forgiveness 43 Jacob

Milgrom observes: “in the entire Bible, only God dispenses sālaḥ, never humans” (Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3 [New York: Doubleday, 1991], 245). This usage is reflected in the Septuagint as well, where the subject of ἀφίημι is always God (cf. Chong-Hyon Sung, Vergebung der Sünden: Jesu Praxis der Sündenvergebung nach den Synoptikern und ihre Voraussetzungen im Alten Testament und frühen Judentum, WUNT II 57 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993], 173). Carl Lomholt observes that all sin is violation of the first commandment and that God is therefore the only one who can forgive sins (“Tilgivelsens teologi i Det Gamle Testamente,” DTT 78 [2015]: 42). 44 For a more thorough discussion, see Tobias Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins: An Aspect of His Prophetic Mission, SNTSMS 150 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

Exorcism, Forgiveness, and Christological Implications

69

is God. Samuel offers forgiveness on the basis of his prayers to God. In the following paragraph, Josephus explains that Samuel would “beseech God to pardon them in this thing and would withal move Him thereto” (Ant. 6.93). If Samuel is the subject of the verb “to forgive” (ἀφίημι), the context reveals that Samuel communicated the forgiveness of God.45 3.2 The Prayer of Nabonidus Another much debated case is found in the Prayer of Nabonidus from Qumran (4Q242), which is often cited as evidence that human beings were able to forgive sins.46 In García Martínez’s translation, line 4 of fragments I–III reads: “an exorcist forgave my sin.”47 This translation is based on the assumption that the subject of the verb ‫ שבק‬is the unidentified exorcist that is mentioned in the same line. Because of the lacunae in the manuscript, however, it is impossible to know who the subject is. The Most High God is mentioned earlier, so God may also be the subject of the verb, an interpretation that is likely in light of the worldview of the scrolls.48 However that may be, the verb is not used for forgiveness in the strict sense. In its surviving form, the scroll does not mention sin at all; its concern is with the inflammation with which Nabonidus was afflicted. The statement that someone “forgave my sin” is the scroll’s only description of Nabonidus’s healing. In other words, the verb is used metonymously for the removal of sin’s consequences, in this case the healing of the inflammation. In contrast, the Synoptic account of Jesus’s forgiveness of the paralytic, distinguishes clearly between forgiveness and healing.49 Jesus pronounced the 2012), 147–148; idem “Prophetic Forgiveness in Josephus and Mark,” SEÅ 79 (2014): 130– 137; contra Daniel Johansson, “‘Who Can Forgive Sins but God Alone?’ Human and Angelic Agents, and Divine Forgiveness in Early Judaism,” JSNT 33 (2011): 360–363. 45 Similarly, Beniamin Pascut, Redescribing Jesus’ Divinity Through a Social Science Theory: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Forgiveness and Divine Identity in Ancient Judaism and Mark 2:1–12, WUNT II 438 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 140. 46 Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels (1973; repr., Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), 67–68; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I– IX): Introduction, Translation and Notes, AB 28 (New York: Doubleday, 1981), 585; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 217; Maurice Casey, The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem, LNTS 343 (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 153; Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins, 157–158. 47 Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds., (1Q1–4Q273), vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 487. 48 For a more thorough discussion with references to secondary literature and with an argument in favor of the former interpretation, see Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins, 156–157. 49 Several scholars have concluded that the healing and the forgiveness may originally have been two separate stories (Bultmann, Geschichte, 12; Ingrid , Die Heilung des Gelähmten: Eine exegetisch-traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Mk 2,1–12, SBS 52 [Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1972], 29–39; Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, vol. 1,

70

Sigurd Grindheim

forgiveness of the man’s sins, but he was not yet healed. The healing was provided afterwards as proof that the forgiveness was valid, that Jesus indeed had the authority to forgive sins. In contrast to the accounts of prophetic forgiveness, Jesus does not refer beyond himself, to the forgiveness of God. Instead, he refers to his own act of healing, an act that could be observed by all those present, so that they could acknowledge his authority. “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,” Jesus says (Mark 2:10 par.), and then he turns to the paralytic and tells him to stand up. Jesus’s authority resides in himself and his own powers.50 3.3 The Priests and Forgiveness Many scholars have seen Jesus’s forgiveness against the background of the temple institution.51 They see Jesus as usurping the priests’ right to forgive. However, the priests did not offer forgiveness. Their role was to administer the sacrifices, on account of which God forgave sins (Lev 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18, 26; 19:22; Num 15:25, 26, 28). According to Otfried Hofius, there is no evidence that the priests forgave sins.52 3.4 Divine Passive However, the comparison with the temple institution is also relevant with respect to the language of forgiveness. Jesus uses the passive voice when he HThKNT II/1 [Freiburg: Herder, 1976], 152–153; Hans-Josef Klauck, “Die Frage der Sündenvergebung in der Perikope von der Heilung des Gelähmten [Mk 2,1–12 parr.],” BZ 25 [1981]: 225–236), but see Volker Hampel, Menschensohn und historischer Jesus: Ein Rätselwort als Schlüssel zum messianischen Selbstverständnis Jesu (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990), 189–197. 50 Similarly, Pascut, Redescribing Jesus’ Divinity, 181–192. 51 See Joachim Gnilka, Das Markusevangelium, vol. 1, EKK 2/1 (Zurich: Benziger, 1978), 100; E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 240; W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 2, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 93; Edwin K. Broadhead, Naming Jesus: Titular Christology in the Gospel of Mark, JSNTSup 175 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 69; Gerd Theissen, Jesus als historische Gestalt: Beiträge zur Jesusforschung, FRLANT 202 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003), 205. John Dominic Crossan, observing that healing presupposes forgiveness, maintains that Jesus’s act threatened the power of the temple establishment. He assumes that Jesus’s healing/forgiving ministry was similar to that of the Baptist. Surprisingly, he does not even attempt to provide evidence that John was ever reported to heal sickness or forgive sins (The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant [New York: HarperCollins, 1991], 324). 52 “Vergebungszuspruch und Vollmachtsfrage: Mk 2,1–12 und das Problem priesterlicher Absolution im antiken Judentum,” in Neutestamentliche Studien, WUNT 132 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 59–67. Cf. Jacob Milgrom, who observes that “[t]he priest carries out the purgation rites but only God determines their efficacy” (Leviticus 1–16, 245).

Exorcism, Forgiveness, and Christological Implications

71

offers forgiveness. “Your sins are forgiven (ἀφίενταί)” (Mark 2:5 par.), he says. This formula is strikingly similar to the one used in the priestly material in the Pentateuch. With small variations, the priestly formula reads: “The priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven (‫( ”)ונסלח להמ‬Lev 4:20 etc.). In these priestly formulas, the agent of forgiveness is clearly God. By analogy, it might be argued that Jesus’s formula should be understood in a similar way. Jesus merely pronounces forgiveness; he does not offer it. The verb is in the passive voice. Many scholars categorize it as a divine passive; the implied agent being God, not Jesus.53 This argument relies on the highly problematic concept of a divine passive with its confusion of semantics and morphology. The passive voice allows the speaker to state that an action is being done without necessarily specifying the agent of the action. The agent may be unknown or it may be revealed by the context, either explicitly or implicitly. The exact same grammatical form may be used with a number of different implied agents, and the only key to identifying the agent is context.54 The grammatical form is mute with respect to the identity of the agent; that is the nature of the passive voice. The term “divine passive” is therefore a misleading term, as it leaves the impression that the agent is identified by the morphology, which is an impossibility. In the context of the tabernacle and temple service, the sacrifice is presented to God, and he is therefore the implied agent of forgiveness. In the account of the paralytic, Jesus makes no reference to God. Instead, he points to himself as the one with authority to forgive, an authority that he is able to demonstrate with actions performed with his own, inherent power.55 The account of the scribes’ reaction corroborates this interpretation. According to Mark, they were “questioning in their hearts, ‘Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?’” (Mark 2:6b–7). They interpreted Jesus as doing what only God could do.56

53 Pesch, Markusevangelium, vol. 1, 156, 216; Ulrich Luz, Matthew 8–20, trans. Wilhelm C. Linss, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 28; Matthias Kreplin, Das Selbstverständnis Jesu: Hermeneutische und christologische Reflexion: Historisch-kritische Analyse, WUNT II 141 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 124; Rikard Roitto, “The Polyvalence of Ἀφίημι and the Two Cognitive Frames of Forgiveness in the Synoptic Gospels,” NovT 57 (2015): 151–152. 54 In a study of passive verbs in Mark, Pascut shows that there is no scholarly agreement about which ones should be considered “divine passives.” He also shows that the implied agent is determined by context (“The So-Called Passivum Divinum in Mark’s Gospel,” NovT 54 [2012]: 313–333). 55 Similarly, Pascut, Redescribing Jesus’ Divinity, 158–165. 56 Similarly, Pascut, Redescribing Jesus’ Divinity, 167–180.

72

Sigurd Grindheim

4. Conclusion The reactions to Jesus’s acts of exorcism and forgiveness show that he was not understood in the same category as known exorcists or prophets. He was seen as claiming for himself a role that no human being could claim. The reason, I submit, was that his activities differed from those of the known exorcists and prophets. The authority he implicitly claimed for himself was of a different character. In the contexts surveyed above, he did not claim to be God’s spokesperson and to be delegated authority by God. He acted as if his authority resided in his own person. This audacity characterizes both his encounters with demons and his words of forgiveness. That raises the question of the relationship between Jesus’s forgiveness and his exorcisms. The New Testament accounts do not link the two; there is no suggestion that sin is forgiven through exorcism or that forgiveness is necessary for an exorcism to be effective. The exorcism and forgiveness stories are linked, however, in that they both show the inherent and instantly effective personal authority of Jesus. His exorcisms and forgiveness may be seen as tangible manifestations of the fact that he has dealt with sin and evil once and for all.57

Bibliography Annen, Franz. Heil für die Heiden: Zur Bedeutung und Geschichte der Tradition von besessenen Gerasener (Mk 5, 1–20 parr.). FTS 20. Frankfurt: Josef Knecht, 1976. Best, Ernest. The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology. 2nd ed. SNTSMS. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Bonner, Campbell. “The Technique of Exorcism.” HTR 36 (1943): 39–49. Broadhead, Edwin K. Naming Jesus: Titular Christology in the Gospel of Mark. JSNTSup 175. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Bultmann, Rudolf. Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition. 2nd ed. FRLANT 29. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931. Burrow, Andrew. “Bargaining with Jesus: Irony in Mark 5:1–20.” BibInt 25 (2017): 234–251. Carter, Warren. “Cross-Gendered Romans and Mark’s Jesus: Legion Enters the Pigs (Mark 5:1–20).” JBL 134 (2015): 139–155. Casey, Maurice. The Solution to the ‘Son of Man’ Problem. LNTS 343. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. New York: HarperCollins, 1991. 57 There are no obvious terminological similarities between Jesus’s healings and his exorcisms, but in Luke’s Gospel, both forgiveness (Luke 6:37) and freedom from demon affliction (Luke 13:12; cf. 13:16) may be described with the term ἀπολύω. In light of this observation, forgiveness and exorcism may both be understood to represent the deliverance (I am grateful to Susan R. Garrett for the suggestion of this term) brought by Jesus.

Exorcism, Forgiveness, and Christological Implications

73

Davies, W. D. and Dale C. Allison Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Vol. 2. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991. Delcor, Mathias. “Qumran: Doctrines des Esséniens.” Pages 960–980 in DBSup vol. 9. Derrett, J. D. M. “Contributions to the Study of the Gerasene Domiac.” JSNT 3 (1979): 2–17. –. “Spirit-Possession and the Gerasene Demoniac.” Man 14 (1979): 286–293. Donahue, John R. and Daniel J. Harrington. The Gospel of Mark. SP. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2002. Duhaime, Jean. “Cohérence structurelle et tensions internes dans l’Instruction sur les Deux Esprits (1QS III 13 – IV 26).” Pages 103–131 in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition. Edited by Florentino García Martínez. BETL 168. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003. Dvořáček, Jiři. The Son of David in Matthew’s Gospel in the Light of the Solomon as Exorcist Tradition. WUNT II 415. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Ermakov, Arseny. “The Holy One of God in Markan Narrative.” HBT 36 (2014): 159–184. Evans, Craig A. “Defeating Satan and Liberating Israel: Jesus and Daniel’s Visions.” JSHJ 1 (2003): 161–170. Eve, Eric. “The Miracles of an Eschatological Prophet.” JSHJ 13 (2015): 131–49. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke (I–IX): Introduction, Translation and Notes. AB 28. New York: Doubleday, 1981. García Martínez, Florentino and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, eds. (1Q1–4Q273). Vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Gnilka, Joachim. Das Markusevangelium. Vol. 1. EKKNT 2:1. Zurich: Benziger, 1978. Grindheim, Sigurd. “Divine and Human Forgiveness: A Response to Tobias Hägerland.” SEÅ 80 (2015): 125–141. –. God’s Equal: What Can We Know About Jesus’ Self-Understanding? LNTS 446. London: T&T Clark, 2011. Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1–8:26. WBC 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989. Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Hampel, Volker. Menschensohn und historischer Jesus: Ein Rätselwort als Schlüssel zum messianischen Selbstverständnis Jesu. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990. Harrington, Daniel J. “Pseudo-Philo.” Pages 2:297–377 in OTP. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Hägerland, Tobias. Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins: An Aspect of His Prophetic Mission. SNTSMS 150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. –. “Prophetic Forgiveness in Josephus and Mark.” SEÅ 79 (2014): 125–139. Henderson, Suzanne W. Christology and Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark. SNTSMS 135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Hofius, Otfried. “Vergebungszuspruch und Vollmachtsfrage: Mk 2,1–12 und das Problem priesterlicher Absolution im antiken Judentum.” Pages 57–69 in Neutestamentliche Studien. WUNT 132. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Johansson, Daniel. “‘Who Can Forgive Sins but God Alone?’ Human and Angelic Agents, and Divine Forgiveness in Early Judaism.” JSNT 33 (2011): 351–374. Joosten, Jan. “The Verb ‫‘ גער‬to Exorcize’ in Qumran Aramaic and Beyond.” DSD 21 (2014): 347–355. Josephus. Translated by Henry St. J. Thackeray et. al. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965. Kee, Howard Clark. “The Terminology of Mark’s Exorcism Stories.” NTS 14 (1968): 232–246. Kennedy, James M. “The Root g‘r in the Light of Semantic Analysis.” JBL 106 (1987): 47–64.

74

Sigurd Grindheim

Klauck, Hans-Josef. “Die Frage der Sündenvergebung in der Perikope von der Heilung des Gelähmten (Mk 2,1–12 parr.).” BZ 25 (1981): 223–248. Koch, Dietrich-Alex. Die Bedeutung der Wundererzählungen für die Christologie des MarkusEvangeliums. BZNW 42. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975. Kreplin, Matthias. Das Selbstverständnis Jesu: Hermeneutische und Christologische Reflexion: Historisch-Kritische Analyse. WUNT II 141. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001. Lomholt, Carl. “Tilgivelsens teologi i Det Gamle Testamente.” DTT 78 (2015): 21–44. Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 8–20. Translated by Wilhelm C. Linss. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001. Maisch, Ingrid. Die Heilung des Gelähmten: Eine exegetisch-traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Mk 2,1–12. SBS 52. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1972. Marcus, Joel. Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 27. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Metso, Sarianna. The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule. STDJ 21. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Miquel, Esther. “How to Discredit an Inconvenient Exorcist: Origin and Configuration of the Synoptic Controversies on Jesus’ Power as an Exorcist.” BTB 40 (2010): 187–206. Murphy-O’Connor, Jérôme. “La genèse litteraire de la Règle de la Communauté.” RB 76 (1969): 528–549. Osten-Sacken, P. von der. Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran. SUNT 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969. Pascut, Beniamin. Redescribing Jesus’ Divinity Through a Social Science Theory: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Forgiveness and Divine Identity in Ancient Judaism and Mark 2:1– 12. WUNT II 438. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. –. “The So-Called Passivum Divinum in Mark’s Gospel.” NovT 54 (2012): 313–333. Pesch, Rudolf. Das Markusevangelium. Vol. 1. HThKNT II/1. Freiburg: Herder, 1976. Pimental, Peter. “The ‘Unclean Spirits’ of St. Mark’s Gospel.” ExpTim 99 (1988): 173–175. Roitto, Rikard. “The Polyvalence of Ἀφίημι and the Two Cognitive Frames of Forgiveness in the Synoptic Gospels.” NovT 57 (2015): 136–158. Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985. Scholtissek, Klaus. Die Vollmacht Jesu: Traditions- und redaktionsgeschichtliche Analysen zu einem Leitmotiv markinischer Christologie. NTAbh 25. Münster: Aschendorff, 1992. Sorensen, Eric. Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity. WUNT II 157. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Sung, Chong-Hyon. Vergebung der Sünden: Jesu Praxis der Sündenvergebung nach den Synoptikern und ihre Voraussetzungen im Alten Testament und frühen Judentum. WUNT II 57. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. Tannehill, Robert C. “The Gospel of Mark as Narrative Christology.” Semeia 16 (1979): 57– 95. Theissen, Gerd. Jesus als historische Gestalt: Beiträge zur Jesusforschung. FRLANT 202. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2003. Torijano, Pablo A. Solomon, the Esoteric King: From King to Magus, Development of a Tradition. JSJSup 73. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Twelftree, Graham H. “Exorcism and the Defeat of Beliar in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.” VC 65 (2011): 170–188. –. Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus. WUNT II 54. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993.

Exorcism, Forgiveness, and Christological Implications

75

Vermes, Geza. Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels. 1973. Repr. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981. Wahlen, Clinton. Jesus and the Impurity of Spirits in the Synoptic Gospels. WUNT II 185. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. Watts, Rikki E. Isaiah’s New Exodus in Mark. WUNT II 88. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Winston, David. The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB. New York: Doubleday, 1979. Witmer, Amanda. Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist: His Exorcisms in Social and Political Context. LNTS 459. London: T&T Clark, 2012. Wright, Archie T. “The Demonology of 1 Enoch and the New Testament Gospels.” Pages 215– 43 in Enoch and the Synoptic Gospels: Reminiscences, Allusions, Intertextuality. Edited by Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Gabriele Boccaccini. EJL 44. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016. Yarbro Collins, Adela. Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. –. “Mark and His Readers: The Son of God Among Jews.” HTR 92 (1999): 393–408.

“The Miracle That Jesus Cannot Do” Susan R. Garrett In Mark’s Gospel, throughout Jesus’s earthly ministry there is one miracle that he cannot do: open human minds. Jesus recognizes that for those outside everything is in parables, but he does intend to reveal the mystery of the kingdom of God to his inner circle of disciples (Mark 4:11–12). He therefore seems surprised and perturbed that his closest companions remain outsiders to “the mystery of the kingdom of God.” In this paper I will argue that Mark crafts this story of nearly total human incomprehension in order to convey ideas about the nature of Jesus’s messiahship, the hidden agency of Satan behind the work of his adversaries, and the paradoxical means by which Jesus finally achieves victory over the opposing forces and enables his followers to see. The Gospel’s depiction of the ignorance or blindness of humans sets up an overarching literary irony, because Mark’s intended readers are not ignorant at all, but understand the mystery that the disciples’ blindness and hardness of heart (within the confines of the narrative world) keep them from grasping. Mark 8:22–38 is a pivotal passage in my reading of the Gospel. In the story of the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida (8:22–26), a second intervention is needed for the man to regain full sight. The two-stage architecture of this healing carries over to the incident that immediately follows, when Peter confesses Jesus to be the Christ but refuses to accept that he must suffer and be killed (8:27–33). By rebuking Jesus, Peter shows the reader that he likewise needs another laying on of hands if he is to see Jesus clearly. By in turn rebuking Peter, Jesus shows that Satan is operative in Peter’s misunderstanding. Satan is acting as saboteur, keeping Peter focused on human things so that he stays blind to God’s higher purposes for Jesus and then trying to exploit this partial blindness to pull Jesus off his straight and narrow path to the cross (8:31–33). The anticipated second healing intervention – the one that will enable Peter and all Jesus’s followers to see and comprehend – will transpire not through use of force but through Jesus’s willingness to be given over into enemy hands and his reliance on God to save him.

78

Susan R. Garrett

1. Mark’s Epistemological Obsession The author of Mark’s Gospel is deeply interested in the question of who has access to divine knowledge, and how and when they obtained it. The general pattern during Jesus’s earthly ministry is clear: spirit beings understand who Jesus really is and why he came, but humans do not. I’ll say a word about each group of characters, subdividing the human cast into two: the followers of Jesus, and everyone else. 1.1 Regarding Spirit-Beings Satan enters the story just after the baptism. Clearly he has heard the words that God spoke when Jesus was coming up from the water and the Spirit was descending (Mark 1:10–11). Satan understands who Jesus is and why he came, which is precisely why he puts Jesus to the test in the wilderness. The scene parallels the opening chapters of the canonical book of Job, where likewise God’s declaration of his servant’s righteousness provokes satanic assault.1 Moreover, not only Satan but also the demons in Mark’s narrative world know Jesus’s true identity and purpose: “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God!” (Mark 1:24).2 But even though Mark depicts the demons and their overlord as knowing who Jesus is and why he came, Mark may well have supposed that Satan lacked foreknowledge of the ultimate outcome of the contest. Paul’s word to the Corinthians comes to mind: “But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:7–8). Within the logic of Mark’s narrative world, Satan may well suppose that he can win. 1.2 Regarding Human Characters outside Jesus’s Inner Circle In Mark’s story, humans outside Jesus’s inner circle do not and cannot understand who Jesus is. They “may indeed look but not perceive; and may indeed listen, but not understand” (4:11–12; cf. Isa 6:9–10). By having Jesus allude to Isaiah, Mark signals that Jesus interpreted the outsiders’ incomprehension as having been divinely directed, foreseen by the prophet, and expected by Jesus himself. All those who are outside fail to understand, but Jesus’s enemies play a particular and quite important role in this regard. By repeatedly putting Jesus to 1 For exposition of parallels between the portrayal of Jesus in Mark and the portrayal of Job in the Bible and other ancient literature, see Susan R. Garrett, “The Patience of Job and the Patience of Jesus,” Int 53:3 (1999): 254–264. 2 All biblical translations are from the NRSV.

“The Miracle That Jesus Cannot Do”

79

the test (Mark 8:11; 10:2; 12:15), they continue the assault that the devil began in the wilderness, and show themselves to be his unwitting tools.3 There are striking parallels between Mark’s account of these verbal confrontations between Jesus and his enemies and the account in Wis 2:12–24 of wicked adversaries who put the righteous one to the test. In depicting Jesus and his enemies this way, Mark may have been drawing directly on Wisdom, or both texts may reflect a stock narrative in which wicked people – blinded by sin or Satan – mock the righteous one’s claim to special knowledge and conspire to afflict him. One thinks here also of 2 Cor 4:4, where Paul depicts himself as the righteous sufferer, whose adversaries’ minds have been blinded by the god of this world, “to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”4 1.3 Regarding Jesus’s Followers In Mark’s construction of events, Jesus foresaw that outsiders would not grasp the “mystery of the kingdom of God,”5 but expected that his closest disciples would share in this esoteric knowledge (4:11). The astonishing thing – to Jesus and to the reader – is that for the duration of his earthly ministry Jesus does not succeed in enlightening the disciples. From the outset they fail to understand the parable of the sower (4:13). Thereafter ensues a wearying series of failures by the disciples to grasp what Jesus aims to convey through word and deed.6 Not only the disciples but likewise all other human characters fail to grasp the fullness of the mystery and of Jesus’s role in it – although the woman who anoints him at Bethany (in Mark 14:3–9) is one possible exception. Jesus praises her extravagantly because she anointed him ahead of time for burial, by which means she offered a corrective to his own disciples’ stubborn rejection of Jesus’s insistent predictions that he would suffer and be killed.7 (Below I will comment briefly about blind Bartimaeus as another possible exception.) Susan R. Garrett, The Temptations of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 61–69. 4 For discussion of this passage see Susan R. Garrett, “The God of This World and the Affliction of Paul: 2 Cor 4:1–12,” in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe (ed. David Balch et al.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 99–117. 5 For an enlightening analysis of the meaning of the “mystery of the dominion of God” in Mark, see Joel Marcus, Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (2 vols.; AB 27 & 27A; New York: Doubleday, 1999 and New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 1:293–298. Marcus regards the “strange coexistence of the new and old ages” as the heart of the mystery for Mark (1:297). 6 For discussion of the disciples’ misunderstanding and consequent role as agents of testing in Mark, see Garrett, Temptations of Jesus, especially pp. 69–82. 7 I say “possible exception” because these accounts’ chief function may be to point symbolically to a time of understanding after the resurrection, rather than to depict persons who genuinely understood Jesus’s identity and their response to him at the time of the events portrayed. 3

80

Susan R. Garrett

Joel Marcus terms Mark’s preoccupation with characters’ access to divinely revealed knowledge apocalyptic epistemology, a worldview in which events in the mundane world are seen as the outworking of events happening on an unseen plane.8 Marcus points to the parallel between Dan 10:20, in which military victory over Persia and Greece depends on the archangel Gabriel’s conquering of their patron angels, and Mark 10:42, where Jesus refers to “those who are thought to rule [οἱ δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν] the Gentiles,” the implication of Mark’s wording being that the real rulers of the cosmos are “God and Satan, each with a host of servants.”9 Apocalyptic epistemology presumes that the true, higher meaning of events is hidden from most but revealed to the few. In Mark’s Gospel, such epistemology manifests not only in the evangelist’s attention to knowledge vs. ignorance of Jesus’s identity, but also in Mark’s repeated indications that it is appropriate to look for hidden meanings in Jesus’s words and deeds, including his miracles. Mark, fascinated by esoteric knowledge, invites his readers to search for it in his account.10 Jesus’s allegorical interpretation of the parable of the sower in 4:14–20 invites the reader to search for hidden meaning in Jesus’s words.11 But the evangelist also conveys that Jesus’s deeds harbor concealed meanings for his intended readers. Consider the account of Jesus’s walking on the sea: Mark indicates that the disciples should have understood this event in light of the first feeding miracle, but they could not “because their hearts were hardened” (6:52) – in other words, their condition of mind and heart kept them from seeing the symbolic connections between the walking on water and the feeding of the multitude, both of which prefigure Jesus’s death and resurrection.12 Mark 8 See Joel Marcus, “Mark 4:10–12 and Marcan Epistemology,” JBL 103 (1984): 557–574; for further discussion and extensive citations from primary and secondary literature, see Garrett, Temptations of Jesus, 63 n28. 9 Marcus, “Mark 4:10–12,” 558; compare Whitney T. Shiner, “Follow Me!” Disciples in Markan Rhetoric (SBLDS 145; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 214. 10 Mark repeatedly and explicitly signals the need to probe his account for hidden import, including in Jesus’s allegorical interpretation of the parable of the sower (4:14–20), in the narrator’s comment that the disciples did not understand the connection between the first feeding miracle and Jesus’s walking on the water (6:52), and in Jesus’s chastising of the disciples for not grasping the connection between both feeding miracles and his obscure warning about “the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod” (8:15–21). 11 Various literary strategies used by Mark, especially ironic disparities between what the implied reader of the story is expected to know and what characters in the story know, likewise signal a second, higher layer of meaning. See Mark Allan Powell, What Is Narrative Criticism? (Minneapolis: Fortress Press 1990), 30–32; Robert M. Fowler, Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 163– 175. 12 For an interpretation of Jesus’s walking on the sea (6:47–52) as deliberately evoking the Israelites’ crossing of the Sea of Reeds in the Exodus, see Marcus, Mark, 1:430–435. Marcus contends that the comparison is more than one of Moses to Jesus; “the more important analogy

“The Miracle That Jesus Cannot Do”

81

further indicates that the feeding miracles are to be probed for deeper significance by having Jesus tell the disciples that if they had asked the right questions about these miraculous meals, they would have understood Jesus’s obscure saying about “the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod” (8:15). For at least two reasons the accounts in Mark of the healings of blind persons beg for figurative reading. First, the two such accounts (8:22–26 and 10:46– 52) are strategically placed in the Gospel to bracket the period during which Jesus repeatedly predicts his passion, on each of the three occasions meeting with incomprehension by his followers. Second, reference to physical blindness would have been a natural and obvious way for Mark to symbolize spiritual blindness and – through narration of the healing of said blindness – to signal a movement from ignorance to participation in divine knowledge.13 Consider the account of Jesus’s healing of blind Bartimaeus, which occurs in 10:46–52, directly after the disciples’ third expression of resistance to the imminence and certainty of Jesus’s passion. This third passion prediction and the disciples’ response have demonstrated (yet again) that within the confines of Jesus’s earthly life most humans do not truly see and understand – but Bartimaeus seems to be an exception. He has faith that Jesus is “the Son of David” who can heal him, and he is not put off by the crowds who rebuke him and try to silence him (even as Peter had tried to silence Jesus in Caesarea Philippi).14 Joel Marcus writes, “Like the Greek seer Tiresias, this blind man, ironically, sees more clearly than the sighted people around him, who try to squelch his insight.”15 Bartimaeus’s singular sight prefigures discipleship in the era after the resurrection, when many will gain their sight, acknowledge Jesus as “Son of David” or messiah, and “follow him on the way.”16 is that which exists between the Markan Jesus, on the one hand, and the God who spoke and revealed himself to Moses, on the other” (1:432). Although Mark “never explicitly says that Jesus is divine, he comes very close to doing so here,” and further, “it is precisely this divine quality that will enable him to conquer death, his own and that of his followers; this conquest, which will ultimately be accomplished through his resurrection, is foreshadowed by our narrative as well” (1:432). Marcus goes on to list nine parallels between this story of the walking on the sea and resurrection accounts (1:433), which confirm for him that the sea miracle is symbolic of Jesus’s conquest of death. 13 We see such symbolism at work in Acts 9:8–19, the story of the conversion of Paul, in which he is first blinded and then healed – symbolizing his movement “from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God” (quoting Acts 26:18). 14 The word translated “rebuke” in 10:48 (ἐπετίμων) is the same verb used in 8:32 when Peter rebukes Jesus to silence him. Joel Marcus reads the account as masking “a titanic struggle between the royal ensign of God’s liberation, roaring through Jericho like a new Joshua on his way up to ‘conquer’ Jerusalem . . . and the forces of sickness and demonic oppression that oppose him.” (Marcus, Mark, 2:763). 15 Marcus, Mark, 2:763. 16 See the discussion of the rich, layered symbolism of the Bartimaeus story in Marcus, Mark, 2:761–766. Marcus comments, “The paradigmatic function of Bartimaeus as a symbol

82

Susan R. Garrett

Mark never portrays the full healing of disciples from their spiritual blindness, although he does foreshadow their and others’ conversion. First, he predicts that Jesus will “go before” the disciples into Galilee – which implies that they will follow (14:28). Second, while opposite the Temple Mount Jesus explains to Peter, James, John, and Andrew that in the time of great affliction to come, some among his followers will endure to the end and be saved (13:13) – which will hinge on their having been healed of (satanically induced) preoccupation with fleshly preservation. In Mark’s “schedule of concealment and disclosure,”17 the time of full comprehension will come only after the resurrection. Mark makes this clear when he has Jesus instruct Peter, James, and John not to speak of his transfiguration “until after the Son of Man had risen from the dead” (9:9) – an admonition that at the time they do not understand. But why the delay? Why does Jesus’s power to heal remain insufficient during his mortal state? Why is he able to heal physical blindness but not spiritual blindness? Why can he exorcise individual demons, yet not – despite having in some sense bound Satan – heal the blindness that Satan or sin inflicts? What must happen for Jesus’s victory over the Strong Man to be complete?

2. Jesus’s Failure to Enlighten the Twelve Mark shows Jesus as intending to reveal the mystery of the kingdom of God to his disciples: And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that ‘they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.’” (Mark 4:11–12)

of the new disciple of Jesus is consonant with the observation that certain features of the narrative are reminiscent of early Christian baptism, and they may very well have reminded Mark’s readers of that rite” (2:765). In a written response to the conference version of this paper, Anna Runesson argued that Bartimaeus’s understanding of Jesus’s identity undercuts my argument that persons in Mark remain blind until after the resurrection. But Runesson’s critique depends on an overly literal interpretation of the story and its placement in the Marcan timeline; in my interpretation, the incident is chiefly important, rather, as a literary foreshadowing of a time in the future that is known to the author and readers but not to the characters in the story. In this future era, disciples will truly see and follow in the Way – much as in the account of the sending of the Seventy in Luke 10:1–24, where the missionary and exorcistic success of these other disciples prefigures a time when all followers of Jesus will carry his spirit and wield divine power. 17 The phrase (made in reference to Luke’s Gospel) is from Richard J. Dillon, “Easter Revelation and Mission Program in Luke 24:46–48,” in Sin, Salvation, and the Spirit, ed. D. Durken (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1979), 244.

“The Miracle That Jesus Cannot Do”

83

But no time passes between his utterance of these words and his perception that the disciples do not grasp the mystery at all. He chides them, saying, “Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand all the parables?” (4:13). Thereafter they will repeatedly fail his tests for understanding: during the storm at sea (4:40), at his feedings of the multitudes (6:52; 8:4); when they lack bread and he speaks cryptically about the “leaven” of the Pharisees and of Herod (8:14–21); and after each of Jesus’s three passion predictions (8:32–33; 9:32; 10:35–40). In chiding them, Jesus uses language similar to that applied to outsiders in the parable of the sower: the disciples have hearts that are hardened, eyes that fail to see, and ears that fail to hear (8:18).18 Mark’s account of Peter’s failure to understand Jesus’s passion prediction at Caesarea Philippi gives the key to unlock this literary pattern of the disciples’ incomprehension. When Jesus rebukes Peter, saying “Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things” (8:33), it is as if the curtain has been drawn back to reveal who is actually pulling the levers. Satan is actively interfering with Peter’s capacity to see things in a godly way, and is using Peter as a pawn to lead Jesus astray from the straight and narrow path to the cross. Peter is fixated on the fleshly and material implications of Jesus’s passion prediction and cannot see that the dire events about which Jesus has just spoken will serve God’s higher purpose (v. 33: οὐ φρονεῖς τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλὰ τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων). It is illuminating to compare this pivotal incident to an encounter with Satan in the pseudepigraphic book Testament of Job.19 In this retelling of Job’s story, the wife (named Sitidos) is portrayed as a long-suffering character who labors to ease her husband’s physical suffering, but who – because of her preoccupation with Job’s fleshly well-being – serves as Satan’s unwitting tool.20 In the climactic scene when she utters the fateful exhortation that Job “speak some word against the Lord and die,” Job claims that this instruction of hers pains

There is some discussion in the commentaries about whether this is a quotation of Jer 5:21 or Ezek 12:2, or a paraphrase of Isa 6:10a. See Mary Ann Beavis, Mark’s Audience: The Literary and Social Setting of Mark 4.11–12 (JSNTSup 33; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 90– 91 and 157. Beavis contends that the Markan saying is a paraphrase of Isa 6:10a, a section of the oracle that is not quoted in Mark 4:12. Ultimately, however, identification of the allusion is not crucial for interpretation of the Markan passage: whatever the allusion’s source, the point is that, yet again, the disciples are like uncomprehending outsiders. 19 Testament of Job was written ca. 100 BCE–100 CE (probably in Greek); it was preserved in Coptic, Greek, and Slavic manuscripts from ca. 400–1600 CE. On the work’s provenance and date see R. P. Spittler, “Introduction to Testament of Job,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth; 2 vols.; (Garden City: Doubleday, 2003, 2005), 1:833– 834. 20 See the discussion in Susan R. Garrett, “The Weaker Sex in the Testament of Job,” JBL 112 (1993): 55–70, regarding how female characters in Testament of Job are portrayed as unwitting agents of Satan. 18

84

Susan R. Garrett

him more than all his suffering to date, for she is failing to see how refuting God’s authority over him would cause them to “be alienated from the truly great wealth” (26.1–3).21 He goes on: “Do you not see the devil standing behind you and unsettling your reasoning so that he might deceive me too?” (26.6). Then Job commands Satan to come forth from behind her, and Satan, cowering, admits defeat (27.1–7). The plot element paralleled in Mark is this: Satan has kept Sitidos focused only on Job’s horrible fleshly suffering, thus blinding her to the higher purpose of Job’s ordeal and making her a proxy through whom Satan thinks he can manipulate Job. But Job, the righteous sufferer, sees and knows what Satan is up to and calls him out. In Testament of Job, patient endurance (ὑπομονή) is the means by which Job overcomes Satan.22 Prior to Job’s climactic unmasking of the devil, there was a poignant yet almost comical moment when Job described his own abject physical condition as he sat, worm-ridden, on a dung heap. He explained, “Many worms were in my body, and if a worm ever sprang off, I would take it up and return it to its original place, saying, ‘Stay in the same place where you were put until you are directed otherwise by your commander’” (20.7–8). Job’s admonition to the worms is the very moral precept by which he himself lives: he does not try to escape the fate that God has laid out for him, but submits himself to his Commander. When Satan is eventually exposed as the agent behind Sitidos, Satan compares the struggle in which he and Job have been engaged to a wrestling match in which the athlete who was initially pinned conquers the opponent through patient endurance. Satan then departs, weeping and ashamed (T. Job 27.4–7). The story evokes the exhortation in the epistle of James: “Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you” (Jas 4:7). In Mark, as noted earlier, the two-stage healing of the blind man at Bethsaida (Mark 8:22–26) sets the reader up for the ensuing pericope, in which Peter confesses Jesus to be the Christ but then rebukes him for his passion prediction. Like the blind man after Jesus’s first touch, Peter and the other disciples see – but not clearly. They need additional healing.23 Although Peter correctly identifies Jesus as the Christ, by rebuking Jesus when he speaks of his own suffering Peter shows that he, like Sitidos in Testament of Job, is preoccupied with fleshly harm – harm to Jesus, and perhaps harm also to himself. Peter’s rebuke of Jesus parallels Sitidos’s command to “speak some word against the Lord

Translations are by Spittler in OTP. The theme of ὑπομονή or “patient endurance” is the moral focus of the narrative of Testament of Job (see T. Job 1.5; 5.1; compare Jas 5:11 [τὴν ὑπομονὴν Ἰὼβ ἠκούσατε]). 23 See Marcus, Mark, 2:601: “The blind man’s intermediate state of seeing-yet-not-seeing corresponds to the disciples’ position throughout the Gospel.” Cf. Garrett, Temptations of Jesus, 79; Earl S. Johnson, “Mark viii.22–26: The Blind Man from Bethsaida,” NTS 25 (1979): 370–383. 21 22

“The Miracle That Jesus Cannot Do”

85

and die” (25.10). Each of their responses tempts the righteous sufferer to halt his patient endurance and act on his own behalf to thwart what the Commander had planned for him. Sitidos and Peter are each blinded by Satan, who kept them preoccupied with the flesh. Their inability to discern Satan’s agency puts them in danger of being alienated from the great wealth, and makes them potential stumbling blocks for Job and Jesus, respectively. In Mark, the full healing of human blindness to divine truths is not possible apart from Jesus’s own suffering and patient endurance of his trials. Why? Why should Jesus’s have to suffer and die so as to open eyes that Satan has blinded? In order to answer this, we need to review Satan’s customary ways of operating.

3. Satan’s Modus Operandi During the 2016 presidential election in the United States, Facebook and other social media platforms were flooded with fake posts designed and propagated by Russian government operatives in order to discredit Hillary Clinton and promote the election of Donald Trump. Consumers of these media mostly failed to notice, sharing and retweeting fake news with reckless abandon. Caught up in a collective fever of rage against Clinton, they did not pause to ask whether dubious posts and tweets might have been disseminated by persons with dishonorable intentions, or whether the reported news items were even plausible. Because their attention was focused elsewhere, they did not see (or did not care) that they were being duped. In Second Temple era literature, Satan is routinely portrayed as duping or deceiving humans by keeping their attention focused elsewhere. Satan preys on people by exploiting their greatest weakness: their human flesh. Because humans by nature are fixated on gratification and preservation of their flesh, they typically fail to see how Satan is operative in their trials. Sitidos in Testament of Job is a case in point, even though it was not her own flesh she was concerned about but the flesh of Job.24 At the moment when Satan’s agency is revealed, Job says to Sitidos, “Do you not see the devil standing behind you and unsettling your reasoning so that he might deceive me too? For he seeks to make an exhibit of you as one of the senseless women who misguide their husbands’ sincerity” (T. Job 26.6). Job’s chastisement of his wife probably alludes to Eve, who in popular understanding was deceived by Satan acting through the serpent, and who in turn led Adam astray. These two biblical stories of Eve in the Garden and Job in his longsuffering furnished several of the narrative memes routinely used to

24

See Garrett, “Weaker Sex.”

86

Susan R. Garrett

portray Satan in Second Temple era literature. The motif of Satan as deceiver derived from the common inference that in the Garden of Eden Satan had disguised himself as a serpent – and later, in a retelling of the story of Adam and Eve that was known to Paul, as “an angel of light.”25 The motif of Satan as seducer also derived from Genesis: Satan entices people to do what is forbidden by offering them short-term benefit or gratification while concealing from them both his own identity and the true consequences of their transgression. The serpent says to Eve, “You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:4–5). And Eve, seeing “that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise” (i.e., focusing on fleshly gratification), took the fruit and ate. Finally, the motif of Satan as one who afflicts derived from the canonical book of Job, in which the Adversary first assaults Job, then promises relief if he curses (abandons) God. We see this third motif reflected, for example, in 1 Thess 3:4–5, where Paul reminds the Thessalonians that he had warned them ahead of time that they would be persecuted, and reveals to them how he had worried that they might not stand fast through their trials: “For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent to find out about your faith; I was afraid that somehow the tempter had tempted you and that our labor had been in vain.”26 Through affliction and through seduction, Satan attacks people’s flesh; offers them a seemingly easy way out of their desire, discomfort, or pain; and blinds them to the disastrous consequences of accepting his offer of escape. Satan assaults the flesh because he knows that “the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Mark 14:38). This vulnerability of human flesh to satanic assault is the reason why Jesus insists to his disciples in Gethsemane that they must keep alert or awake. Only with eyes wide open would they have been able to endure their time of trial.27 But they did not endure – instead, they succumbed to their fleshly desire for sleep and thus set themselves up to fail tests yet to come (see also Mark 13:33–36).

25 2 Cor 11:3 refers to the serpent’s temptation of Eve as recounted in Gen 3. Shortly thereafter, in 2 Cor 11:14, Paul refers to Satan’s disguising himself as “an angel of light” – a passage that may likewise be alluding to an encounter between Satan and Eve. From the pseudepigraphic LAE 9–10 we know the story of how Satan came back to Eve a second time, disguised as an angelic being, and led her into sexual sin. On the complex transmission history of Life of Adam and Eve, see Garrett, Temptations of Jesus, 45 n52. 26 For more on the origins of motifs commonly associated with Satan in Second Temple literature, see chapter 1, “Traditions about Testing,” in Garrett, Temptations of Jesus, 19–49. 27 On the theme of “watchfulness” or “wakefulness” as reflected in Mark 14:32–42 (the account of Jesus in Gethsemane), 13:32–37 (the parable of householder’s unexpected return), and 1 Thess 5:1–10 (an exhortation to eschatological wakefulness), see Garrett, Temptations of Jesus, 151–159.

“The Miracle That Jesus Cannot Do”

87

In other documents from Mark’s era, the rare individuals to whom truth is revealed do not so readily succumb to Satan’s seduction or affliction. Unlike the disciples in Gethsemane, such persons are able to “stay awake,” and hence to detect the agent behind their fleshly trials. They understand that ὑπομονή or patient endurance is the appropriate response to diabolical assaults on human flesh, and they keep their eyes fastened on the heavenly prize. Thus Job as portrayed in Testament of Job patiently endures his trials and sees straight through the devil’s multiple disguises.28 Likewise the righteous sufferer described in Wisdom of Solomon “calls the last end of the righteous happy,” even as his enemies – blinded by wickedness (Wis 2:21) and by the devil (2:24) – test him with insult and torture (2:19, 24).29 So also Paul discerns that his opponents have been blinded by the god of this world and are therefore unable to perceive “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Cor 4:4) – but Paul patiently endures (4:7–18). Because righteous persons have been enabled by God to see, they filter out Satan’s distractions, correctly assess their experiences as tests, and understand that their choice to succumb or to endure will have eternal consequences. Therefore they choose to endure, i.e., to rely on God to save rather than trying to bargain with God or to save themselves by their own hand. Job in Testament of Job, the four in the fiery furnace in Dan 3:17–18, Abraham in Jub. 17:17– 18:19, the righteous one in Wis 2:18, 20, and Paul in 2 Cor 12:7–10 – in all these instances, when righteous persons are tested, they grasp what is happening and determine to relinquish control and rely on God to rescue them from their distress.30 As Job says to the worms that crawl over his body, “Stay in the same place where you were put until you are directed otherwise by your commander” (T. Job 20.9). Or as Paul says when the Lord declines to take away the thorn in his flesh, “Therefore I am content with weaknesses, insults, 28 Before the climactic scene in which Satan emerges from his hiding place behind Sitidos, the devil has disguised himself as a beggar, as a seller of bread, and as the king of the Persians, all in unsuccessful efforts to deceive Job and lead him astray from obedience. 29 The figure of the righteous sufferer as depicted in Wisdom of Solomon and other contemporary literature draws on psalms of individual lament and the “songs of the suffering servant” in Second Isaiah. On Mark’s use of this motif of the righteous sufferer in his portrayal of Jesus, see Garrett, Temptations of Jesus, especially pp. 66–68. 30 On the inappropriateness of bargaining with God, see Judith’s plea to the elders of Bethulia when they propose to turn the town over to their enemies (the Assyrians) if God does not rescue within five days. Judith chastises them, saying that by trying to make a deal with God they are putting God to the test. She exhorts them not to “bind the purposes of the Lord our God; for God is not like a human being, to be threatened, or like a mere mortal, to be won over by pleading.” Rather they should wait for divine deliverance and call upon God to help them; God “will hear our voice, if it pleases him” (Jdt 8:16–17). On testing God as an expression of the lack of faith and obedience, see Susan R. Garrett, “‘Lest the Light in You Be Darkness’: Luke 11:33–36 and the Question of Commitment,” JBL 110 (1991): 93–105; also Garrett, Temptations of Jesus, 22–23 and passim.

88

Susan R. Garrett

hardships, persecutions, and calamities for the sake of Christ; for whenever I am weak, then I am strong” (2 Cor 12:10). The righteous one does not save himself but relies on God to rescue. So also for Jesus: he understands what is happening to him and knows how he must respond. He perceives that his single-minded resolve is being tested by enemies and disciples alike, but nevertheless he persists. Three times he predicts his own passion (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34), demonstrating that he knows Satan is about to assault his flesh. Jesus understands that if he is to overcome Satan, he must not put God to the test by bargaining, or by intervening on his own behalf, but must obediently endure. He must put his trust in God, even if it seems that God is allowing the forces of evil to have their way. Jesus’s laying aside of power will be the key to his victory over the forces that assail him. As Matthew would later elaborate in his account of Jesus’s arrest, Jesus cannot call upon twelve legions of angels to rescue him, for then “how would the scriptures be fulfilled, which say it must happen in this way?” (Matt 26:54). Just as in Jesus’s first encounter with Satan in the wilderness, so here at the end of his ministry, triumph over the forces of evil will not come through brute strength, but through reliance on God to rescue from distress.

4. Exorcising Satan At the outset of this paper, I suggested that Mark crafts a story in which nearly all humans have been blinded to the mystery of the kingdom of God as it is embodied in and enacted by Jesus. Mark constructs the story in this way, I suggested, so as to convey truths about the nature of Jesus’s messiahship, the strength and the concealed agency of Satan in the work of Jesus’s adversaries, and the paradoxical means by which Jesus finally achieves victory over these opposing forces. For Mark, Jesus is above all a suffering messiah, a messiah who patiently endures affliction. Jesus the righteous sufferer withstands not only the assaults of the outright wicked, who are blinded by their own sin and therefore easy targets of manipulation by the devil, but also trials inflicted by Jesus’s own well-intentioned but unwitting disciples. The disciples cannot see Jesus clearly because they are too preoccupied with their own skin.31 Like the blind man who “sees men, but they look like trees, walking” (Mark 8:24), they need a second healing. Their fixation on fleshly well-being prevents them from seeing how Satan is deceiving them and using them to try to misguide Jesus also. 31 Perhaps Mark supposes that Peter was preoccupied with his own survival – if so, then Jesus dashes that hope in Mark 8:34–35. In the subsequent two accounts of passion predictions, the disciples are not thinking merely about survival but about their eventual reward, as is made poignantly clear by their responses to the predictions (Mark 9:33–34 and 10:35–37).

“The Miracle That Jesus Cannot Do”

89

At the outset of Jesus’s ministry he was thrust into the wilderness to confront Satan directly. He was able to withstand Satan’s assaults on himself, thereby acquiring within the spirit world a reputation for authority that demons could not resist. But Jesus’s exorcisms of demons notwithstanding, his victory over the ruler of those demons – Beelzebul, a.k.a. Satan – was not yet complete.32 Jesus’s persistent inability to heal spiritual blindness is the chief indication that the battle with Satan continues throughout the course of his earthly ministry. To the circle gathered around him at the outset of his ministry Jesus had said, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God” (Mark 4:11) – but the claim was premature. Through the time of Jesus’s death on the cross Satan remains active behind the scenes, exploiting the disciples’ propensity to seek out fleshly gratification and avoid fleshly harm. That propensity explains why at the cross the disciples fled (Mark 14:50). But there is a cosmic shift in the balance of power, a turn of the ages that happens between the cross and the period of the disciples’ endurance that is foretold by Jesus in Mark 13. At the resurrection, Satan is cast out from his place of authority over human lives. God’s raising of Jesus from the dead proved that sin and death have no hold on Jesus. Having entered into the fullness of divine power, Jesus is finally able to achieve the one miracle he could not do during his earthly life: heal his followers of their blindness to Satan’s agency and the consequences of their infidelity in times of trial. After the resurrection Jesus’s followers are finally able to see Jesus’s suffering and their own suffering in a divine rather than human way. At last they are able to proclaim what they had not previously understood: Jesus’s identity as the Son of God who remained faithful in his trials, and who now shares in the glory of God (see Mark 9:9–10).33 The actual expulsion of Satan from his place of authority takes place offstage. Perhaps early Christians imagined a scene much like that depicted in Zech 3, where the Lord rebuked Satan and clothed Joshua (Ἰησοῦς in the Septuagint) in clean priestly garb. Did they infer that Jesus’s endurance had put Satan to shame, as happened when he was bested by Abraham (Jub. 18:12) and Job (T. Job 27.6)? Or that Satan wept to realize that the one who had been pinned beneath him had triumphed over him after all (T. Job 27.2–5)? Did they conclude as did Paul that because of Jesus’s obedience there is no longer any accuser at God’s right hand, but only Jesus, “who indeed intercedes for us” (Rom 8:34; cf. Acts 7:56)? Might they have assumed with the author of the Fourth Gospel that when Jesus was lifted up on the cross, the ruler of this world 32 On Beelzebul as an alternative way of referring to Satan in both Mark and Q, see Amanda Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist: His Exorcisms in Social and Political Context. LSNT 459/LHJS 10; London: T&T Clark, 2012), 113–114. 33 Regarding Jesus’s walking on the sea as prefiguring Jesus’s victory over death at the resurrection, see n12 above.

90

Susan R. Garrett

was driven out (John 12:30; cf. Rev 12:10)? My point in mentioning all these suggestive texts is that even though Mark never shows the moment of Satan’s fall, there were ample narrative paradigms and memes circulating in early Christian circles for readers of Mark to reconstruct this pivotal event, this greatest deliverance of all: when Satan lost his ability to hold Jesus’s followers in bondage and in blindness. To be sure, as Mark’s early readers would have known all too well, Satan’s expulsion from authority over believers at the resurrection was not his expulsion from the world – that waits until the very end. But for those early followers who gathered in houses of prayer to commemorate Jesus’s death and celebrate his resurrection to new life, the miracle Jesus could not do while he was physically present among them had, at last, been accomplished.

Bibliography Beavis, Mary Ann. Mark’s Audience: The Literary and Social Setting of Mark 4.11–12. JSNTSup 33. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Dillon, Richard J. “Easter Revelation and Mission Program in Luke 24:46–48.” Pages 240–270 in Sin, Salvation, and the Spirit. Edited by Daniel Durken. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1979. Fowler, Robert M. Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. Garrett, Susan R. “The God of This World and the Affliction of Paul: 2 Cor 4:1–12.” Pages 99–117 in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of Abraham J. Malherbe. Edited by David Balch et al. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. –. “‘Lest the Light in You Be Darkness’: Luke 11:33–36 and the Question of Commitment.” JBL 110 (1991): 93–105. –. “The Patience of Job and the Patience of Jesus.” Int 53:3 (1999): 254–264. –. The Temptations of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. –. “The Weaker Sex in the Testament of Job.” JBL 112 (1993): 55–70. Johnson, Earl S. “Mark viii.22–26: The Blind Man from Bethsaida.” NTS 25 (1979): 370–383. Marcus, Joel. “Mark 4:10–12 and Marcan Epistemology,” JBL 103 (1984): 557–574. –. Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. 2 vols. AB 27 & 27A. New York: Doubleday; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000; 2009. Powell, Mark Allan. What Is Narrative Criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. Runesson, Anna. “A response to Professor Susan R. Garrett’s paper ‘The Miracle That Jesus Cannot Do.’” Response paper presented at the conference “Healing and Exorcism in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity.” Örebro School of Theology, 8 March 2018. Shiner, Whitney T. “Follow Me!” Disciples in Markan Rhetoric. SBLDS 145. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Spittler, R. P. “Introduction to Testament of Job.” Pages 829–838 in volume 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. 2 vols. Garden City: Doubleday, 2003, 2005. Witmer, Amanda. Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist: His Exorcisms in Social and Political Context. LNTS 459/LHJS 10. London: T&T Clark, 2012.

Why Silence? Reflections on Paul and Jesus Silencing Demonised People in Luke-Acts Steve Walton Two encounters with demonised people stand out as unusual in the Gospels and Acts: Paul’s encounter with the slave girl with a python spirit (Acts 16:16– 18) and Jesus’s encounter with a man with “the spirit of an unclean demon” (Luke 4:31–37, par. Mark 1:21–28).1 In these accounts, Jesus and Paul silence the demon in the process of delivering the demonised person, and this silencing is a distinctive feature among such stories in the New Testament. This essay considers these accounts in order to understand why and how silencing is important and necessary in each case. We shall first review the passages to identify key issues which need discussion to answer our core question. Then, we shall consider the possible explanations scholars have offered for the silencing in each account. In the light of past scholarship, we shall then turn to other ancient sources on deliverance, both their stories and the resources they offer for deliverance of demonised people. This study will allow us to return to Luke-Acts to engage afresh with our two key stories before summarising our findings and concluding.

1. Setting the Scene Acts 16:16–18 presents an encounter between Paul and his companions (ἡμῶν “we”, v. 16) and a slave girl (παιδίσκη, v. 16) who “had a python spirit” (ἔχουσαν πνεῦμα πύθωνα, v. 16). Three areas for discussion come quickly to mind. First, the lexical choices. Πύθων is an NT hapax legomenon, as is the verb describing the activity she engages in, μαντευομένη, usually translated “fortune-telling” or similar (v. 16), so these two lexemes require further study. Secondly, Luke’s anonymous slave girl speaks about Paul and his co-workers and their message, and what she says appears to be true: they are “slaves of the most high god who announce to you a way of salvation” (δοῦλοι τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου εἰσίν, οἵτινες καταγγέλλουσιν ὑμῖν ὁδὸν σωτηρίας, v. 17). However, how would such an announcement be heard, by the first hearers in Philippi, 1

Translations of texts are my own unless otherwise specified.

92

Steve Walton

and by Luke’s readers? Thirdly, why does Paul not act immediately in delivering her from this spirit, and what causes him to act when he does? Her shouting (ἔκραζεν, v. 17) goes on “for many days” (ἐπὶ πολλὰς ἡμέρας, v. 18) before Paul orders the spirit to leave the girl – and Paul’s motivation appears to be a fit of pique, for he is “much annoyed” (διαπονηθείς, v. 18). After the successful deliverance, Luke tells us nothing more of the girl, although her owners go on to attack Paul because he had deprived them of this major source of income (v. 19). We shall consider how Luke understands these events, particularly the silencing of the spirit. Luke 4:31–37 (par. Mark 1:21–28) presents a similar array of issues and questions for exploration. Jesus delivers a demonised man who cries out in a synagogue (vv. 33–35). Three aspects of this passage invite consideration. First, Luke’s extended description of the man’s state is unusual: he “has the spirit of an unclean demon” (ἔχων πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου, v. 32; cf. Mark’s ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ “with an unclean spirit”, v. 23). What is Luke suggesting by this description? Secondly, the spirit’s words about Jesus, like those of the slave girl about Paul and his companions, appear true: “I know who you are, the holy one of God” (οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ, v. 34; identical with Mark 1:24) – is that actually the case? What is meant by the man’s/spirit’s initial words, ἔα, τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ (v. 34; as Mark 1:24 other than ἔα)? Should we punctuate this as a question or a statement, and what does it mean? Thirdly, Jesus’s response is striking, involving a combination of “rebuke” (ἐπετίμησεν) and ordering the spirit to be silent and to come out of the man (φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ, v. 35; as Mark 1:25 other than the near synonymous preposition ἐκ). How should we see Luke’s view of these events and words? Does Luke see a connection between these two passages in the contrasting responses the two deliverance events produce (cf. Luke 4:36–37 and Acts 16:19–24)?

2. Surveying the Scholarship 2.1 Acts 16:16–18 John Chrysostom speaks for many when he asserts that the “python spirit” (v. 16) is seeking to lead the new believers in Philippi away from the gospel (Hom. Act. 35). Quite a number of scholars note that a “spirit of a python” (πνεῦμα πύθωνα) was associated with the oracle at Delphi.2 The python was a serpent guarding the Delphic oracle and had been killed by Apollo. Scholars who take

E.g., Ivoni Richter Reimer, Women in the Acts of the Apostles: A Feminist Liberation Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), 154–155. 2

Why Silence?

93

this view often consider that the silencing of the python spirit was performed in order to suppress a demonic voice.3 Secondly, Matthews and Spencer claim that a key to the story is the suppression of a female voice.4 They suggest that the promise of female prophets in Joel which Peter cites at Pentecost (2:17, 18; quoting Joel 2:28–29 [LXX 3:1–2]) is not fulfilled in the subsequent narrative of Acts. The only female prophets mentioned in Acts subsequently are Philip’s daughters, who are not named and do not speak (21:9). Luke’s view, they propose, is that only men prophesy, and this woman’s role as a παιδίσκη “slave girl” and a “pythian prophet” does not fit with Luke’s understanding. Thus the slave girl does not “prophesy” (προφητεύω), but rather “tells fortunes” (μαντεύομαι, v. 16). Matthews, by contrast with her perception of Luke’s view, sees the slave girl as “a prophet/missionary of the greatest of the oracular Gods who is compelled to identify Paul and his companions as the slaves of the one true ‘Most High God’”.5 Luke is (improperly) suppressing her voice because of his anti-feminism. A third perspective is that of Kauppi, who considers that the story is not an exorcism at all.6 He compares the story with Bultmann’s six features of exorcism, plus one of his own, and argues that the girl fits only two of them, namely meeting the demon (v. 16) and expelling the spirit (v. 18). Two fit partially, namely the demon’s recognition of the exorcist (v. 17, although this spirit does not name Paul), and the departure of the demon (v. 18, although without demonstration of its departure). The other criteria which Kauppi considers unfulfilled or inverted are a description of the danger to the possessed person, the spectators being impressed (contrast vv. 19–23!), and the possessing spirit being called “unclean” or “demon”. Keener criticises this approach, since Bultmann’s list is not of features which must all be present for a story to be about demonisation; rather, it is a diagnostic list of typical features.7 Fourthly, there is discussion of the historical value of the story. Haenchen, who is typical of a number, argues that the story is not tied rationally to the literary context: Paul and Silas are charged with causing a disturbance and promoting Jewish practices rather than casting out a demon (vv. 20–21).8 Indeed, 3 E.g., Carl R. Holladay, Acts: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2016), 323–324. 4 Shelly Matthews, First Converts: Rich Pagan Women and the Rhetoric of Mission in Early Judaism and Christianity, CJOD (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001), 91; F. Scott Spencer, Acts, RNAB (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 166–167. 5 Matthews, Converts, 90. 6 Lynn Allan Kauppi, Foreign but Familiar Gods: Greco-Romans Read Religion in Acts, LNTS 277 (London: T&T Clark International, 2006), 28–29. 7 Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012–2015), 3:2460. 8 Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 502–503.

94

Steve Walton

Haenchen claims that no-one could be indicted for casting out a demon – people would not seek to arrest and harm a powerful exorcist.9 One wonders at this point if Haenchen has heard of Jesus! Nevertheless, Haenchen claims that the story is derived ultimately from eyewitness testimony, but he is not clear on what that testimony might have said. Twelftree responds to Haenchen’s arguments by observing that the deliverance is part of a “we” passage, which suggests Luke draws on a source (and this fits with a number of ways the “we” passages can be understood).10 The first person narrative also fits well with the Lukan style of the passage – indeed, we might add, Luke has put the whole of Acts into his own style so well that it is well nigh impossible to identify sources with any confidence. Twelftree also notes that Paul appears to be portrayed in an uncomplimentary way as διαπονηθείς “annoyed”, and that speaks for the historicity of the event. Moreover, some details of the phrasing are not typically Lukan or early Christian, which again suggests that Luke is drawing on source material rather than creating the story: δοῦλοι τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου “slaves of the most high god” (v. 17) is not picked up by early Christian writers or churches, and the inarticular ὁδὸν σωτηρίας “a way of salvation” (v. 17) contrasts with Luke’s more regular ἡ ὁδός “the way” (9:2; 18:15; etc.) for the Christian movement. 2.2 Luke 4:33–37 It is striking that many scholars who discuss this passage, not least the commentators, do not discuss why Jesus silences the demon in this story.11 The first to discuss this is the fifth-century writer, Cyril of Alexandria, commenting on οὐκ εἴα αὐτὰ λαλεῖν “he did not allow them to speak” (v. 41).12 He offers three reasons for Jesus’s silencing of the demons: the demons were seeking to usurp the apostolic office by proclaiming the gospel; the demons spoke the mystery of Christ “with an impure tongue”; and that light cannot be revealed by darkness.

Haenchen, Acts, 499–500, 504. Graham H. Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 72–73. For a helpful listing of views and discussion, see Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, WUNT 49 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989), 312–334. 11 E.g., Todd E. Klutz, The Exorcism Stories in Luke-Acts: A Sociostylistic Reading, SNTSMS 129 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 207–264; Audrey Dawson, Healing, Weakness and Power: Perspectives on Healing in the Writings of Mark, Luke and Paul (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008), 111; and the Luke commentaries of Bovon, Creed, Ellis, Craig Evans, Garland, Geldenhuys, Johnson, Lieu, Marshall, Talbert, Tannehill. Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, trans. John Marsh, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1968), 209–210, on the Markan parallel, does not discuss the command to silence. 12 Comm. Luc., Hom. 12, on v. 41 (trans. R. Payne Smith). 9

10

Why Silence?

95

Among modern commentators four possible explanations of Jesus’s silencing the demon are canvassed. First, that the demon is seeking to control or resist Jesus. In this respect, the demon’s words τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί; attract discussion. As noted earlier, this could be punctuated as a statement or a question. Bauernfeind and Twelftree suggest that this may be a “defence mechanism” used by the demon in an attempt to fend Jesus off.13 Some take this further to imply that the demon was using an apotropaic incantation, used in order to control Jesus.14 Green cites PGM VIII.6–7, 13 in support of this claim.15 Τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί; is found in two key places in the Septuagint. David uses it to ask Abishai not to interfere in his plans (2 Sam 19:16–23), and the bereaved widow asks Elijah the same question after her son’s death (1 Kgs 17:18). Interestingly, the latter passage is echoed in Philo, Deo 138: And every mind that is going to become a widow [with respect to evils] and empty of evils, says to the prophet, “Man of God! Have you come to me to remind me of my iniquity and of my sin? [εἰσῆλθες πρὸς μὲ ἀναμνῆσαι τὸ ἀδίκημά μου καὶ τὸ ἁμάρτημά μου]” (Colson and Whitaker, LCL)

Fitzmyer observes, however, that 1 Kgs 17:18 does not involve a demon – the son has died and there is no suggestion of demonic involvement, and so τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί; cannot be understood as an apotropaic incantation.16 Secondly, some consider that Jesus outright rejected demonic testimony to himself.17 Green proposes that Jesus would not wish to appear to be an agent of evil, which such testimony could imply.18 Likewise, Edwards notes, “Jesus silences the demon because, in God’s kingdom, revelation is dependent on relationship. As a being hostile to God the demon cannot be a revealer of God’s Son.”19 This view resembles Cyril’s second and third points noted above. 13 Otto Bauernfeind, Die Worte der Dämonen im Markusevangelium, BWA(N)T 3.8 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1927), 3–28; Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus, WUNT II 54 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 63–64. 14 E.g., Grundmann, “ἀνακράζω,” TDNT 3:900; O. Betz, “φωνή,” TDNT 9:294; more cautiously, I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Exeter: Paternoster, 1978), 193. 15 Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997), 224 n73; the PGM passage is quoted below, p. 101. 16 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Luke, 2 vols., AB 28A–B (Garden City: Doubleday, 1981, 1985), 1:545. 17 George B. Caird, Saint Luke (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963), 89; Darrell L. Bock, Luke, 2 vols., BECNT 3A–B (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994, 1996), 1:434. 18 Green, Luke, 224, citing Gerd Theissen, The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition, trans. John Kenneth Riches (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 140–152. 19 James R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Luke, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015), 145.

96

Steve Walton

Thirdly, others claim that Jesus did not wish his ministry to be misunderstood. In particular, he did not wish popular enthusiasm to cause to him to be installed as the leader of a military uprising.20 Green notes that the key terms used by demons in this part of Luke – “the holy one of God” (ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ, v. 34), “the son of God” (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, v. 41), and “the Messiah” (ὁ Χριστός, v. 41) – offer an incomplete, and thus inadequate, understanding of Jesus’s mission to rescue people from Satan.21 Jesus has come to suffer and die, and then be exalted, and that is the means by which his victory will be won. Liefeld offers a nuance of this view, in suggesting that Jesus prefers to let his works speak for him.22 Fourthly, others suggest that, according to Luke, Jesus considers it improper for him to be acclaimed as Messiah prematurely. Liefeld suggests this on the basis of the work of Richard Longenecker, who argues cogently that there was a strong tradition in Judaism that no-one could be recognised as Messiah until he had done the work of the Messiah – and he would then be identified as Messiah by God.23 Longenecker cites the examples of the Teacher of Righteousness at Qumran, and bar-Kochba, who led the Jewish rebellion in AD 135. Both were thought by their followers to be the Messiah, but they themselves did not use the term, and they prevented others saying it about them. On this basis, it is not that the attribution came specifically from a demon which caused Jesus to silence the man, but simply that Jesus would resist anyone identifying him as the Messiah until he had done the Messiah’s work – in his case, suffered and died – and then been vindicated by God in his resurrection and exaltation to the Father’s right side. In addition, Nolland and Bovon suggest that the demon’s words ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς (v. 34) should be punctuated as a statement rather than a question, “You have come to destroy us.”24 If so, this betrays the demon’s recognition that defeat awaits the demonic powers which stand against Jesus. 2.3 Setting the Questions In the light of previous scholarship, we can identify three key features in each passage which we may be able to illuminate from other ancient sources. In relation to Luke 4:33–37, we shall seek examples of demons or demonised people using incantations to control an exorcist. We shall look at the 20 Caird, Saint Luke, 89; Walter L. Liefeld, “Luke,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:872. 21 Green, Luke, 224. 22 Liefeld, “Luke,” 872. 23 Richard N. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity, SBT 2/17 (London: SCM, 1970), 71–74; Liefeld, “Luke,” 872. 24 François Bovon, Luke, 3 vols., Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002–2012), 1:162; John Nolland, Luke, 3 vols., WBC 35A–C (Dallas: Word, 1989–1993), 1:207.

Why Silence?

97

language of “rebuke” (ἐπιτιμάω, v. 35) in other sources, to see if it can be understood as a “commanding word”.25 We shall seek other examples of silencing in sources which describe deliverance from spirits or demons, or which offer spells or other resources to use in such deliverance. In relation to Acts 16:16–18, we shall pursue the question of whether the slave girl speaks the truth and is genuinely interested in the “way of salvation” which Paul announces.26 We shall consider whether Paul is responding to the “nagging” of the slave girl and what that might imply.27 We shall assess Spencer’s and Matthews’s claim that the girl fits the “pentecostal mold of Acts 2.18”, but that her female voice is suppressed by Luke.28

3. Studying the Sources The ancient sources concerning evil spirits, demons, and deliverance are rich, and we shall only be able to sketch the main contours here.29 However, we shall be able to consider them sufficiently to reflect on features claimed as parallels to our two Lukan stories by locating demonisation and deliverance in Jewish understanding of history and eschatology, by identifying key features of typical deliverance events, and by considering other exorcists at work in the first century or thereabouts. This will enable us to seek features which parallel the proposed emphasis on defensive incantation, Jesus’s rebuke of the demon, and how far silencing demons is a feature in our sources. 3.1 Demons, History, and Eschatology Josephus identifies demons (δαιμόνια) as “the spirits of wicked people (πονηρῶν ... ἀνθρώπων πνεύματα) who enter the living and kill them unless they [the living] obtain help” (J.W. 7.185), and in this he reflects a widespread view. Bovon helpfully summarises:

25 Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:546; so also Howard Clark Kee, “The Terminology of Mark’s Exorcism Stories,” NTS 14 (1968): 232–246. 26 Spencer, Acts, 166. 27 Spencer, Acts, 166. 28 Spencer, Acts, 166–167; Matthews, Converts, 91. 29 For fuller treatment, see Twelftree, Exorcist, 13–47; Peter G. Bolt, “Jesus, the Daimons and the Dead,” in The Unseen World: Christian Reflections on Angels, Demons and the Heavenly Realm, ed. A. N. S. Lane (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1996), 75–102, here esp. 75–96.

98

Steve Walton

For [Luke], as for contemporaneous Judaism, the demons stood in the service of the devil, and in opposition to God and his angels. They bring injury and destruction, but Luke does not reflect either on their origin or their dominion. For him, the most important aspect is the oppression that they bring upon human beings.30

This makes unlikely the view that Luke considers the slave girl’s python spirit not to be evil,31 for such beings were understood by their nature to be opposed to God and his angels, and thus damaging to humans, as the crown of God’s creation. Along with this view of demons and the devil/Satan, there was a strong belief that the messianic age would bring the demise of their rule. This theme can be seen in Scripture. Isa 24:21–22 speaks of “the host of heaven” being punished by YHWH: “They will be gathered together like prisoners in a pit; they will be shut up in a prison, and after many days they will be punished” (NRSV). Similarly, the Fourth Gospel testifies to the expectation of a great deliverance: “Now the ruler of this world will be driven out (ἐκβληθήσεται ἔξω)” (John 12:31, NRSV). Rev 20 announces the thousand-year imprisonment of “the devil and Satan” (vv. 1–3), and portrays an eschatological scene of the devil, death and Hades being thrown into the lake of fire (vv. 10, 14). The theme of the defeat of Satan and the demons appears in other Second Temple Jewish writings. Jubilees expresses this twice: And all of their days they will be complete and live in peace and rejoicing and there will be no Satan and no evil (one) who will destroy, because all of their days will be days of blessing and healing. (23:29, OTP, my italics) And jubilees will pass until Israel is purified from all the sin of fornication, and defilement, and uncleanness, and sin and error. And they will dwell in confidence in all the land. And then it will not have any Satan or any evil (one). And the land will be purified from that time and forever. (50:5, OTP, my italics)

Similarly, the Assumption of Moses: Then his kingdom will appear throughout his whole creation. Then the devil will have an end. Yea, sorrow will be led away with him. (10:1, OTP)

More specifically, at least three other sources from around the period of the New Testament writings attest the belief that the messianic age would bring the demise of Satan’s present rule, 1 Enoch, the Qumran Community Rule (1QS), and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. 1 Enoch is a composite writing whose dating is debated. The section containing the two key passages for our purpose is the Similitudes (1 En. 37–71), which contains no explicitly Christian features. The frequent presence of “that son of man” in the Similitudes suggests a date no later than the rise of

30 31

Bovon, Luke, 1:162 (my italics). Contra the view implied by Spencer, Acts, 166.

Why Silence?

99

Christianity, for it is improbable that Jewish writers would give such prominence to a figure whom the Christians identified as Jesus. The absence of any texts of the Similitudes at Qumran makes a date prior to the first century AD unlikely. So we can, with cautious confidence, place the Similitudes in the period around the rise of early Christianity. The key passages are these: Kings, potentates, dwellers upon the earth: You would have to see my Elect One, how he sits in the throne of glory and judges Azazʾel and all his company, and his army, in the name of the Lord of the Spirits! (55:4, OTP, my italics) (Then) there came to them a great joy. And they blessed, glorified, and extolled (the Lord) on account of the fact that the name of that (Son of) Man was revealed to them. He shall never pass away or perish from before the face of the earth. But those who have led the world astray shall be bound with chains; and their ruinous congregation shall be imprisoned; all their deeds shall vanish from before the face of the earth. Thenceforth nothing that is corruptible shall be found; for that Son of Man has appeared and has seated himself upon the throne of his glory; and all evil shall disappear from before his face; he shall go and tell to that Son of Man, and he shall be strong before the Lord of the Spirits. (69:27–29, OTP, my italics)

Azazʾel (55:4) is a mythical figure who taught humanity the art of metalworking (8:1), as well as “iniquity” (9:6). He brought corruption and desolation to the earth (10:8), and is identified in a list of fallen angels (69:2). This is a penportrait of the figure others identify as Satan or the devil, for sure.32 In 69:27– 29 “those who have led the world astray” are the fallen angels; the removal of “all evil” produces an earth where humanity can dwell in purity (see the similar idea in 10:16–22).33 The Qumran Community Rule is equally clear that “at the time appointed for visitation” – the time of God’s triumph over evil – God will bring purity to humanity by removing all evil:34 In his mysterious insight and glorious wisdom God has countenanced an era in which perversity triumphs, but at the time appointed for visitation He shall destroy such forever. Then shall truth come forth in victory upon the earth. Sullied by wicked ways while perversity rules, at the time of the appointed judgment truth shall be decreed. By His truth God shall then purify all human deeds, and refine some of humanity so as to extinguish every perverse spirit from the inward parts of the flesh, cleansing from every wicked deed by a holy spirit. (1QS IV, 18b–21, Wise, Abegg and Cook, my italics)

Four of the sources known collectively as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs refer to the theme of the conquest of evil spirits:

32 The name is found in the OT only at Lev 16:8, 10, 26. For discussion, see B. Janowski, “Azazel” in DDD, 128–131. 33 With George W. E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 37–82, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 313. 34 See also discussion of 1QM and 4Q560 in 3.3 below.

100

Steve Walton

Then all the spirits of error shall be given over to being trampled underfoot. And men will have mastery over the evil spirits. (T. Sim. 6.6, OTP) And Beliar shall be bound by him. And he shall grant to his children the authority to trample on wicked spirits. And the Lord will rejoice in his children; he will be well pleased by his beloved ones forever. (T. Levi 18.12–13, OTP) 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 a human form], he whom the Lord will choose: Jerusalem is his name. You will provoke him to wrath by the wickedness of your works, and you will be rejected until the time of the end. (T. Zeb. 9.8–9, OTP) 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; and he shall turn the hearts of the disobedient ones to the Lord, and grant eternal peace to those who call upon him. (T. Dan 5.11, OTP)

In each of these passages the ultimate triumph of God over evil in various forms is in view. Whether the form is evil spirits or Beliar, the chief of the evil spirits, the outcome is eschatological victory by God and his people. For sure, these texts may include Christian interpolations; for our purpose, this does not matter, since we are reading these texts in order to establish that around the turn of the eras there was a fairly widespread belief that God would come to act and in that time would subdue evil spirits, including the chief of those spirits.35 3.2 The Elements of Deliverance/Exorcism In our sources, a cluster of features is commonly found in stories of deliverance and descriptions of how to exorcise a person from demonic power. These include: the invocation of a greater power; the identification (by naming) of the greater power invoked; the use of a formula or incantation;36 and provision for protection of the delivered person after the exorcism, e.g., by giving them an amulet.37 Sometimes medicines are involved, such as in Jub. 10.9–13: And he [God] told one of us [spirits/angels] to teach Noah all of their healing because he knew that they would not walk uprightly and would not strive righteously. And we acted in accord with all of his words. All of the evil ones, who were cruel, we bound in the place of judgment, but a tenth of them we let remain so that they might be subject to Satan upon the With Green, Luke, 223. E.g., “Protect me!” PGM IV.2694–2704; LXX.1–4; LXXXVI.1–2; cf. XIII.618–640. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 5.8 reports the six Ephesian grammata, which were words of power considered able to defend a person against demons: ἄσκιον “shadowless,” κατάσκιον “shadowy,” λίξ “earth,” τετράς “the year, with reference to the seasons,” δαμναμενεύς “the sun,” and αἴσια “the true voice”. 37 For fuller discussion of exorcistic methods, see Twelftree, Name, 36–45. 35 36

Why Silence?

101

earth. And the healing of all their illnesses together with their seductions we told Noah so that he might heal by means of herbs of the earth. And Noah wrote everything in a book just as we taught him according to every kind of healing. And the evil spirits were restrained from following the sons of Noah. (OTP, my italics)

However, silencing is not a feature of any account which I have been able to study – it appears to be a distinctive feature of the stories in Luke-Acts which we are considering. 3.3 Other Exorcists There are a number of other descriptions of the practice of deliverance/exorcism in the period around the first century, and these illustrate the features noted above. We shall consider five: the portrait of Eleazar in Josephus; Tobias’s use of fish entrails in Tobit; Apollonius’s exorcisms reported by his biographer Philostratus; the re-telling of David’s ministry to Saul (1 Sam 16) in Josephus; and a number of texts in the War Scroll (1QM) and 4QExorcism ar (= 4Q560) from Qumran. Eleazar, a contemporary of Josephus, practises deliverance using incantations attributed to Solomon (Ant. 8.42–49). First, Josephus writes of Solomon’s wisdom, echoing the biblical portrait of him (Ant. 8:42–44; cf., e.g., 1 Kgs 3; 4:29–30). He then writes of Solomon’s ability in deliverance by means of incantations (Ant. 8:45), before going on to Eleazar as a contemporary example of the use of such incantations (8:46–48). Eleazar performs such actions in the presence of Romans, including Vespasian and his sons and soldiers, using a ring with a root to draw out the demon through the person’s nose, and then he uses Solomonic incantations to abjure the demon not to return – including mentioning Solomon. Tobias, Tobit’s son, travels to Ecbatana to take a wife, and is led by the angel Raphael to Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, who has had seven previous husbands, all of whom were killed by a demon (Tob 3:7–9; 6:10–18). En route, Tobias has caught a large fish from the river Tigris, and the angel has told him to keep the gall, heart, and liver as useful medicine (6:3–6a), although without saying for what conditions they are useful. When Tobias is taken to a bedroom with Sarah, he recalls Raphael’s words, and then burns the fish’s liver and heart, and the smell drives the demon away, and the angel is able to bind the demon (8:1–3). Apollonius delivers a sixteen year old boy who has been demonised (δαιμονᾶν) for two years (Philostr. Vit. Apoll. 3.38). The boy’s mother says the demon is the ghost (εἴδωλον) of a dead soldier whose sexual orientation has been changed because his former wife married another man three days after his death – the dead soldier’s ghost is now attracted to the boy. In the boy’s absence, Apollonius (called “the sage”) gives the mother a letter addressed to the ghost containing “threats of an alarming kind” (Philostr. Vit. Apoll. 3.38

102

Steve Walton

Conybeare, LCL). Later, when Apollonius is interrogated by Tigellinus about his methods of deliverance, which shows that Apollonius was known for his abilities, he sarcastically responds that he deals with demons as he would with murderers and impious people (4.44) – a dig at what Apollonius considered Tigellinus’s odious influence on Nero. David’s playing of the lyre to calm Saul (1 Sam 16:14–23) is re-told by Josephus (Ant. 6.166–169). Jonathan, in seeking to persuade his father to treat David better, interprets the effect of the lyre playing as driving demons from Saul (6.209–211): “when the evil spirit and the demons settled upon you, he drove them out” (6.211, Begg). This is an unusual story – to my knowledge unique – in which music is understood as facilitating deliverance. At Qumran deliverance from demons and evil spirits is understood to derive from God in both the past (1QM XIV, 8b–10) and the eschatological war to come (1QM I, 9b–16). An example of the kind of deliverance practised in the community is found in the fragmentary 4QExorcism ar (= 4Q560): 1.1 […] and heart and kidn[eys …] 2 [… ]to the one in labour with (the) birth-pain(s) of those in labor, a demonic illness […] 3 [… ]the male poison entered into the flesh, and the female poison 4 [… who ] (will) create iniquity and sin, fire and chill, and fire of heart 5 [… ca]me during sleep (or into the tooth) a crushing male idol, and a crushing female idol who destroys that 6 [… wic]ked, the evil eye […] 7 […]…before h[im …] 2.3 and they bl[ess …] before Him and sa[ying …] 5 and I, O spirit, am adjuring[ …] 6 I adjure you, O e[vil] spirit[ …] 7 on the earth, in the clouds […] 8 […] (Wise, Abegg & Cook)

Here the exorcist addresses the evil spirit directly in response to illness considered to derive from demonic influence, which could be labour pains. We may guess that the exorcist here would be likely to invoke YHWH as the name by which he abjured the spirit (cf. PGM IV.1231–1239, 3020–3021).

4. Circling back to Luke-Acts So let us return to our stories in Luke and Acts to reflect on their features in relation to those we have seen in roughly contemporary ancient sources. We shall consider incantation, rebuke, and silencing, before turning to reflect further on the two stories in turn. 4.1 Incantation The claim is sometimes made that the demon is seeking to control Jesus by using his name in Luke 4:34: ἔα, τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ; ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς; οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ.

Why Silence?

103

Ah! What have we and you in common, Jesus of Nazarth? Have you come to destroy us?38 I know who you are: the holy one of God.

Taking this phrase by phrase, first τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί might convey different things to Semitic and Greek hearers. The former might hear a biblical echo from the Elijah story (1 Kgs 17:18), as noted earlier, and understand, “What have you against us?” Greek readers would more probably hear an idiom meaning, “What have we and you in common?”39 Secondly, Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ was not a significant “title” for Jesus among early Christians. The only uses of the term (or equivalents) in Acts are in Jewish settings (2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 10:38; 22:8; 26:9). It is thus doubtful that this was “read back” into this story from later Christian usage. Thirdly, οἶδα “I know” has some parallels in the invocation of the Lord Hermes in PGM VIII.8–21: I also know what your forms are... I also know your wood... I know you, Hermes, who you are and where you come from and what your city is... I also know your foreign names...

However, the parallel is hardly strong, for in PGM it is a human invoking a god by claiming knowledge; in Luke, it is the reverse: the demon addresses Jesus. Further, the verb οἶδα is very common in general Greek use (Luke has it 25x in his Gospel and 19x in Acts), so little can be drawn from its use here. Fourthly, the demon identifies Jesus as ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ “the holy one of God”, a biblical phrase used for humans who belong to God’s sphere.40 While NT use is exclusively of Jesus,41 the biblical uses show that this is not necessarily a term indicating Jesus’s divinity; rather, it portrays him as in close relationship to God and sent by God, after the manner of Luke 1:35 – his holiness is a result of God’s holiness.42 This looks like a phrase which implies recognition of some of Jesus’s identity and mission, but is not likely to indicate an attempt by the demon to control Jesus. 4.2 Rebuke Jesus addresses the demon in rebuke (ἐπετίμησεν, Luke 4:35), and this is suggested by some to involve Jesus taking control of the demon by a commanding word – somewhat the reverse of our previous point.43 Specifically, it is claimed that the Hebrew gʿr ‫ גער‬underlies use of “rebuke” ἐπιτιμάω, and that this Hebrew word is used for exorcising evil spirits. Certainly the translation of ‫גער‬ Or “You have come to destroy us.” Both possibilities are noted by Bovon, Luke, 1:162. 40 Judg 13:7; 16:17 (LXX, Codex B) for Samson; Ps 106:16 (LXX 105:16) for Aaron; cf. 2 Kgs 4:9 “a holy person of God” (LXX, ἄνθρωπος τοῦ θεοῦ ἅγιος) for Elijah. 41 Mark 1:24; John 6:69; cf. Acts 4:27 “your holy servant Jesus” τὸν ἅγιον παῖδά σου Ἰησοῦν. 42 With Nolland, Luke, 1:207. 43 Kee, “Terminology”; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:546. 38 39

104

Steve Walton

by ἐπιτιμάω is common in LXX, used in relation to Satan (Zech 3:2), beasts (Ps 67:31 [MT 68:31]), and the Red Sea (Ps 105:9 [MT 106:9]). As Kee notes, ‫ גער‬is also used in 1QM XIV, 9–15 for “the act of bringing the evil spirits into subjection and routing them.”44 The Aramaic equivalent is also used in 1QapGen XX, 28–29 of deliverance from an evil spirit which afflicts Pharaoh and his household.45 Kee concludes that we should treat ἐπιτιμάω as “a technical term for the commanding word, uttered by God or by his spokesman, by which evil powers are brought into submission, and the way is thereby prepared for the establishment of God's righteous rule in the world.”46 Fitzmyer proposes the translation, “charge”. That said, the Greek verb ἐπιτιμάω is not found in PGM, the Apollonius exorcism stories, or in other Greek papyri in relation to deliverance.47 However, Twelftee criticises Kee’s argument cogently.48 He notes that in 1QM XIV it is not clear how Belial is driven out, whether by ‫ גער‬or not. Further, it is not clear that exorcism in the present is the same as the defeat of Satan/Belial in the Scrolls, whether in 1QM XIV or 1QapGen XX. Indeed, as Kee acknowledges, ‫ גער‬has a range of meaning wider than Kee’s two possibilities, “rebuke” or “overcome the enemies of God”; the latter is unlikely, and “exorcise” is also a possibility. Twelftree proposes that the Scrolls uses suggest the sense there is probably “rebuke in order to expel”.49 4.3 Silencing Here is the central question we are exploring: why do Jesus and Paul silence the demons in these two stories? I have been unable to find any example in PGM of a command to silence in exorcism stories or instructions.50 The parallel most cited is P.Oslo 161–162: “Remember to prevent the wrath of a person... muzzle [φιμωσάται] the mouths which speak against me…!”51 The verb is the same as that in Luke 4:35 (and Mark 1:25). Mark’s only other use is Jesus’s stilling of the storm (4:39); indeed, the verb is found only 7x in the NT, and other uses are not in relation to demons. Twelftree suggests that Mark is unlikely to mean, “Be silent!” since the demonised man immediately cries out

Kee, “Terminology,” 234. Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:546. 46 Kee, “Terminology,” 235. 47 Fitzmyer, Luke, 1:546. 48 Twelftree, Exorcist, 43–46. 49 Twelftree, Exorcist, 46. 50 In spite of the assertion by Klutz that φιμόω is “used in late antique formulas with similar meaning to here”, citing PGM IV.1243; XXXVI.164, there is no use of this verb in the PGM passages he cites (Klutz, Exorcism, 46). 51 E.g., Twelftree, Exorcist, 69–70 (whose translation I quote). 44 45

Why Silence?

105

(Mark 1:26), and thus proposes that φιμόω means “be bound or restricted”.52 He suggests that the verb’s “original meaning was ‘to bind,’ sometimes in relation to the tongue”,53 whereas it seems more likely that the primary sense was “to close, seal up”, thence “to muzzle”, and that “to silence” was a figurative extension of that meaning.54 However, given that Mark elsewhere reports Jesus having to make two attempts to heal a blind man (8:22–26), and that this demonised man is ultimately delivered, a command to silence which is not immediately obeyed is not at all impossible. Further, the “Legion” of demons negotiate with Jesus before they depart (Mark 5:5–13, similarly Luke 8:30– 33). Moulton and Milligan cite two passages from P.Lond. 121:55 δεῦρό μοι…καὶ φίμωσον ὑπόταξον. καταδούλωσον τὸν δεῖνα “Come to me…and silence [and] subject. Enslave such a one” (121.567) φιμωτικὸν καὶ ὑποτακτικὸν γενναῖον καὶ κάτοχος “muzzling and bringing into subjection excellent and inhibiting [one]” (121.396)

While these form at least partial parallels to Jesus’s action in Luke 4, P.Lond. is from the third century AD, as Moulton and Milligan note. In the light of our discussion of these features (incantation, rebuke and silencing), we turn afresh to our two key passages. 4.4 Luke 4:31–37 In pulling the threads of the discussion of this passage, we shall consider the force of the demon’s question, “What have we and you in common?”, the place and meaning of silencing, and Jesus’s rebuke of the demon. We noted earlier that τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί; “What have we and you in common?” (v. 34) should probably not be seen as part of an incantation seeking to control Jesus, not least because of the parallel in LXX 1 Kgs 17:18 which involves no demon. Further, the demon’s identification of Jesus as ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ “the holy one of God” (v. 34) signals that Jesus is the messianic bearer of the Spirit (cf. Luke 1:31–35; 3:21–22; etc.). However, there is more to Jesus and his ministry than this, for he must suffer, die, and be raised (e.g., Luke 18:31–33), so “the holy one of God” is only a partial – though accurate – description of Jesus. There is more to know than this, and that is likely to be a factor in Jesus’s silencing of the demon: Jesus does not want his mission misunderstood. It is worth noticing that silence is not always a good thing for Luke: at Jesus’s donkey ride on the Mount of Olives, he responds to some Pharisees request to rebuke his disciples – in effect to tell them to stop their acclamations Twelftree, Exorcist, 69. Twelftree, Exorcist, 70, citing BAGD and BDF §346. 54 BDAG s.v. φιμόω; LSJ s.v. φιμόω. 55 MM, 672. 52 53

106

Steve Walton

– by saying, “if these were silent (σιωπήσουσιν), the stones would shout out” (19:40). The verb is different here, and it is striking that the main verbs used for silencing (σιγάω, ἡσυχάζω and ἐπιστομίζω) are not found in relation to demonised people in the NT. A parallel not much noticed for φιμώθητι “be silent!” (v. 35) is Deut 25:4 LXX: Οὐ φιμώσεις βοῦν ἀλοῶντα “You shall not muzzle a threshing ox” (NETS).56 There, the sense is “close its mouth by force”. The only other uses in the LXX are 4 Macc 1:35 (the emotions of the body being “bridled” by reason) and Sus 60–62 (“they silenced them”, of guilty people who are then burned up by angelic fire). It seems most probable, in the light of our discussion of this verb, that Jesus here commands the demon to be silent and, after convulsing the man, the demon complies with Jesus’s further command to “come out”. The lack of immediate “coming out” is no more a problem to the story than Mark’s reporting that the demon cried out after Jesus’s command to silence. Luke’s use of “rebuke” ἐπιτιμάω (v. 35) here is echoed within a few sentences by Jesus’s rebuking a fever (v. 39) and then further demons (v. 41).57 These uses are further echoed in 8:24 (Jesus rebukes the storm); 9:42 (Jesus rebukes an unclean spirit). These parallels are helpful and suggest that Jesus’s approach to creation out of order is to rebuke the one(s) behind the disorder. This rebuke is powerful, for it results in the departure of the disordering feature, whether demon(s) or illness, and the silencing of any demon involved. 4.5 Acts 16:16–18 As we return to Philippi, we shall focus on three features of the story: the meaning of “python spirit” πνεῦμα πύθωνα; the meaning of various words and phrases used by the slave girl (δοῦλοι “slaves/servants”, ὁ θεός ὁ ὑψίστος “the most high god”, ὁδὸς σωτηρίας “a way of salvation”); and Paul’s reaction, especially the meaning of διαπονηθείς. Our reflections on these points will lead to consideration of why Paul silences the spirit, why he waits to do so, and what Luke understands by these aspects of the story. The girl is said to have a πνεῦμα πύθωνα “a python spirit”. As we have seen, this very probably connects the spirit with the Apollo oracle at Delphi,58 and extant Jewish sources which know of this cult are hostile to it.59 By contrast, a pagan reader of Acts would find this puzzling, since such oracles were valued. As we shall see, Paul’s hostility to the demon’s pronouncements stems from a concern that they were misleading to such pagans. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, SP 3 (Collegeville: Liturgical, 1992), 84. Other uses in Luke are rebukes to people (9:21, 55; 17:3; 18:15, 39; 19:39; 23:40). 58 See the helpful excursus in Keener, Acts, 3:2422–2429. 59 E.g., Sib. Or. 4.4–6; Sipra Qedošim pq. 9.207.3.3; m. Sanh. 7.7; Sipre Deuteronomy 172.1.2–4. I owe these references to the discussion in Keener, Acts, 3:2428–2429. 56 57

Why Silence?

107

The girl’s words are, in fact, deeply ambiguous in the setting of first-century Philippi, and thus would be so to Luke’s Greco-Roman readers (whom I take to be the large majority of his target audience).60 To call Paul and Silas δοῦλοι (v. 17) rather suggests that the slave girl is comparing them with herself, for she is a slave (παιδίσκη) and serves “lords” κυρίοι (v. 16). However, Paul and Silas are not “slaves” in the same way as the girl – they belong to a god, not mere humans – and it may be significant that Ion, who belonged to the god of the Delphic oracle, was called δοῦλος τοῦ θεοῦ.61 In the first century, to become the slave of a god would frequently happen as part of sacral manumission, a rite in which a slave who belonged to (a) human master(s) was “freed” by being transferred to the possession of a god, normally in the temple of the god (including, on occasion, a synagogue).62 Thus to call Paul and Silas slaves of a god could be heard to assert that they were equivalent to freedmen. The slave girl characterises Paul and Silas’s god as “the most high god” ὁ θεός ὁ ὑψίστος (v. 17). This expression shows a similar ambiguity to δοῦλοι. Zeus was sometimes called Ζεύς ὑψίστος and θεός ὑψίστος, and could be identified with the supreme deity of a local cult (e.g., Syria, Lydia, Egypt).63 LXX use is limited to YHWH as ὁ ὑψίστος “the most high” or ὁ θεός ὁ ὑψίστος “the most high God” or κύριος ὁ ὑψίστος “Lord most high”.64 Other Jewish texts use this term when Jews speak with pagans and vice versa.65 Use by Jewish writers declines as the Hellenistic period goes on, a decline which fits well with a desire to avoid “syncretistic misinterpretation”.66 Luke uses ὑψίστος or ὁ ὑψίστος seven times for God (Luke 1:32, 35, 76; 6:35; 8:28; Acts 7:48),67 almost entirely in Jewish settings, and he dominates NT usage: the only other NT uses for God are Mark 5:7; Heb 7:1. Acts 16:17 represents Luke’s only use in a Gentile setting, and here it is distinctively ὁ θεός ὁ ὑψίστος. Luke’s usage, when placed alongside Jewish and pagan usage noted above, means that there 60 With Paul R. Trebilco, “Paul and Silas – ‘Servants of the Most High God’ (Acts 16.16– 18),” JSNT 36 (1989): 60–61. 61 Euripides, Ion 309, cited by K. Rengstorf, TDNT 2:264; with Reimer, Women, 160. 62 For sources and discussion, see Reimer, Women, 181–182; Francis Lyall, Slaves, Citizens, Sons: Legal Metaphors in the Epistles (Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1984), 45. Both draw on Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World, trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910), 326–334. 63 For sources and discussion, see Trebilco, “Paul and Silas,” 52; Reimer, Women, 161–165. 64 E.g., (respectively) Num 24:26; Ps 56:3 (MT 57:3); Ps 7:18. 65 E.g., ὁ θεός ὁ ὑψίστος in Jos. Asen. 17.5; cf. Philo, Leg. 3.82; Legat. 278; I owe these references to Trebilco, “Paul and Silas,” 53–55; he also notes uses in Jewish inscriptions from around the first century AD. 66 Trebilco, “Paul and Silas,” 56. 67 He also uses the dative plural ὑψίστοις for “the highest place”, i.e., the dwelling place of God in heaven: Luke 2:14; 19:38 – both are in Jewish settings, and the second is an addition to a biblical quotation (Ps 117:25–26 LXX [MT 118:25–26]).

108

Steve Walton

was some ambiguity about ὑψίστος: it would not automatically say “YHWH” to gentiles, and it could be understood by polytheistic Philippians as simply adding Israel’s god to their pantheon. The latter would relativise the claims of both Jesus and Israel’s God to exclusive worship.68 What, then, of ὁδὸς σωτηρίας, which the slave girl says Paul and Silas are announcing (v. 17)? The lack of an article appears significant, as we suggested earlier, for Luke’s standard use for the Jesus-followers is articular: the way ὁ ὁδός (Acts 9:2; 18:25; 19:23; 22:4, 14, 22).69 Further, σωτηρία is broadly used in antiquity for wholeness, health, deliverance, preservation and the like, as well as in the Christian technical sense of “salvation”. Trebilco notes that σωτηρία is found in inscriptions to θεός ὑψίστος and as the object of vows.70 Thus the whole expression ὁδὸς σωτηρίας is ambiguous both in Paul’s Philippian setting and among Luke’s Greco-Roman readers, and is rightly translated “a way of salvation”. Paul’s reaction to the slave girl’s persistent announcement (διαπονηθείς, v. 18) is striking, for such a response is found elsewhere in Acts only concerning the priests, the captain of the temple guard’s reaction to Peter and John’s proclamation in the wake of the healing of the man with a congenital disability at the temple: they were διαπονούμενοι “because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead” (4:2). The NT lexica offer “provoked”,71 “distressed”,72 or “very angry”.73 LSJ notices that the first uses are physical, to do with being worn out from hard work (passive) or labouring hard (active).74 As often, the metaphorical use will have grown out of the physical use. It is not straightforward to know what emotional content to express in the translation of this word, and what caused Paul’s reaction, although we can note that Paul is unlikely to have given way to mere annoyance, as we can see from his list of things he suffered for the sake of the gospel (2 Cor 11:22–33). We shall return to this point below. Paul delivers the girl using a command ἐν ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ “in the name of Jesus Messiah” that the spirit should “come out” (ἐξελθεῖν) (v. 18). This is in common with other deliverance/exorcism stories in Acts (8:6–7, 11; 19:13–17), and demonstrates the supremacy of Jesus over spirits such as the one which held the girl in thrall. So why does Paul silence her? It was not because what she was saying was accurate: as we have seen, it was at best ambiguous, and could – and probably In agreement with Keener, Acts, 3:2458. With Klutz, Exorcism, 225; Trebilco, “Paul and Silas,” 64–65. The only other inarticular use in Acts is 2:28, which is a biblical quotation from Ps 15:8 LXX (MT 16:8). 70 Trebilco, “Paul and Silas,” 64, with references in n77. 71 L&N s.v. διαπονέομαι. 72 NIDNTTE s.v. διαπονέομαι. 73 EDNT s.v. διαπονέομαι. 74 LSJ s.v. διαπονέω. 68 69

Why Silence?

109

was – understood within a pagan worldview as simply adding another “god” to the pantheon. It was not because she merely was a nuisance – Paul endured far worse in his evangelistic travels. It was most likely because her deeply ambiguous words could lead to a serious misunderstanding of Paul and Silas’s proclamation of the gospel which could obstruct people in Philippi becoming followers of Jesus. That is the most probable cause of Paul’s annoyance: his passion was that people should come to know and serve God as known in Jesus, and he was concerned – and emotionally moved – that the spirit’s words through the girl might prevent that happening. He may also have faced a growing pressure from new converts who naively thought the girl’s words were actually an endorsement of Paul and Silas’s gospel.75 Why wait? Paul faces a real dilemma, as Luke presents this story. On one hand, there is the strong potential for confusion about the gospel because of the ambiguity of the girl’s words, but on the other hand, to deliver the girl in the way Paul did would inevitably – and did – lead to problems for Paul and Silas in their proclamation of the gospel (vv. 19–24). The girl became “damaged goods” because of Paul’s action,76 and the economic interests involved led to action against him (in common with Ephesus, Acts 19:23–27). In Luke’s understanding the “spirit” would necessarily be lined up with demons and unclean spirits, for:77 it acts like those in Luke 4:33–35, 41; 8:28; it is associated with Apollo as “of a python”, and pagan gods were considered demonic (1 Cor 10:20); only God’s spirit is seen positively in Acts, and other spirits are seen negatively (e.g., 19:15); the slave girl does not “prophesy” (contrast Agabus, 11:18; 21:11), but practises μαντευομένη (Acts 16:16), a term which is not an anti-feminist choice, but marks the source of her words as not Israel’s God; Paul’s reaction to her contrasts with a positive view of women prophesying elsewhere in Acts (2:18) and of Lydia in Philippi, whose heart the Lord opens (16:14). This story, in sum, is one of a number of encounters with aspects of the pagan world in Acts, and in each case the gospel is presented by Luke as opposed to key features of the pagan worldview, particularly other spiritual powers (e.g., 8:9–24; 13:6–12; 19:11–20).78 Some observe that the slave girl disappears from the narrative and draw negative conclusions about Luke’s view of her,79 but this is an error. It is common in the Gospels and Acts for those who are healed or delivered to appear in order to be helped and then to disappear – and many are unnamed. The narrative is not about the girl and it is not about Paul: it is about the mission of God going forward in Philippi, and the story of the girl’s deliverance is not an antiWith Keener, Acts, 3:2464. Note the observations on damage to property in Reimer, Women, 174–175. 77 For these points, see Keener, Acts, 3:2458–2460. 78 Johnson, Acts, 11. 79 E.g., Spencer, Acts, 166. See valuable critical discussion in Klutz, Exorcism, 260–262. 75 76

110

Steve Walton

feminist marginalisation of her: it is an example of how God’s work progressed in that city.80

5. Summary and Conclusion In sum, we have seen that the silencing in these two striking stories is distinctive of these stories in the NT and more widely. It is tempting to say “unique”, but this is very hard to demonstrate conclusively in our present state of knowledge of ancient sources. Commanding demons and spirits to be silent is a distinctive feature of the ministry of Jesus and his followers in the first century world, and this silence is designed to avoid misunderstanding of Jesus and his mission, of the gospel message, and (in Luke specifically) to avoid premature and partial disclosure of Jesus’s identity.

Bibliography Ancient Authors Assumption of Moses. Translated by J. Priest. Pages 919–934 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 2, Expansions of the ‘Old Testament’ and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria. A Commentary upon the Gospel according to St Luke. Translated by Robert Payne Smith. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1859. First Enoch. Translated by E. Isaac. Pages 5–89 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 1, Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1983. Jubilees. Translated by O. S. Wintermute. Pages 35–142 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 2, Expansions of the ‘Old Testament’ and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Philo. Translated by F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929–1962. Philostratus. The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Books I–IV. Translated by F. C. Conybeare. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1912, repr. 2005. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Translated by H. C. Kee. Pages 775–828 in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth, vol. 1, Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. ABRL. New York: Doubleday, 1983.

80

With Beverly R. Gaventa, Acts, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003), 238–239.

Why Silence?

111

Modern Authors Bauernfeind, Otto. Die Worte der Dämonen im Markusevangelium. BWA(N)T 3.8. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1927. Begg, Christopher. Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities Books 5–7. Flavius Josephus, Translation and Commentary 4. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Bock, Darrell L. Luke. 2 vols. BECNT 3A–B. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994, 1996. Bolt, Peter G. “Jesus, the Daimons and the Dead.” Pages 75–102 in The Unseen World: Christian Reflections on Angels, Demons and the Heavenly Realm. Edited by A. N. S. Lane. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1996. Bovon, François. Luke. 3 vols. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002–2012. Bultmann, Rudolf. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by John Marsh. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1968. Caird, George. B. Saint Luke. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963. Creed, J. M. The Gospel according to St Luke. London: Macmillan, 1942. Dawson, Audrey. Healing, Weakness and Power: Perspectives on Healing in the Writings of Mark, Luke and Paul. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008. Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World. Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910. Edwards, James R. The Gospel according to Luke. PNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015. Ellis, E. Earle. The Gospel of Luke. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1981. Evans, Craig A. Luke. NIBC 3. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1990. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Luke. 2 vols. AB 28A–B. Garden City: Doubleday, 1981, 1985. Garland, David E. Luke. ZECNT 3. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011. Gaventa, Beverly R. Acts. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003. Geldenhuys, Norval. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT. London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1951 repr. 1977. Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. NICNT. Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997. Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts of the Apostles. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971. Hemer, Colin J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. WUNT 49. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989. Holladay, Carl R. Acts: A Commentary. NTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2016. Janowski, Bernd. “Azazel.” Pages 128–131. In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by K. van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter Willem van der Horst. 2d ed. Leiden: Brill/Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1999. Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Acts of the Apostles. SP 5. Collegeville: Liturgical, 1992. –. The Gospel of Luke. SP 3. Collegeville: Liturgical, 1992. a, Lynn Allan. Foreign but Familiar Gods: Greco-Romans Read Religion in Acts. LNTS 277. London: T&T Clark International, 2006. Kee, Howard Clark. “The Terminology of Mark’s Exorcism Stories.” NTS 14 (1968): 232–246. Keener, Craig S. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012–2015. Klutz, Todd E. The Exorcism Stories in Luke-Acts: A Sociostylistic Reading. SNTSMS 129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Liefeld, Walter L. “Luke.” Pages 797–1059 in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984. Lieu, Judith. The Gospel of Luke. Epworth Commentaries. Peterborough: Epworth, 1997. Longenecker, Richard N. The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity. SBT 2/17. London: SCM, 1970.

112

Steve Walton

Lyall, Francis. Slaves, Citizens, Sons: Legal Metaphors in the Epistles. Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1984. Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGTC. Exeter: Paternoster, 1978. Matthews, Shelly. First Converts: Rich Pagan Women and the Rhetoric of Mission in Early Judaism and Christianity. CJOD. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. Nickelsburg, George W. E. 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 37– 82. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012. Nolland, John. Luke. 3 vols. WBC 35A–C. Dallas: Word, 1989–1993. Reimer, Ivoni Richter. Women in the Acts of the Apostles: A Feminist Liberation Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. Spencer, F. Scott. Acts. RNBC. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Talbert, Charles H. Reading Luke: A New Commentary for Preachers. London: SPCK, 1984. Tannehill, Robert C. Luke. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996. Theissen, Gerd. The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition. Translated by John Kenneth Riches. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. Trebilco, Paul R. “Paul and Silas – ‘Servants of the Most High God’ (Acts 16.16–18).” JSNT 36 (1989): 51–73. Twelftree, Graham H. Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus. WUNT II 54. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. –. In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Wise, Michael O., Martin G. Abegg, and Edward M. Cook. The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. Revised ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005.

Healing and Exorcism in the Early Church* Graham H. Twelftree The purpose of this study is twofold. First, through three case studies it is intended to demonstrate that, in the early churches reflected in the selected New Testament documents, there was a great variation of interest in, and approaches to, healing and exorcism. Second, when the evidence allows, an attempt will be made to articulate the various methods of healing and exorcism, in the hope of being able to explain why they often appear to diverge from that of Jesus. The three case studies – Paul, Mark (including the Longer Ending), and the Johannine literature – have been chosen because they represent very different approaches to healing and exorcism. Our intention is not to reconstruct healing and exorcism in the pre-Easter Jesus movement, but to focus attention on the post-Easter churches reflected in the three sets of texts. We begin with Paul who has produced the earliest surviving Christian literature.

1. First Case Study: Paul One of the puzzles in reading the New Testament is why, with such an emphasis on healing and exorcism in the reported ministry of Jesus, and in the traditions that Paul will have received from the first followers, he has so little to say about the topic.1 Of course, there is the Acts narrative that portrays Paul as a powerful healer and exorcist.2 However, many of the stories in Acts do not stand up to scrutiny as credible reflections of the historical Paul in relation to

I am most grateful to Tommy Wasserman for the invitation to participate in this project. For the traditions relating to miracles that Paul received from earlier members of the Jesus movement, see Graham H. Twelftree, Paul and the Miraculous: A Historical Reconstruction (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 106–149. 2 See the blinding of Elymas the magician (Acts 13:4–12); a summary statement of signs and wonders (14:3); the healing of a lame man at Lystra (14:8–10); signs and wonders through Paul and Barnabas (15:12); the exorcism of a slave girl (16:16–18); miracles taking place through handkerchiefs and aprons (19:11–12); the sons of Sceva associating Paul with exorcism (19:13); Eutychus raised as from the dead (20:7–12); Paul unharmed by a viper bite (28:3– 6); Publius’s father healed of fever and dysentery (28:7–8); and a summary statement of the sick on Malta healed (28:9). *

1

114

Graham H. Twelftree

his involvement in healing and exorcism.3 In any case, our interest is in Paul rather than one of his early interpreters. In his own writings, Paul does not mention exorcism, and has almost nothing to say about Satan, evil spirits or demons.4 Yet, from his notion of “principalities and powers”5 it is clear he has a cosmology and a demonology, including the idea of an ongoing threat from spiritual beings (e.g., Rom 8:38–39), and it is highly likely that references to healing or miracles are intended to include exorcism. There are six places in Paul’s letters that appear to be most helpful in understanding his perspective on healing and exorcism.6 Taking them in likely chronological order, we begin with 1 Thessalonians, his earliest extant letter. 1.1. “in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction” (1 Thess 1:5) In reminding the Thessalonians of the coming of the gospel to them, Paul says: … our gospel came to you not in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. (1 Thess 1:5, my translation)7

Against the majority view, it can be shown that this statement is probably not so much about God’s power working through Paul’s preaching as about miracles that were involved in the coming of the gospel.8 For Paul and his readers the terms “power” and “Holy Spirit” were very closely associated and could

3 A number of healing stories have to be set aside in assembling material that can contribute to a reconstruction of the historical Paul in relation to healing and exorcism: Paul being healed of blindness (Acts 9:18; 22:13); the lame man at Lystra (14:8–10); the report of signs and wonders (15:12); the miracles through handkerchiefs and aprons (19:11–12); and the miracles on Malta (27:39–28:11). Further, see Twelftree, Paul and the Miraculous, 229–271. 4 See 1 Cor 10:20; 2 Cor 12:7. Cf. 1 Cor 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor 2:10–11; 11:14–15; 1 Thess 2:18 (cf. 2 Thess 2:9). 5 E.g., see George B. Caird, Principalities and Powers: A Study in Pauline Theology (Oxford: Clarendon, 1956); Bayo Obijole, “St. Paul’s Concept of Principalities and Powers,” BiBh 15 (1989): 25–39; and Clinton E. Arnold, Powers of Darkness: Principalities and Powers in Paul’s Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992). 6 For more detail on what follows in this section, see Twelftree, Paul and the Miraculous, 179–225. 7 NRSV is used for Scripture quotations unless otherwise stated. 8 E.g., so Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 43; Stefan Schreiber, Paulus als Wundertäter: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte und den authentischen Paulusbriefen, BZNW 79 (Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1996), 266, 274; Günter Haufe, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Thessalonicher, THKNT 12.1 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1999), 26; Victor Paul Furnish, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007), 44-45.

Healing and Exorcism in the Early Church

115

refer to the same thing.9 “Power” on its own could mean miracle10 and with the “Holy Spirit” could also refer to miracles.11 However, if Paul had miracles in mind we have to make sense of the gospel coming in “full conviction” (NRSV). Although this term, πληροφορία, can be translated “full conviction” or “certainty,” as it is used in some non-Christian literature,12 its three uses in the New Testament elsewhere, and in other early Christian literature, argues for “fullness” as the translation.13 Literally translated Paul is saying: “our gospel came to you not in word only, but also in power, also in Holy Spirit, also in much fullness” (1 Thess 1:5). For this project we note that each of the three final parallel phrases builds on the other making it clear that the coming of the gospel involved not only preaching, but also a rich and full experience of the miraculous. The text does not tell of the nature of those miracles or the methods involved. Yet, given what we know about early Christianity, it would be more than reasonable to suppose that healing and exorcism were among them, perhaps even dominating them. 1.2. Remembering Miracles (Gal 3:1–5) False believers were drawing the Galatian Christians into keeping the Jewish law.14 Paul’s approach is to ask a barrage of obvious questions, including: Did you experience so much for nothing? – if it really was for nothing. Well then, does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles in you by your doing the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? (Gal 3:4–5)

As we have also just seen in his letter to the Thessalonians, Paul is taking the minds of his readers back to their experience of the coming of the gospel. Recounting the “experience” (πάσχω) of the coming of the Spirit as “so much” (τοσαῦτα, Gal 3:4), Paul recalls the event as a Galatian Pentecost. In that it is generally agreed that the plural “powers” (δυνάμεις) was a well-known term

9 E.g., see Mic 3:8; (cf. 1 Sam 11:6); 1QHa IV 28–29, 34–38; VII 25–26; XIII 38; XV 9– 10; Luke 1:17, 35 (cf. Luke 4:14; Acts 1:8); Acts 10:38. 10 For the singular δύναμις as “miracle” or its cause see Mark 5:30; 6:5; 9:39; Luke 5:17; 6:19; 8:46; 9:1; Acts 3:12; 4:7; 6:8; 10:38; Rom 15:19; 1 Cor 4:20; and 2 Thess 2:9. 11 Cf. 1 Sam 11:6; Luke 1:17, 35; 4:14; Acts 1:8; 10:38; Rom 1:4; 15:19. 12 E.g., see P.Giss. 1.87.25–26; Gerhard Delling, “πληροφορία,” TDNT 6:310. 13 See Col 2:2; Heb 6:11; 10:22; 1 Clem. 54.1; Ignatius, Magn. 11.1; Phld. 1.1; cf. Smyrn. 1.1. 14 Cf. Gal 1:7; 2:3–5; 5:2–12; 6:12–13.

116

Graham H. Twelftree

for miracles,15 he obviously considers miracles were involved in the coming of the Spirit.16 Notably, Paul says nothing about his roles as a healer or exorcist. Instead, he says it was God (ὁ, “the One”) who was “richly supplying” (ἐπιχορηγῶν, present participle) the miracles (Gal 3:5). That is, God was responsible for the miracles. Although, again, he does not say what they were, it is more than reasonable to suppose that healings and exorcisms were involved in the coming of the gospel. Paul saying that the miraculous powers were at work “in you” (ἐν ὑμῖν, Gal 3:5) assumes it was the Galatians, not Paul, who were performing or experiencing miracles. Paul is strangely absent from the equation. Indeed, Paul’s argument, which depends on the Spirit working in the Galatians, would be severely undermined if he was implying the miracles were restricted to him or his presence.17 That is, we may suppose that it was the Galatians, rather than Paul, who were active in the initial miracles and their experience.18 The import of this for understanding Paul’s involvement in healing and exorcism will become clearer as we proceed. 1.3. Healing and Exorcism as Proof of the Gospel (1 Cor 2:3–5) In the face of division in the church Paul once again draws the readers’ minds back to the one thing they all share, the way the gospel came to them. Early in 1 Corinthians he says: And I came to you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God. (1 Cor 2:3–5)

The reason why the gospel was convincing, Paul says, was because it came with “a demonstration of Spirit and of power” (1 Cor 2:4). For Paul and his readers the word “demonstration” or “proof” (ἀπόδειξις) was frequently used in rhetoric in relation to demonstrating or proving an argument from agreed

For the plural “powers” (δύναμεις) as miracles in the NT, see Matt 7:22; 11:20, 21, 23; 13:54, 58; 14:2; 24:29; Mark 6:2, 14; Luke 10:13; 19:37; Acts 2:22; 8:13; 19:11; Cf. 1 Cor 12:10, 28, 29; Gal 3:5; Heb 2:4. See also, e.g., Justin, 1 Apol. 26.2; Dial. 11.4; 35.8; 115.4; 132.1; Irenaeus, Epistle to Florian (cited by Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.20.6); Hippolytus, Haer. 7.23; Origen, Cels. 1.46. 16 E.g., see Ernest de Witt Burton, The Epistles to the Galatians, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921), 151; James D. G. Dunn, Galatians, BNTC (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993), 158; Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 388. 17 E.g., Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, WBC 41 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 105–106. 18 Cf. de Witt Burton, Galatians, 152; Schreiber, Wundertäter, 269. 15

Healing and Exorcism in the Early Church

117

premises.19 For example, Quintilian (born ca. 35 CE) explained: “An apodeixis is a clear proof … a method of proving what is not certain by means of what is certain” (Inst. 5.10.7). We have already seen in 1 Thessalonians that for Paul the terms “Spirit” and “power” together would be a very clear signal that he was referring to miraculous activity. This interpretation here is not hindered by Paul’s earlier negative comment that “Jews demand signs” (1 Cor 1:22). In an eschatological context (1:18–25), for Jews a sign was not a miracle such as a healing or exorcism but a cosmological event such as the sun turning to darkness and the moon to blood (Joel 2:30–31). Again, therefore, we have in these few lines a description of Paul’s ministry involving both his speech (about which he is rather apologetic) and the miraculous. Given that Paul is referring to miracles broadly, it is reasonable to suppose that healing and exorcism are involved in the coming of the gospel. 1.4. The Kingdom of God (1 Cor 4:20) Contrasting his ministry with the “talk of these arrogant people” (4:19) – the trouble makers in the church20 – Paul says: The kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power. (1 Cor 4:20, ESV)

From Paul’s casual use of the phrase it is clear that he and his readers have a shared understanding of the “kingdom of God.” Though most of Paul’s few references to the kingdom of God refer to the future,21 here (and in Rom 14:17) the kingdom is a present reality. In view of the strong relationship in the Jesus tradition between the kingdom of God and Jesus’s miracles,22 and the kingdom’s association with “power” in early Christianity,23 it would be surprising if Paul’s readers did not read his statement to include a reference to miracles. Moreover, in that the kingdom of God was both the subject of Jesus’s ministry in the remembered tradition, and at least a significant part of Paul’s message,24 his readers are likely to see reflected in his statement a connection familiar to them between Paul’s message and the miraculous, which, again it is reasonable to assume would have included healing and exorcism. 19 E.g., see Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1.3; Diogenes Laertius, Lives 7.45; Plato, Tim. 40e; Phaed. 77c, and the discussion by Timothy H. Lim, “Not in Persuasive Words of Wisdom, but in the Demonstration of the Spirit and Power,” NovT 29 (1987), 147. 20 See the discussion by Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Revised Edition, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 8–16. 21 For “kingdom” (of heaven, God or his son) in Paul, see Rom 14:17; 1 Cor 4:20; 6:9, 10; 15:24, 50; Gal 5:21; 1 Thess 2:12. Cf. Eph 5:5; Col 1:13; 4:11; 2 Thess 1:5; 2 Tim 4:1, 18. 22 In particular, see Matt 11:2–6 // Luke 7:18–23; Matt 12:22–30 // Luke 11:14–23; Mark 3:22–27 // Matt 9:32–34. 23 Cf. Matt 7:21–22; Mark 9:1; Luke 1:33–35; 6:19–20; 9:1–2; 10:11–13. 24 Cf. 1 Cor 6:9, 10; 15:50; Gal 5:21; 1 Thess 2:12.

118

Graham H. Twelftree

1.5. Signs, Wonders, and Mighty Works (2 Cor 12:11–13) In contrast to other leaders, Paul’s readers do not see him conducting miracles. Instead, he is seen as a rather pathetic figure who is poor at public speaking (1 Cor 2:3; 2 Cor 10:10). Full of sarcasm, Paul defends himself: I am not at all inferior to these super-apostles, even though I am nothing. The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience, signs and wonders and mighty works. (2 Cor 12:11b–12)

The phrase “signs and wonders” was a vague term used for strange occurrences, including miracles,25 even by imposters.26 Paul adding “and mighty works” (καὶ δυνάμεσιν) to the traditional phrase causes it to echo the redemptive exodus miracles as described by Deuteronomy.27 Moreover, early Christians may have been adopting the triadic combination – signs, wonders, and powers – to describe the miracle working of Jesus and his followers.28 There is, then, general confidence that Paul is referring to miracles such as healings and exorcisms.29 The natural reading of Paul is, then, that healings and exorcisms were a feature of his ministry, the signs of a true apostle. There is, however, an intriguing aspect of Paul’s statement. In countering criticism, we could expect him to say (in the active): “Despite being nothing before God, I performed signs and wonders and mighty works.” Instead, he says (using the aorist passive): “The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with utmost patience” (2 Cor 12:12). The aorist “were performed” (κατειργάσθη) points to Paul’s initial ministry in Corinth. The passive, however, along with mention of “utmost patience,” a characteristic of God (Rom 15:4–5; cf. Col 1:11),30 points to God as the author of the miracles, a perspective we have seen implied in his barrage of question in an earlier letter (Gal

25 E.g., see Polybius, Hist. 3.112.8; Plutarch, Mor. 2.149c; Alex. 75.1; Josephus, J.W. 1.28; 6.288–309; Ant. 20.168. Cf. M. Whitaker, “‘Signs and Wonders’: The Pagan Background,” SE 5 (1968): 155–158. 26 Josephus, Ant. 20.168; Mark 13:22 // Matt 24:24; 2 Thess 2:9. 27 Deut (LXX) 9:29; 26:8; cf. Bar 2:11. 28 Acts 2:22; 6:8; Rom 15:19; Heb 2:4. Cf. 2 Thess 2:9. 29 See, e.g., Hans Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief, KEK 6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970), 397; C. K. Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, BNTC (London: Black, 1971), 321; Rudolf Bultmann, The Second Letter to the Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), 232; Paul W. Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997), 579–580; Friedrich Avemarie, “Warum treibt Paulus einen Dämon aus, der die Wahrheit sagt? Geschichte und Bedeutung des Exorzismus zu Philippi (Acts 16:16–18),” in Die Dämonen, Armin Lange, et al., eds. (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 571; Frank J. Matera, II Corinthians, NTL (Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 289; Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, and Milton Keynes, Paternoster, 2005), 875. 30 Cf. Robert Jewett, Romans, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 882.

Healing and Exorcism in the Early Church

119

3:5).31 The full significance of this observation will become clear in the light of what he says in Romans. 1.6. Signs and Wonders (Rom 15:18–19a) At this point Paul is bringing his letter to the Romans to a close. He says: For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed, by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God. (Rom 15:18–19a)

Following what we have just seen in Paul’s use of the passive for the occurrence of miracles in his ministry (2 Cor 11:12; cf. Gal 3:5), the first thing to notice is that Paul does not draw attention to himself as a miracle worker, but makes it plain his ministry is “for God” (Rom 15:17) and is Christ’s doing (15:18). Second, reminiscent of the gospel coming to the Thessalonians (1 Thess 1:5), Paul says that the work was accomplished through “word and deed.” While this could be a summary of his ministry (as speaking and general activity), he is more likely referring to his speaking and the miraculous. For, elaborating he goes straight on to use “power,” “signs and wonders” and “power of the Spirit” in combination, which, from what we have seen above of these words, can hardly refer to anything but the miraculous. Notably, third, Paul is not saying that his ministry was supported by signs and wonders. Instead, Paul is saying that his ministry was a combination of miracles and message. This confirms the fundamental centrality of the miracles in his ministry and explains the particular place of miracles, probably including healing and exorcism. The miraculous, including healing and exorcism, as much as the speaking formed the nature of his ministry as it was experienced by readers.32 From this statement, then, readers would see that, for Paul, miracles were profoundly important in the regular routine of his ministry.33 Again, puzzlingly, even though there are miracles, Paul makes no claim here or anywhere else that he is a miracle worker. 1.7. Summary From this brief examination of those places in Paul’s letters where he mentions miracles, and which are likely to include reference to healing and exorcism, a number of things are clear: miracles, most likely including healing and exorcism, were integral to his ministry forming a pair with his message. We can conclude that his approach did not generally involve performing miracles.

Further, see the discussion in Twelftree, Paul and the Miraculous, 213–214. Cf. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 629. 33 Cf. Jacob Jervell, “The Signs of an Apostle: Paul’s Miracles,” in The Unknown Paul (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 91–92. 31 32

120

Graham H. Twelftree

Rather, his preaching was accompanied by miracles which he attributed not to his initiative or activity but directly to God. We appear to have nothing first hand from Paul on his method of healing and exorcism. This might not be surprising if he understood the healings and exorcisms as God’s doing. Notwithstanding, even though it is not by or about Paul, Luke’s story of the coming of the Spirit to the household of Cornelius may reflect an approach Paul shared. Luke says that “while Peter was still speaking the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles, for they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God” (Acts 10:44–46). Given what we have seen of Paul’s comments on the miraculous, Luke’s scenario would fit well with the evidence on the relationship between Paul’s preaching and healing and exorcism: he spoke and miracles took place, which he credited to God. Seeing miracles as God’s responsibility may also be reflected in Luke’s story of Paul reluctantly or not immediately exorcizing the spirit of Python from a slave girl (Acts 16:16–18), a story that likely reflects the historical Paul.34 From this story it is not unreasonable to suppose that when Paul did take the initiative in healing or exorcism he used the incantation, “In the name of Jesus, come out!” (Acts 16:18).35 This is consistent with what we know of the methods of other early Christian healing and exorcism. Further, the other healing story in Acts that likely reflects the work of the historical Paul is that of the raising of Eutychus, and so also is likely to shed light on Paul’s methods of healing (Acts 20:7–12).36 Luke says that Paul “fell on and embracing him…” (ἐπέπεσεν αὐτῷ καὶ συμπερλαβών, 20:10). It is reasonably suggested this approach alludes to the Elijah and Elisha stories in the Septuagint,37 though probably not because it was contrived by Luke.38 Rather, Paul, considering himself working in the tradition of the great prophets, emulated their method of resuscitation. In short, miracles, most probably including healing and exorcism, were important, along with his message, as forming the gospel as initially experienced by his readers. Notably, although he credited the miracles to God, credible data in Acts suggests that from time to time Paul Twelftree, Paul and the Miraculous, 252–257. Twelftree, Paul and the Miraculous, 252–255 36 Twelftree, Paul and the Miraculous, 262–263. 37 See, e.g., Richard B. Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles, WC (London: Methuen, 1951), 380; G. W. H. Lampe, “Miracles in the Acts of the Apostles,” in C. F. D. Moule, ed., Miracles (London: Mowbray, 1965), 163–178; Michael D. Goulder, Type and History in Acts (London: SPCK, 1964), 50; James D. G. Dunn, The Acts of the Apostles, Epworth Commentaries (Peterborough: Epworth, 1996), 268; C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles, 2 vols., ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994, 2002), 2.954–955; Richard I. Pervo, Acts, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), 512–513. 38 See Twelftree, Paul and the Miraculous, 263. 34 35

Healing and Exorcism in the Early Church

121

took the initiative in healing and exorcism. We turn now to Mark, generally taken to be the earliest Gospel.

2. Second Case Study: Mark Perhaps written in Rome39 around 70 CE,40 Mark gives a relatively high profile to healing41 and exorcism42 in his Gospel. The priority of exorcism is seen in Jesus’s first public act being an exorcism (Mark 1:21–28). The healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (1:29–31) being his next activity establishes the importance of healing for Mark. Further evidence of the importance of healing and exorcism to Mark is his placing these stories ahead of details of the content of Jesus’s teaching. Only glimpses of Jesus as teacher (1:14–15, 21) precede these stories. While the miracles generally may be important in identifying Jesus,43 and the healings in particular are important because they are compassionate acts for Jesus,44 the exorcism stories infuse the narrative with the notion that Jesus’s ministry – and therefore for the readers (6:7–13) – is characterized by a battle

Brian J. Incigneri, The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark’s Gospel, BibInt 65 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 100–103, has argued that “The influence of Latin on the text does add weight to the argument from Rome” (103); to the contrary, see Reinhard von Bendemann, “Die Latinismen im Markusevengelium,” in Martina Janßen, F. Stanley Jones, and Jürgen Wehnert, eds., Frühes Christentum und Religionsgeschichtliche Schule: Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Gerd Lüdemann (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 52. 40 See the summary of debate by John S. Kloppenborg, “Evocatio Deorum and the Date of Mark,” JBL 124 (2005): 419–450 (esp. 419–420), who argues that Mark 13:2 presupposes awareness of the destruction of the temple. 41 See particularly Mark 1:32–34, 40–45; 2:1–12; 3:1–6, 7–12; 5:21–43; 6:53–56; 7:31–37; 8:22–26; 10:46–52. 42 See particularly Mark 1:21–28, 32–34; 3:7–30; 5:1–20; 6:7–13; 7:24–30; 9:14–29, 38– 39. 43 See Mark 2:7, 12; 3:2; 4:41; 6:2–3, 14; Graham H. Twelftree Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 83–85. 44 E.g., on coming ashore Mark says, Jesus “saw a great crowd; and he had compassion on them” (Mark 6:34). Mark develops the theme of compassion through reference to the people being like sheep without a shepherd (6:34), a metaphor recalling God’s leaderless and hungry people in the Old Testament (Num 27:17; 1 Kings 22:17; Ezek 34:5). Then, by feeding the people, Jesus is shown to be the compassionate servant of David whom Ezekiel expected would be their shepherd and feed God’s people (Ezek 34:23). Also, Jesus the Messiah is shown to be compassionate in providing for the needs of God’s people (Mark 6:43) as God was in providing manna for the Israelites when they were in the desert (Exod 16; Num 11). Cf. Stephen C. Barton, “The Miraculous Feedings in Mark.” Expository Times 97 (1986): 113. See also Eric K. Wefald, “The Separate Gentile Mission in Mark: A Narrative Explanation of Markan Geography, the Two Feeding Accounts and Exorcisms,” JSNT 60 (1995): 19. 39

122

Graham H. Twelftree

with Satan.45 This battle was begun with an opening victory at the temptation in that Jesus is able to begin his ministry (1:12–15), but continues in the exorcism stories (e.g., 3:19–20), and will continue for the readers until “that day or hour” (13:32). What Mark wants his readers to understand or take up in healing and exorcism becomes clear when we note two points. One is the telling phrase which concludes Jesus’s formal teaching where he says, “What I say to you [the historical disciples], I say to all [Mark’s readers]” (Mark 13:37). In other words, the narrative readers can see themselves in the character of the disciples. The other point to be noted, and this we will do below, is that one of the exorcism stories includes instructions to the disciples (9:28–29). Reading through the lens of his discipleship motif,46 Mark sees exorcism as the highest priority in the ministry of his readers. Even though the report of the work of the Twelve includes curing the sick (Mark 6:12), in the stories of their call (3:14–15) and their sending (6:7), along with proclaiming the message, exorcism is said to be their only other assigned task. Also, the authority which arises out of being called (3:14–15; cf. 6:7) is associated with exorcism.47 Further, part of the function of the Beelzebul Controversy pericope is to show that exorcism is important because it is God’s promised eschatological deliverance of people (Mark 3:21–30). In line with this, Mark describes a demon as “cast out” (ἐκβάλλω) in an exorcism.48 This was a word used in the Septuagint when an enemy is removed so that God’s purposes can be fulfilled.49 It is reasonable then to assume that the approach taken to exorcism would be for the exorcist to use the incantation “Come out of him!” (ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ), an incantation found in other reports of Jesus’s exorcisms50 and of other exorcists (cf. PGM IV.1243–1245). Also, in modelling Jesus as an exorcist, his followers could be expected to “rebuke” (ἐπιτιμάω),51 “muzzle” (φιμόω, cf. Mark 4:39) or order demons to “come out” (ἔξελθε)52 and never to enter a person again (9:25). Readers might use the supposed power in a name to gain dominance over demons (cf. 5:9) and transfer them from one habitat to

45 Notable is Mark’s use of ἐπιτιμάω (“rebuke”) for both Jesus’s address to the demons (Mark 1:25; 9:25; cf. 8:33) as well as a storm (4:39). 46 Note Mark 9:28–29; 13:14, 37; and Ernest Best, Following Jesus, JSNTSup 4 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1981). 47 Mark 1:22, 27; 3:15; 6:7. On one occasion authority that arises out of being called is associated with healing (6:13). 48 See Mark 1:34, 39; 3:15, 22, 23; 6:13; 7:26; 9:18, 28, 38. 49 Cf. Exod 23:30; Deut 33:27–28. See the discussion in Graham H. Twelftree, Christ Triumphant: Exorcism Then and Now (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1985), 104–105. 50 Mark 1:25; 9:25; cf. 5:8. 51 Mark 1:25; 3:12; cf. 4:39; 8:33; 9:25. 52 Mark 1:25, 26; 5:8, 13; 7:29, 30; 9:25, 26, 29.

Healing and Exorcism in the Early Church

123

another (5:12–13), perhaps performing an exorcism from a distance (cf. 7:24– 29). The story of the exorcism of the so-called epileptic boy (Mark 9:14–29) is of particular interest as it is probably intended, in part, as a lesson in exorcism.53 For the disciples play an unusually important part in the exorcism story (9:14, 18) in which they are portrayed as failures in exorcism (9:18), and there are direct instructions on exorcism from Jesus (9:28–29). The first point to note is that the narrative as a whole conveys the idea that the followers of Jesus have the authority to perform exorcisms. Second, the complaint “O, faithless generation” (Mark 9:19) is directed in part to the disciples.54 They have been with Jesus, yet they have remained without faith, a point that will be made clearer at the end of the story and picked up by the Longer Ending. Third, Jesus’s rebuke of faithlessness also draws in the boy’s father who admits his defective faith (9:24). However, in that the exorcism immediately takes place the father’s statement exonerates him from the cause of failure, reinforcing the culpability of the disciples. The ending of the story mentioning prayer (Mark 9:28–29) is particularly important for our investigation. The dissonance on the motif of faith55 between the body of the pericope and its ending,56 along with the distinctive Markan vocabulary57 and grammar,58 as well as the Markan theme of a house as a scene of Jesus’s teaching,59 show a high level of Markan editorial activity and interest

53 In more detail, see Graham H. Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 119–125. 54 This is how Matthew and Luke understand Mark for they have each altered their stories to redirect the criticism away from the disciples. Matt 17:17 and Luke 9:41 remove αὐτοῖς (“to them”) from Mark 9:19 so that Jesus’s statement is generalized, and Luke portrays Jesus as addressing the father by ending Jesus’s rebuke with, “Bring your son here” (Luke 9:41). 55 Mark 9:19, 23, 24. 56 See Robert H. Stein, “The ‘Redaktionsgeschichtlich’ Investigation of a Markan Seam (Mc 1 21f.),” ZNW 61 (1970): 78–79. 57 Note, δύναμαι (twice), εἰς, ἐξέρχομαι, ἐπερωτάω, ἴδιος, μαθητής, οἶκος, and see Lloyd Gaston, Horae Synopticae Electronicae: Word Statistics of the Synoptic Gospels, Sources for Biblical Studies 3 (Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973), 18–21, 58–60. 58 Note the genitive absolute (Mark 9:28); see E. J. Pryke, Redaction Style in the Marcan Gospel, SNTSMS 33 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 62, and the ὅτι interrogative (9:28); see C. H. Turner, “Marcan Usage: Notes, Critical and Exegetical on the Second Gospel,” in J. K. Elliott, ed., The Language and Style of the Gospel of Mark, NovTSup 71 (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 63–65, as well as the absence of λέγων (λέγοντες) after a verb introducing a question (here, in 9:28, ἐπηρώτων); see Turner, “Marcan Usage,” 134. 59 This theme may occur in other redactional passages such as Mark 1:29 (?); 2:1, 15; 3:20; 7:17, 24; 9:3 and 10:10. See Pryke, Redaction Style, 69 n3.

124

Graham H. Twelftree

in this conclusion.60 What Mark’s ending shows is that the story itself did not answer the question as to how to perform this kind of exorcism if Jesus was used as a model by early Christians. That is, while Jesus models asking the father of the mute for information, the ending answers the question as to what to do when there is no one to ask for such information: they are to pray. This is an unexpected answer for, in light of Jesus chastising the failed disciples for their lack of faith (9:19), we could expect Jesus to say in the conclusion that this kind of demon could be driven out by faith. Indeed, the lack of healing by Jesus in his home town is directly attributed to a lack of faith (6:5–6). Instead, here, Mark says that, “This kind can come out only through prayer” (9:29).61 In that this is one of Mark’s examples of Jesus giving private instructions when they should not have needed it,62 by implication, what the disciples should have known is how this kind of demon – a mute and deaf spirit (Mark 9:25) – could be exorcized. Mute spirits were considered particularly difficult to exorcize,63 not only, presumably, because they could not hear the instructions or incantations, but also because they could not give information about themselves. Therefore, instead of speaking and listening to the demon and, employing the usual method of commanding a demon to leave, Jesus says, “This kind can come out only through prayer” (9:29). In that this statement is addressed to the disciples and not the father or the sick boy, the use of prayer is to be taken as a method used by the exorcist, not a suppliant.64 We probably see what Mark had in mind by prayer in exorcism when we note that, for him, there is a relationship between prayer and faith.65 From the story of the cursing of the fig tree, prayer is understood as synonymous with faith, or to be a faith-filled (or based) statement. In other words, we can suppose that faith-filled statements – to a mountain, fig tree or a demon – are Cf. Joachim Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Mk 1–8,26), EKK 2/1 (Zurich: Benzinger and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978), 49 and, e.g., those cited by Pryke, Redactional Style, 17. 61 To Mark 9:29 many ancient witnesses add “and fasting” (και νηστεια). See, e.g., P45vid, 2 ℵ A, C, D, L, W, Θ, Ψ, f1.13, 33, !, lat, syh, co, (s sys.p, boms). It is generally agreed that these two words are not from Mark’s hand. See the discussion by Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 124 n132 where it is noted that the earliest witness to the phrase is in P45 to be dated between the first half and the middle of the third century, placing it outside the period of our study. See, e.g., Larry W. Hurtado, “P45 and the Textual History of the Gospel of Mark,” in Charles Horton, ed., The Earliest Gospels: The Origins and Transmission of the Earliest Christian Gospels— The Contribution of the Chester Beatty Gospel Codex P45, JSNTSup 258 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 133 and n4, and those cited. 62 See Mark 4:10–12, 34; 7:17–18; 9:28–29; 10:10; 13:3–4. 63 Cf. PGM IV.3037–3044; Twelftree, Christ Triumphant, 40. 64 As thought by John Muddiman, “Fast, Fasting,” ABD 2:775. 65 Cf. Karl-Georg Reploh, Markus – Lehrer der Gemeinde: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Jüngerperikopen des Markus-Evangeliums, SBM 9 (Stuttgart: KBW, 1969), 218– 219. 60

Healing and Exorcism in the Early Church

125

understood to be faith-filled prayers. In turn, for prayer to be effective in exorcism, Mark probably means that, just like Jesus their model, the disciples were to issue faith-filled commands to the demons, explained here as based on trust in God. Put another way, prayer – directions to the demons – were to be expressions of total trust in, and dependence on, the power and authority used by, and given to the disciples by, Jesus.66 Indeed, this is probably just the matter about which the disciples had been debating with the scribes at the beginning of the story (9:14; cf. 1:22). Another place in Mark where there is a window into the methods of exorcism among Mark’s readers is the brief story of the unknown exorcist (Mark 9:38–39): John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, “Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. (Mark 9:38–39)

That John the disciple says there was an attempt to stop someone performing exorcisms “because he was not following us (ὅτι οὐκ ἠκολούθει ἡμῖν, 9:38)”67 – rather than you (σοί) – suggests a number of competing groups in the postEaster Jesus movement were conducting exorcism indistinguishable from each other. Using the name of Jesus as a source of power-authority is the method of exorcism. Given that there is no criticism of it we can suppose that the method was endorsed by Mark, as we will see it also is in the Longer Ending. Healing “in the name of” (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί) someone was not unique to the early Christians.68 The rationale of the method was that a name went beyond representation to being the essence or hypostasis of the named,69 so that to heal “in the name” was to use the name to heal as if that person or god was performing the

Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, “St. Mark, 9.14–29,” SJT 3 (1950): 62–63. The textual variations in this verse, on which see R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids, and Cambridge: Eerdmans and Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002), 375, are not material to our discussion. 68 See, e.g., 11QApPsa IV, 4; Josephus, Ant. 8.46–47; PGM IV.3019. See the discussion in Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus, WUNT ΙΙ 54 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993; reprinted, Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2010), 41– 42. Larry W. Hurtado, in “The Ritual Use of Jesus’s Name in Early Christian Exorcism and Healing” in the present volume, draws attention to William Q. Parkinson, “‘In the Name of Jesus’: The Ritual Use and Christological Significance of the Name of Jesus in Early Christianity” (PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 2003), available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global (301656445). 69 Cf. Richard Reitzenstein, Poimandres. Studien zur griechisch-ägyptischen und frühchristlichen Literatur (Leipzig: Teubner, 1904), 17 n6, and see the discussion in Hans Bietenhard, “ὄνομα, κτλ,” TDNT 5.242–281. 66 67

126

Graham H. Twelftree

healing.70 Mark has given a sufficient number of examples of Jesus performing exorcisms for this method to be obvious to, and emulated by, his readers. And, in the light of what we know from this passage, and from other New Testament writers (e.g., Acts 3:6), the simple commands taken up from Jesus implying this identification would probably have been prefaced by words such as “In the name of Jesus…” (cf. Acts 16:18). Turning to healing in Mark, there are a number of methods that are obvious. The expectation is that Jesus will touch (Mark 8:22) or lay hands on the sick (5:23; 6:5). Breaking the barrier of ritual uncleanness (cf. Lev 13:1–59), he uses touch (ἅπτω) to cure a leper (1:41). Jesus is also touched by a woman suffering from hemorrhages (5:25), who would have been considered unclean (Lev 15:25–28). In general, the sick are said to seek to touch him (3:10). In Jesus taking Peter’s mother-in-law by the hand and raising her up, he was doing for her something she could not do for herself (1:31). As a healing method, Jesus also declares what is needed, that is, he declares a person forgiven (2:5) and therefore in this particular story healed (2:9). He commands a paralytic to stand (2:9, 11), or for a man to stretch out a withered hand (3:5), that is, to act out or anticipate the healing. He is asked to lay hands on a sick girl (5:23) but takes her by the hand and directs her to “Get up” (ἔγειρε). In other words, a person is expected to act out or anticipate the healing (5:41), a method used in Luke’s story of Peter ordering a lame man “In the name of Jesus stand up and walk” (Acts 3:6). To cure a deaf man with a speech impediment Jesus “put his fingers into his ears, and he spat and touched his tongue” before looking up to heaven (presumably praying), sighing and saying, “Be opened” (Mark 7:33). That is, once again, he orders the healing to take place. Further, Jesus puts saliva on the eyes of a blind man and also lays hands on him (8:23, 25). In the last healing – the one that closes and sums up the section on discipleship – the request for sight by Bartimaeus is granted in the response, “Go; your faith has made you well” (10:52). The importance of the faith of the suppliant for healing is seen from the opposite perspective in Mark’s story we have just noted of the rejection of Jesus by his hometown: “he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief” (6:5–6). In the ensuing commission for mission (Mark 6:7) the disciples are to “cast out many demons” (6:13; cf. 3:15). However, on mission not only are they said to cast out demons, they also “anointed with oil many who were sick and cured them” (6:13). Not matching either the original appointment (3:14–15) or the subsequent commission (6:7–12), and using the distinctly Markan “sick”

Cf. H. Cremer, Biblio-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1895), 56. 70

Healing and Exorcism in the Early Church

127

(ἄρρωστος)71 and “heal” (θεραπεύω),72 as well as “oil” (ἔλαιον) as part of a healing method – for which Mark has given no precedent in Jesus’s ministry – suggests that the mention of anointing the sick with oil has been added by Mark as a method he is particularly encouraging his readers to use.73 Read through the lens of the discipleship motif, the reader could assume that all of the portrayed methods of healing and exorcism were open to them and, perhaps, expected to be used by them. For, between when the disciples are called (Mark 3:14) and when they are actually sent out (6:7), they observe and experience the entire range of activities of Jesus’s ministry. In this arrangement of material, Mark gives the impression that what the disciples had seen and heard they were to emulate in their mission. This is broadly supported in Mark saying of their return, “The apostles gathered around Jesus, and told him all that they had done and taught” (6:30). Reflecting on Mark’s text, not only are healing and exorcism important in his portrait of the ministry of Jesus, his readers – reflected in the portrait of the disciples – are also expected to be heavily involved in healing and exorcism. Both Jesus and his disciples, following his pattern, are involved in a cosmological battle in which healing and particularly exorcism are important. The array of methods uncritically described for healing and exorcism suggests that they are at the disposal of the readers for them to take up. 2.1. Markan Coda: Mark 16:9–20 In whatever way the problem of the ending of Mark is solved, there are good reasons to think that what is called the Longer Ending is not from the hand of the one who wrote the body of the book.74 For, besides these twelve verses being absent in the two earliest parchment codices, codex Sinaiticus (‫ א‬01) and codex Vaticanus (B 03), as well as many other textual witnesses,75 the passage

In the NT the word ἄρρωστος (“sick” or “ill,” see “ἄρρωστος,” BDAG 135) occurs only in Matt 14:14; Mark 6:5, 13; 16:18, and 1 Cor 11:30. 72 Mark only uses θεραπεύω in places that are generally agreed to be redactional: Mark 1:34; 3:2, 10; 6:5, 13. 73 On the medicinal use of oil see Heinrich Schlier, “ἀλείφω,” TDNT 1.231–232) and Heinrich Schlier, “ἔλαιον,” TDNT 2.472–473. 74 The comment made long ago on the treatment of “The Conclusion of Mark,” by Ned B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian Guardian, 1944), 86–118 by F. F. Bruce, “The End of the Second Gospel,” EvQ 17 (1945): 169: “the result is a demonstration as conclusive as any proof of this kind can be that these twelve verse are not an integral part of the Gospel to which they have so long been attached,” still stands. 75 See Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, 4th ed.), 322–323; J. K. Elliott, “The Text and Language of the Endings to Mark’s Gospel,” TZ 27 (1971): 255–262. 71

128

Graham H. Twelftree

contains significant differences in vocabulary and style from the rest of Mark,76 and the pericope is not well connected to what precedes it in that the women are the subject of 16:8 but Jesus is the subject of 16:9. Further, this Longer Ending interrupts the sequence of thought established up to the end of the Gospel (Mark 16:8) in failing to relate the promised appearance of the risen Lord in Galilee (16:7) in the list of appearances that are probably taken from the other three gospels.77 Thus, what stylistic affinities there are between the Longer Ending and the body of Mark suggest that it was written as a secondary ending for this Gospel rather than by the Evangelist. Evidence also suggests that the Longer Ending originated in Rome78 around the third decade of the second century and was well established by the middle of that century.79 The importance of the Longer Ending for our project is that it provides an early reading of Mark that both affirms the perspective of the text and applies it to a new setting.80 This perspective becomes clear in noting that the main characters of the Longer Ending are the key characters who had been “with him” (μετ̓ αὐτοῦ, Mark 16:10) before Easter.81 As being with Jesus is both the call (3:14) and desire (5:18) of discipleship in the Gospel, through this phrase the discipleship of the pre-Easter narrative is brought into the horizon of the reader. In the three appearances of the risen Jesus (16:9, 12, 14) the One who had been with the disciples is still (in his risen life) with his followers. What was implied in the body of the Gospel is now spelt out. By the sheer number of references, “belief” is the motif holding these verses together.82 The focus of interest is first in the belief (or lack of belief) in the continuity between the Jesus of the Gospel and the Jesus present in the community (16:11–14). Then the Longer Ending picks up two aspects of the belief

See Paul L. Danove, The End of Mark’s Story: A Methodological Study (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 122–123, 125–126. 77 See William R. Farmer, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, SNTSMS 25 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 103. Cf. Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, WBC 34B (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), 546–547. 78 See the summary discussion in Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 234–235. 79 Cf. James A. Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark, WUNT II 112 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), “with confidence one may thus date the LE [Longer Ending] to ca. 120–150 C.E.” (175) and “possibly to the earlier part of this range” (475). 80 Suzanne W. Henderson, “Discipleship after the Resurrection: Scribal Hermeneutics in the Londer Ending of Mark,” JTS 63 (2012): 123. 81 Cf. Henderson, “Discipleship after the Resurrection,” 113–114. 82 See Mark 16:11, 13, 14, 16, 17. Mark 16:9–20 is also held together by the verb πορεύω, which is not Markan. The word occurs in Mark 16:10, 12, 16; and also 29 times in Matt and 51 times in Luke. At Mark 9:30 the compound verb παραπορεύομαι occurs with a secondary reading of the simple verb. See Elliott, “Text and Language,” esp. 206–207. Cf. Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 235. 76

Healing and Exorcism in the Early Church

129

motif in the Gospel: the requirement of belief from those who are to be saved,83 and the requirement of belief from the followers of (the now risen) Jesus for the success of their mission (16:17; cf. 9:19). In two particular places the Longer Ending reflects its understanding of healing and exorcism. First Mary Magdalene is identified as the one “from whom he had cast out seven demons” (Mark 16:9; cf. Luke 8:2), indicating that the exorcism of the Gospel continued to be valued by those responsible for the Longer Ending. In using ἐκβάλλω (“cast out”) for the method of her cure the Longer Ending maintains the Markan view that we have seen of exorcism as God fulfilling his purpose for his people following the casting out of an enemy. That Mary had seven demons cast out from her draws attention to belief in the power of Jesus to deal with a person who was demonized in the most terrible way imaginable.84 This powerful ability of Jesus is the backdrop for the second reference to exorcism and other miracles. In his third appearance the risen Jesus says: Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation … And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes in their hands, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover. (Mark 16:15, 17–18)

In using the term signs “will follow” (παρακολουθήσει), for those who believe (16:17) the signs (including healing and exorcism) are proof or evidence of belief. That is, evidence of belief is in the miracles that take place in association with the person. The signs or miracles listed – exorcism (e.g., Mark 1:21–28), speaking in tongues (e.g., Acts 2:4; 1 Cor 12:28), picking up poisonous snakes (cf. Luke 10:19), and laying hands on the sick (e.g., Mark 5:23; 1 Cor 12:9– 10, 28–30) – show an affinity with both the Synoptic and Pauline traditions. The method of healing and exorcism, involving the use of the formula “in my name” (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου), is the same as expressed in the body of the Gospel (Mark 9:38). Healing and exorcism are understood to be performed as if by Jesus himself. The final statement of this passage confirms this by saying that “the Lord” (τοῦ κυρίου) “worked with” (συνεργοῦντος) them and confirmed the message by the signs that accompanied it (Mark 16:20). That is, healing and exorcism – performed “in the name of” – are attributed to the Lord (cf. Heb 2:4), a view reminiscent of Paul (cf. Rom 15:18; Gal 3:4–5). This final verse of the Longer Ending further develops the function of miracles of healing and exorcism in stating that the miracles not only gave evidence of the belief of the one proclaiming but also – in accompanying (ἐπακολουθέω) or following the message – “confirmed” (βεβαιόω) the Mark 16:16; cf. e.g., 1:15; 2:5; 5:34; 9:23–24; 10:52. Cf. Karl H. Rengstorf, “ἑπτά, κτλ,” TDNT 2.630–631; Otto Böcher, Das Neue Testament und die dämonischen Mächte, SBS 58 (Stuttgart: KBW, 1972), 9–10. 83 84

130

Graham H. Twelftree

message (Mark 16:20). For a sign or miracle to “follow” (ἐπακολουθέω) a message meant that it followed so closely after that they could be said to be the result of the message,85 perhaps even inherent in the message,86 a view familiar from Paul (cf. 1 Thess 1:5). The word ἐπακολουθέω also contains the notion of following in the sense of authenticating the message.87 Hence, the healings and exorcisms, along with the other miracles, are both inherent in the message as well as confirm it. In the Longer Ending we have a glimpse of the important place of healing and exorcism among Markan Christians in Rome in the first half of the second century. They have maintained the importance of faith for healer and healed, and the view that their practice of healing and exorcism was as if Jesus were performing them in person. The performing of healings and exorcisms not only provided evidence for their faith, but evidence of the veracity of their message, which was being sanctioned by God through the accompanying healing and exorcism, and other miracles.

3. Third Case Study: Johannine Literature Turning to the Johannine literature, from the last quarter of the first century or just beyond,88 the reader enters a different world from Paul or the synoptic Gospels. As most of the obvious data are available from the Fourth Gospel, that will be the focus of our attention. Missing from the Fourth Gospel are stories of the lame or those with withered limbs being healed.89 There is no mention of healings of fevers, hemorrhages, the deaf or mute, or of dropsy. It is not that healing is feebly represented, as C. H. Dodd supposed.90 There may be fewer healing stories, but

85 See Gerhard Kittel, “ἐπακολουθέω,” TDNT 1.215 citing, e.g., Mark 16:20; 1 Tim 5:10 and Josh 6:8 (LXX); Polybius, 30.9.10; against Erwin Preuschen, Vollständiges GriechischDeutsches Handwörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments (2d ed. by Walter Bauer; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1928), 438. 86 Cf. MM, “ἐπακολουθέω,” citing P.Petr II.40(b) line 6 and P.Oxy VII.1024 line 33 as evidence that this verb came to mean “am personally present.” 87 See “ἐπακολουθέω,” BDAG, 358. 88 Cf. D. Moody Smith, John (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999), 41–43; Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel According to Saint John, BNTC (Peabody: Hendrickson, and London and New York: Continuum, 2005), 18. For a survey of the discussions see D. A. Croteau, “An Analysis of the Arguments for the Dating of the Fourth Gospel,” Faith and Mission 20.3 (2003): 47–80. 89 Along with “blind” and “paralysed,” “lame” is used of some of “the many sick” seeking healing at the pool of Bethesda (John 5:3). 90 C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 174.

Healing and Exorcism in the Early Church

131

taking the raising of Lazarus as a healing story (John 11:1–57),91 four92 of the seven miracle stories in the body of this Gospel are of healing.93 Through these stories the impression is created that healing dominated Jesus’s work. The use of “sign” for miracles generally,94 and particularly for healings95 also conveys the importance of healing, suggesting that it is Jesus as healer who is expected to provide most of the content of the readers’ notion of the miracles. Further, taking up “sign,” a word frequently occurring in their Scriptures (LXX) of God showing himself to be the Almighty through the salvific events associated with Moses,96 a healing becomes more than a miracle.97 The healing points beyond itself to the true identity or glory of Jesus and his filial relationship, or even identity, with the Father98 – and also to the various expressions of the salvific gift he brings. The spectacular nature of the healing stories portrays Jesus as a healer of unparalleled power, One who had been introduced as with God – as God – from the beginning, acting as his agent to meet human need (John 1:1–18). Yet, while God in Jesus may show himself through the splendor of miracle,99 it is in healing that God is most clearly seen as truly incarnate.100 To varying degrees, the Passion is echoed and adumbrated in every healing story.101 In the life of the readers, then, the presence of Jesus as healer is an expression of that resurrection power (cf. John 9:4; 11:24–26) bringing life and a basis for their faith and evangelism. From Martha’s statement of faith in Jesus as healer – “Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God” (11:27), mirrored in the purpose statement of the Gospel that is based on the signs (20:30–31) – readers are obliged to conclude not only that as healer is Jesus’s identity seen clearest, but also that belief in him, particularly as healer, brings life from God.

91 Lazarus is described as having an “illness” (ἀσθένεια, John 11:4), to be “ill” (ἀσθενέω, 11:1, 2, 3, 6), and in the Jews asking, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?” (11:37), the story is tied to those of healing. Cf. Lincoln, John, 316. 92 John 4:46–54; 5:1–9; 9:1–7. 93 John 2:1–11; 4:46–54; 5:1–9; 6:1–15, 15–21; 9:1–7; 11:1–57. A further story (21:4–14) is in the appended material. 94 John 2:23; 3:2; 7:31; 10:41; 11:47; 12:37; 20:30. 95 Notably, there is John 6:2: “A large crowd kept following him, because they saw the signs that he was doing for the sick” (cf. 3:2). Also, see 4:48, 54; 9:16; 12:18. 96 E.g., Deut 26:8; Jer 32:20–21; Cf. Philo, Mos. 1.210; Josephus, Ant. 274–280. 97 Contrast C. H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 140. 98 See John 3:2; 7:31; 9:16; 20:30–31. 99 Ernst Käsemann, The Testament of Jesus (London: SCM, 1968), 21. 100 Cf. John 1:14; 11:33, 35, 38. 101 John 4:50, 51, 53; 5:21; 11:16, 44, 46–53.

132

Graham H. Twelftree

Gone also are the exorcism stories, so important in the Synoptic traditions.102 With all the Gospels likely written for wide circulation103 it cannot be that the Johannine tradition was unaware of the Synoptic traditions104 and that exorcism was associated with Jesus and his followers. Indeed, there are hints of the Fourth Evangelist’s knowledge of the exorcism material (cf. Mark 1:24 and John 6:69).105 Given the spectacular nature of the miracle stories in John that can be read as the result of divine action, it is understandable that unspectacular, commonplace exorcisms106 of ambiguous origin107 would be left aside as unable to reflect adequately the origin, identity and divine dimension of the work of Jesus – or his followers.108 Yet, the Fourth Evangelist not only maintains the category of demon possession, but does so through having – at least at first sight – Jesus, and Jesus alone, repeatedly charged with having a demon.109 Readers are alerted to the irony of the accusation in the incredulous question that prefaces one of the charges: “Are we not right in saying…?” (John 8:48). Readers know that the Jews – the shorthand title for Jesus’s opponents110 – are anything but right in what they are about to say, for they have been cast in a negative light, having the devil as their father who does not stand in the truth because he is a liar.111 In answer to the two-part accusation that follows – “you are a Samaritan and have a demon” – Jesus gives a simple catch-all response: “I do not have a demon” (John 8:49, cf. 48). In Jesus not denying being a Samaritan irony continues. Although the accusation of being a Samaritan was meant as a charge of being responsible for false information (cf. 8:52),112 over against the Jews, the 102 See Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 183–205, noting that the cross is the great exorcism in the Fourth Gospel (John 12:31). 103 Richard Bauckham, ed., The Gospel for All Christians (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998) and the discussion by Wendy E. Sproston North, “John for Readers of Mark? A Response to Richard Bauckham’s Proposal,” JSNT 25 (2003): 449–468. 104 For a summary discussion see Lincoln, John, 26–38. 105 Edwin K. Broadhead, “Echoes of an Exorcism in the Fourth Gospel?” ZNW 86 (1995): 111–119; Barnabas Lindars, “Rebuking the Spirit: A New Analysis of the Lazarus Story of John 11,” NTS 38 (1992): 84–104. 106 For evidence of exorcism being common place see Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 35– 54. 107 Cf. Matt 12:22–27 // Mark 3:22–27 // Luke 11:14–23. 108 For more detail see, Graham H. Twelftree, “Exorcisms in the Fourth Gospel and in the Synoptics,” in Robert T. Fortna and Tom Thatcher, eds., Jesus in Johannine Tradition (Louisville: Westminsters John Knox, 2001), 135–143, and Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 183– 198. 109 The charges against Jesus of having a demon are at John 7:20; 8:48, 52; 10:20. 110 See John 5:16, 18; 7:1, 13; 9:22; 10:31, 33; 11:8, 54; 19:7, 12, 38; 20:19. 111 John 2:23–25; 3:1–12; 4:1–3; 7:20; 8:42–44. 112 Cf. Sir 50:26; T. Levi 7:2; John Bowman, “Samaritan Studies,” BJRL 40 (1957–1958): 306–308; Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (London: SCM, 1969), 352–358.

Healing and Exorcism in the Early Church

133

Samaritans in the Fourth Gospel recognize Jesus and invite their new-found Savior to live or dwell with them in intimacy (4:1–42). Ironically, then, this charge becomes a negative reflection of the Jews’ own inability to identify and accept Jesus and a shorthand description of their own plight: the Jews, not Jesus, are demon possessed. The Fourth Evangelist proposes, therefore, that Satan has a deep and all-encompassing hold not on a few, but on all. In turn, in the Fourth Gospel, demon possession, or to be in error (John 10:20),113 is combated not through the command of an exorcist, or a healing encounter reserved for a few, but through all knowing the truth.114 In the period, the equation of error and the demonic was not an unfamiliar notion (cf. 1QS II, 13–26), and it was also important for churches sharing the same pool of ideas as the Fourth Gospel.115 Of course, for the Fourth Evangelist, knowing the truth was knowing Jesus116 and honoring God as one’s Father.117 Also, notably, the discussion of demon possession in 8:48–52 – which frequently touches on the issue of truth and falsehood118 – has its origin in the statement of Jesus, “you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (8:32).119 In the Johannine letters, also, where there are concerns about evil or false spirits (cf. 1 John 3:24; 4:1–6), exorcism is also not mentioned. Instead, in the face of deception (1:2–3), the evil one is overcome (2:14–16) through knowing God, loving him, and in having the word of God abiding in you (2:14). Consistent with this perspective, in Revelation Satan’s hold is not over a few individuals but over all the deceived who have not accepted the truth in Jesus (cf. Rev 9:20; 12:9). Further, clarity may be gained on the place of healing in the Johannine community from at least two places in the Fourth Gospel. The first is a statement credited to Jesus in the introduction to the story of the healing of the man born blind (John 9:1–41). Jesus says: We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. (John 9:4–5)

In the context of this story, the works of Jesus are the healings; equally, they are also the work of God (John 9:4). The urgency of performing healings before the night of death comes refers both to the ministry of Jesus and, by implication (9:5), the work of his followers in their post-Easter setting. In that this healing 113 In the NT μαίνομαι occurs at John 10:20; Acts 12:15; 26:24, 25; 1 Cor 14:23 to characterize an unbelievable message. See H. Preisker, “μαίνομαι,” TDNT 4.361. 114 John 8:32; cf. 14:6; 17:15–19. 115 See Herm. Vis. 14.2; Justin, 1 Apol. 56; Athenagoras, Leg. 27.2; Irenaeus, Haer. 2.31.2– 3; Clement of Alexandria, Protr. 1.1; 11.117.3–4. 116 John 1:14, 17; cf. 8:49; 14:6. 117 See John 8:49; cf. 4:23; 15:26. 118 John 8:40, 44, 45, 46. 119 B. C. Lategan, “The Truth That Sets Man Free. John 8.31-36,” Neot 2 (1968): 70–80.

134

Graham H. Twelftree

is an expression of Jesus being and bringing light into the world (8:12),120 this statement is an assurance to the readers that amongst them they can also experience the light – the healings – of Jesus. Jesus remains in the world not only through the unity between Jesus and his followers (cf. 17:22), but also through healing miracles. This view is reinforced in the statement ‘We [not I] must work the works of him who sent me [not us].’121 Regardless of whether or not the ‘We … us’ was original or more likely introduced by the Christian community,122 the context of the saying is set in the future tense, therefore referring to a time following the lifting up of Jesus to the throne of God. It is likely, then, that John is not only associating the disciples with the work of Jesus,123 but the work of God is to continue in the healing work of the followers of Jesus after Easter. The second place where clarity is gained on the place of healing in the Johannine community is in the Farewell Discourse (John 13:31–17:26) in a conversation between Jesus and Philip who asks to see the Father (14:8). In the exchange Jesus tells Philip that if he does not believe that he is in the Father he is to believe Jesus because of the works or miracles. Jesus continues: Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it. (John 14:12–14)

Given that when “work” (ἔργον) is used of Jesus’s activity the Fourth Evangelist is generally referring to his healings,124 the greater works here125 would naturally refer to or include the healing miracles of the followers of Jesus.126

120 Cf. R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 93. 121 John 9:4 (emphasis added). Cf. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 194. 122 So Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 331 n7. 123 So Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, AB 29/29A, 2 vols. (London: Chapman, 1971), 1.372. 124 In the Fourth Gospel ἔργον occurs in 3:19, 20, 21; 4:34; 5:20, 36; 6:28, 29; 7:3, 7, 21; 8:39, 41; 9:3, 4; 10:25, 32, 33, 37, 38; 14:10, 11, 12; 15:24; 17:4. Many of these (4:34; 5:20, 36; 6:29; 9:3, 4; 10:25, 32) refer to the work of God. For ἔργον referring to healing see 5:20 (cf. 21); 7:21. In 9:4 ἔργον implies a reference to the healing about to take place (cf. 9:6–7); in 10:32 (x2) and 33, though also referring generally to Jesus’s work, through the reference to Jesus making himself God (cf. 5:18), ἔργον includes a reference to Jesus’s healing. 125 “Greater works” is also used of healing in John 5:20. 126 Following Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel According to St John, 3 vols. (New York: Crossroad, 1982–1987), 2.71; and George R. Beasley-Murray, John, WBC 36 (Waco: Word, 1987), 245 against, e.g., Bultmann, John, 610–611; and Joachim Becker, Das Evangelium des Johannes, 2 vols. (Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1979, 1981), 2.464, who identify these works with the words of Jesus on the basis of the association of words and works in 14:10.

Healing and Exorcism in the Early Church

135

At the very least this verse is affirming the place of miracles among John’s readers. That Jesus should promise “greater” works is probably not intended to include the meaning that “greater” miracles will be performed (what could be greater than the resurrection of the dead!), but that the number, breadth, and impact of the healing mission of the followers of Jesus would be greater.127 Considering the methods of healing in the Johannine tradition, it is clear that despite all the differences between Paul and Synoptic traditions, the healing method assumed to be used by the followers of Jesus is the same: healing “in the name of Jesus.” The concept is repeated later in the Johannine discourse about the vine in which believers’ lives are to depend, and be patterned, on Jesus. He says to his followers, “I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name” (John 15:16). In this the Fourth Gospel makes it clear that “in my name” is the equivalent of Jesus performing the act, in this case, healing. Over against Paul or the Synoptic traditions, Johannine Christianity shows no interest in exorcism. Evil or error is more pervasive and more widely experienced than by a few deranged individuals. Satan has a hold on all who do not know the truth. Exorcism’s place is taken by the conviction that evil or error is defeated not by exorcists, but by the truth embodied in Jesus128 and made available by the Spirit,129 who also provides ongoing protection from the evil one (John 17:15–19).

4. Conclusion In these three case studies of healing and exorcism the great diversity of Christianities represented in the New Testament texts is well illustrated.130 Paul, who has provided the earliest Christian literature, says nothing directly about healing and exorcism. However, given both his demonology including the notion of an ongoing threat from spiritual beings, and his reminding his readers that the miracles were part of the coming of the gospel to them, it is most probable that this experience included healing and exorcism. These miracles were not simply proof of the gospel, though they were that. Paired with the message they also formed the gospel that came to Paul’s readers. The surprising aspect of Paul’s notion of the miraculous is that the healings and exorcisms were the activity of God, not his. He nowhere claims to have the gift of healing or See Schnackenburg, St. John, 2.71–72. See John 1:14, 17; 14:6; 17:17. 129 See John 16:13; cf. 14:17; 15:26. 130 Cf. Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (London: SCM, 1972); James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (London: SCM, 2006). 127 128

136

Graham H. Twelftree

exorcism or report his involvement in such activity. Nevertheless, supposing that Acts provides credible historical data, on occasion Paul conducted healings and exorcisms. We are also dependent on Acts to speculate that, like other followers of Jesus may have been doing and certainly would after him, he used the name of Jesus as the power-authority for an exorcism. Also, seeing himself in the tradition of the great prophets, he adopted one of their dramatic methods of healing in restoring Eutychus. Mark’s Gospel, on the other hand, gives healing and exorcism a clear and obvious priority in both its portrait of Jesus and the portrait of his disciples, the exemplars for the post-Easter community. For Mark, healing and especially exorcism were part of Jesus’s battle with Satan, a battle his followers carried on beyond Easter. Jesus used an array of healing methods that appear to be sanctioned for use in the post-Easter community. The methods of exorcism Jesus is reported as using were relatively simple and consistent. However, although the disciples as exemplars were to emulate Jesus’s preaching and healing and exorcism in their ministry, most obviously in exorcism they are probably to be exorcizing in the name of Jesus. The Longer Ending of Mark provides an early example of how the Gospel was read. The emphasis on healing and exorcism is maintained in the ministry of the community, with an emphasis on the need for belief on the part of those performing the healings and exorcisms. Using the name of Jesus is explicitly encouraged. The signs, which most probably involve healings and exorcisms are attributed to God and taken as support of the message. The third case study on the Johannine literature takes us into a very different expression of Christianity, and methods of healing, from that apparent in Paul and Mark. We have already concluded that exorcism has no place in the Johannine tradition because all are in Satan’s grip and that freedom comes from knowing the truth embodied in Jesus and continually made available by the Spirit. Healing, on the other hand, though in kind more narrowly represented, is profoundly important in the Fourth Gospel’s portrait of Jesus, for it is in his healings that God is most clearly seen as incarnate. Yet, the method of healing for the followers of Jesus remains similar to the other traditions: healing in the name of Jesus. That which these three examples of healing and exorcism in early Christianity hold in common is the importance of healing as a continuing expression of the gospel or what was reported as important in the ministry of Jesus. The most common method of bringing that healing, even if not in exorcism, was probably using “the name of Jesus.” While this method did not directly emulate the healing methods of Jesus, it did deeply express an emulation of his ministry.

Healing and Exorcism in the Early Church

137

Bibliography Arnold, Clinton E. Powers of Darkness: Principalities and Powers in Paul’s Letters. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992. Avemarie, Friedrich. “Warum treibt Paulus einen Dämon aus, der die Wahrheit sagt? Geschichte und Bedeutung des Exorzismus zu Philippi (Acts 16:16–18).” Pages 550–576 in Die Dämonen. Edited by Armin Lange, et al. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Barnett, Paul W. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NICNT. Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1997. Barrett, C. K. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. BNTC. London: Black, 1971. –. The Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994, 2002. Barton, Stephen C. “The Miraculous Feedings in Mark,” ExpTim 97 (1986): 112–113. Bauckham, Richard J. ed., The Gospel for All Christians. Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, 1998. Bauer, Walter. Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity. London: SCM, 1972. Beasley-Murray, George R. John. WBC 36. Waco: Word, 1987. Becker, Joachim. Das Evangelium des Johannes. 2 vols. Gütersloh: G. Mohn, 1979, 1981. Bendemann, Reinhard von. “Die Latinismen im Markusevengelium.” Pages 37–52 in Frühes Christentum und Religionsgeschichtliche Schule: Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Gerd Lüdemann. Edited by Martina Janßen, F. Stanley Jones, and Jürgen Wehnert. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. Best, Ernest. Following Jesus. JSNTSup 4. Sheffield: JSOT, 1981. Böcher, Otto. Das Neue Testament und die dämonischen Mächte. SBS 58. Stuttgart: KBW, 1972. Bowman, John. “Samaritan Studies,” BJRL 40 (1957–1958): 298–308. Broadhead, Edwin K. “Echoes of an Exorcism in the Fourth Gospel?” ZNW 86 (1995): 111– 119. Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John. AB 29/29A; 2 vols. London: Chapman, 1971. Bruce, F. F. “The End of the Second Gospel,” EvQ 17 (1945): 169–181. Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971. –. The Second Letter to the Corinthians. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985. Burton, Ernest de Witt. The Epistles to the Galatians. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1921. Caird, George B. Principalities and Powers: A Study in Pauline Theology. Oxford: Clarendon, 1956. Cremer, H. Biblio-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1895. Croteau, D. A. “An Analysis of the Arguments for the Dating of the Fourth Gospel,” Faith and Mission 20.3 (2003): 47–80. Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. Danove, Paul L. The End of Mark’s Story: A Methodological Study. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Dodd, C. H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953. –. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Dunn, James D. G. Galatians. BNTC. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993. –. The Acts of the Apostles. Epworth Commentaries. Peterborough: Epworth, 1996. –. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity. London: SCM, 2006.

138

Graham H. Twelftree

Elliott, J. K. “The Text and Language of the Endings to Mark’s Gospel,” TZ 27 (1971): 255– 262. Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27–16:20. WBC 34B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001. Farmer, William R. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. SNTSMS 25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. Fee, Gordon D. God’s Empowering Presence. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994. –. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Revised Edition. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014. France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids and Cambridge: Eerdmans, and Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002. Furnish, Victor Paul. 1 & 2 Thessalonians. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007. Gaston, Lloyd. Horae Synopticae Electronicae: Word Statistics of the Synoptic Gospels. Sources for Biblical Studies 3. Missoula: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973. Gnilka, Joachim. Das Evangelium nach Markus (Mk 1–8,26). EKK 2/1. Zurich: Benzinger and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1978. Goulder, Michael D. Type and History in Acts. London: SPCK, 1964. Harris, Murray J. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, and Milton Keynes, Paternoster, 2005. Haufe, Günter. Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Thessalonicher. THNK 12.1. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1999. Henderson, Suzanne W. “Discipleship after the Resurrection: Scribal Hermeneutics in the Longer Ending of Mark,” JTS 63 (2012): 106–124. Hurtado, Larry W. “P45 and the Textual History of the Gospel of Mark,” Pages 132–148 in The Earliest Gospels: The Origins and Transmission of the Earliest Christian Gospels—The Contribution of the Chester Beatty Gospel Codex P45. Edited by Charles Horton. JSNTSup 258. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Incigneri, Brian J. The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark’s Gospel, BibInt 65. Leiden: Brill, 2003. Jeremias, Joachim. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. London: SCM, 1969. Jervell, Jacob. “The Signs of an Apostle: Paul’s Miracles.” Pages 77–95 in The Unknown Paul. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984. Jewett, Robert. Romans. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. Käsemann, Ernst. The Testament of Jesus. London: SCM, 1968. Kelhoffer, James A. Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark. WUNT II 112. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Kloppenborg, John S. “Evocatio Deorum and the Date of Mark,” JBL 124 (2005): 419–450. Lampe, G. W. H. “Miracles in the Acts of the Apostles.” Pages 163–178 in Miracles. Edited by C. F. D. Moule. London: Mowbray, 1965. Lategan, B. C. “The Truth That Sets Man Free. John 8.31–36,” Neot 2 (1968): 70–80. Lim, Timothy H. “Not in Persuasive Words of Wisdom, But in the Demonstration of the Spirit and Power,” NovT 29 (1987): 137–149. Lincoln, Andrew T. The Gospel According to Saint John. BNTC. Peabody: Hendrickson, and London and New York: Continuum, 2005. Lindars, Barnabas. “Rebuking the Spirit: A New Analysis of the Lazarus Story of John 11,” NTS 38 (1992): 84–104. Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. WBC 41. Dallas: Word, 1990. Matera, Frank J. II Corinthians. NTL. Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994.

Healing and Exorcism in the Early Church

139

–. The Text of the New Testament. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. North, Wendy E. Sproston. “John for Readers of Mark? A Response to Richard Bauckham’s Proposal,” JSNT 25 (2003): 449–468. Obijole, Bayo. “St. Paul’s Concept of Principalities and Powers,” BiBh 15 (1989): 25–39. Parkinson, William Q. “‘In the Name of Jesus’: The Ritual Use and Christological Significance of the Name of Jesus in Early Christianity.” PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 2003. Pervo, Richard I. Acts. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009. Preuschen, Erwin. Vollständiges Griechisch-Deutsches Handwörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments. 2nd ed. by Walter Bauer. Gießen: Töpelmann, 1928. Pryke, E. J. Redaction Style in the Marcan Gospel. SNTSMS 33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Rackham, Richard B. The Acts of the Apostles. WC. London: Methuen, 1951. Reitzenstein, Richard. Poimandres. Studien zur griechisch-ägyptischen und frühchristlichen Literatur. Leipzig: Teubner, 1904. Reploh, Karl-Georg. Markus – Lehrer der Gemeinde: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Jüngerperikopen des Markus-Evangeliums. SBM 9. Stuttgart: KBW, 1969. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel According to St John. 3 vols. New York: Crossroad, 1982– 1987. Schreiber, Stefan. Paulus als Wundertäter: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Apostelgeschichte und den authentischen Paulusbriefen. BZNW 79. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1996. Smith, D. Moody. John. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999. Stein, Robert H. “The ‘Redaktionsgeschichtlich’ Investigation of a Markan Seam (Mc 1 21f.),” ZNW 61 (1970): 70–94. Stonehouse, Ned B. The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ. Philadelphia: The Presbyterian Guardian, 1944. Turner, C. H. “Marcan Usage: Notes, Critical and Exegetical on the Second Gospel.” Pages 63–65 in The Language and Style of the Gospel of Mark. Edited by J. K. Elliott. NovTSup 71. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Twelftree, Graham H. Christ Triumphant: Exorcism Then and Now. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1985. –. Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical and Theological Study. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999. –. “Exorcisms in the Fourth Gospel and in the Synoptics.” Pages 135–143 in Jesus in Johannine Tradition. Edited by Robert T. Fortna and Tom Thatcher. Louisville: Westminsters John Knox, 2001. –. In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. –. Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus. WUNT II 54. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993; reprinted, Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2010. –. Paul and the Miraculous: A Historical Reconstruction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. Wefald, Eric K. “The Separate Gentile Mission in Mark: A Narrative Explanation of Markan Geography, the Two Feeding Accounts and Exorcisms,” JSNT 60 (1995): 3–26. Whitaker, Molly. “‘Signs and Wonders’: The Pagan Background,” SE 5 (1968): 155–158. Windisch, Hans. Der zweite Korintherbrief. KEK 6. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1970.

The Ritual Use of Jesus’s Name in Early Christian Exorcism and Healing* Larry W. Hurtado Reference to Jesus’s name is a regular feature of earliest Christian accounts of healings and exorcisms, i.e., those accounts in New Testament texts and some others from the first couple of centuries CE.1 The precise phrasing varies, but clearly the person and name of Jesus are central in these accounts, and this probably attests the actual views and practices of earliest Christians in these settings (or at least the Christian circles in which these accounts originated). These practices include the invocation of Jesus by name as the power to effect the exorcism or healing. On the one hand, this reflects the practice in the wider Roman-era environment of invoking the names of powerful beings (deities, daimons, angels) in various ritual settings such as exorcism, and in “magical” spells.2 On the other hand, within this larger setting, the accounts of earliest Christian exorcism and healing include certain distinguishing features, which must also be noted in any historical analysis of earliest Christian ritual practices, and these distinguishing features will occupy us in the following discussion. At the conference where I gave an earlier version of this essay, Dr. James Starr gave a helpful response with some suggestions that I have gratefully taken on board for this final version. 1 With all due regard for scholarly debates about the use of such terms, in this essay, I use “earliest Christian” as a shorthand term to designate the earliest circles/groups of Jesus-believers, initially composed largely of, or influenced by, Jewish believers. Similarly, the term “pagan” functions as a simple designation of the larger non-Jewish religious environment. Finally, although also a contested term, along with a number of other historians of the period, I use “magic” to characterize the ritual practices in which various spiritual powers were called on and, by use of incantations and binding formulae, were charged to fulfil the wishes of the humans who summoned them. On this last term, cf., e.g., Alan F. Segal, “Hellenistic Magic: Some Questions of Definition,” in Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions, ed. R. Van Den Broek and M. J. Vermaseren (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 349–375; and David E. Aune, “Magic in Early Christianity,” in ANRW, 2.23/2, ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980), 1507–1557. 2 William Q. Parkinson, “‘In the Name of Jesus’: The Ritual Use and Christological Significance of the Name of Jesus in Early Christianity” (PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 2003), is perhaps the most recent wide-ranging discussion of the phenomenon. *

142

Larry W. Hurtado

1. Exclusivity of Jesus’s Name It is a regular feature of ancient “magic” and rituals of exorcism and healing to invoke the names of powerful spirit-beings, to act as a πάρεδρος, or “supernatural assistant.”3 The typical underlying conception was that a correctly done invocation or adjuration of such beings could compel them (bind them) to perform the wishes of the person(s) invoking them, which might be healing, exorcism, revelation of secret knowledge, securing the erotic attention of someone, and still other aims. The typical Greek terms used, ὁρκίζω, ἐνορκίζω, ἐξορκίζω, expressed the exorcist’s aim of obliging/binding the being that was thereby invoked to perform the exorcism or other action sought.4 It was a key element in the procedure to summon these beings by use of their names, and so the practitioner would often request or demand that the being reveal its true, sometimes secret, name, thereby to compel the being more effectively.5 3

Leda Jean Ciraolo, “Supernatural Assistants in the Greek Magical Papyri,” in Ancient Magic and Ritual Power, ed. Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 279–295. For a broad characterization of Roman-era magic (key conceptions and practices), John M. Hull, Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition (SBT 28; London: SCM, 1974), 20–44. See also, Parkinson, “‘In the Name of Jesus’,” 12–66, for a survey of the use of various powerful names in Greco-Roman magic and religion, who, in turn, draws upon Theodor Hopfner, Griechisch-Ägyptischer Offenbarungszauber. Mit einer eingehenden Darstellung des griechisch-synkretistischen Daemonenglaubens und der Voraussetzungen und Mittel des Zaubers überhaupt und der magischen Diviniation im besonderen, ed. R. Merkelbach (2 vols.; Leipzig: Haessel, 1921, 1924; reprint Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1974, 1983). On Romanera exorcism in particular, note the two volumes by Otto Böcher: Dämonenfurcht und Dämonenabwehr. Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der christlichen Taufe, BWA(N)T 90 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970); Christus Exorcista: Dämonismus und Taufe im Neuen Testament, BWA(N)T 96 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972), and his more popularizing discussion: Das Neue Testament und die dämonischen Mächte, SBS 58 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1972). Graham H. Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism Among Early Christians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), also discusses early Christian practice in the context of contemporary exorcism and magic, as also Eric Sorensen, Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity, WUNT II 157 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). 4 E.g., F. Annen, “ὁρκίζω,” EDNT 2:532–533. I return to the use of these terms later in this essay. 5 For overviews of the significance and use of names in ancient ritual practices, e.g., Hans Bietenhard, “ὄνομα,” TDNT 5:242–283. For many examples and discussion, Campbell Bonner, Studies in Magical Amulets, Chiefly Graeco-Egyptian (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1950); idem, “The Technique of Exorcism,” HTR 36 (1943): 39–49; Hans Dieter Betz, ed., The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, including the Demotic Spells, Volume 1: Texts (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986); Roy Kotansky, “Greek Exorcistic Amulets,” in Ancient Magic and Ritual Power, ed. Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 243–278. There are now important recent studies of Jewish magical practice, e.g., Rebecca Macy Lesses, Ritual Practices to Gain Power: Angels, Incantations, and Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism (HTS 44; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998), which focuses on

The Ritual Use of Jesus’s Name

143

Knowledge of the name of the πάρεδρος enables the practitioner to summon and control him. The practitioner need only utter the assistant’s name and he appears, ready to obey.6

Moreover, as various scholars have observed, those who engaged in exorcism and other “magical” practices were typically ready to invoke various powerful beings, and often multiple beings. There is a clear “syncretistic” or eclectic character to the various spells and charms from the ancient world, reflecting a readiness to make use of any named being who was regarded as having an efficacy. So, we have examples of the invocation of various pagan deities, and at least one oft-cited example that also includes invocation of the biblical deity, and Jesus as well, all combined for maximum effect it seems.7 In Jewish magical practice of the Second Temple period and later, likewise, we have appeals to or invocations of various angelic figures.8 The scene in Acts 19:11–20, where, after witnessing Paul’s success in expelling evil spirits, itinerant exorcists try to use the name of Jesus in a rather mechanical manner authentically reflects this readiness to appropriate from various sources powerful names in exorcism (whatever the historicity of this particular event). In his study of ancient Jewish magic, however, Gideon Bohak pointed to certain distinguishing features that are of particular relevance to this discussion. First, although various angelic beings are adjured in Jewish texts, God (YHWH) is not. Bohak opines that Jewish magicians/exorcists felt no need to try to coerce God, as there were “an endless variety of underlings who could be cajoled, and even coerced” into accomplishing the wishes of the magician, and also Jews perhaps felt that, in any case, God could not be coerced.9 Second, in laying out several types of Second Temple era Jewish exorcistic practices, Bohak noted briefly exorcism “in the name of Jesus” as a distinguishable ritual practice. But, presumably because it obviously did not endure Hekhalot literature of late antiquity and early medieval times; Michael Becker, Wunder und Wundertäter im frührabbinischen Judentum: Studien zum Phänomen und seiner Überlieferung im Horizont von Magie und Dämonismus, WUNT II 144 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002); and Gideon Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), which ranges more widely from second-temple time into rabbinic texts. 6 Ciraolo, “Supernatural Assistants,” 281. 7 Kotansky, “Greek Exorcistic Amulets,” 261–266, for analysis of a much-noted example in the Paris Magical Papyrus, which includes an adjuration of “the god of the Hebrews, Jesus, Iaba, iae, abraoth, etc.” Betz, Greek Magical Papyri, 96–97, gives the text (PGM IV.3007– 3086) in translation. 8 See, e.g., Lesses “The Adjuration of the Prince of the Presence: Performative Utterance in a Jewish Ritual,” in Ancient Magic and Ritual Power, ed. Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 185–206, focusing on Hekhalot texts (which, granted, are much later than the NT texts). Bohak (Ancient Jewish Magic, 141) refers to the appeals to angels as a feature of Jewish magic that seems to have “grown hand in hand with the Jewish demonology and angelology” of the Second-Temple period and remained “a permanent fixture of Jewish magic for many centuries to come.” 9 Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic, 54.

144

Larry W. Hurtado

in Jewish tradition, he chose not to discuss it further. He strikingly pointed to exorcism in Jesus’s name in early circles of Jewish believers as “one of the earliest signs of the parting of the ways between Judaism and nascent Christianity.”10 The “parting of the ways” is too complex a matter to engage here. But the ritual use of Jesus’s name noted by Bohak is surely one of several indications and expressions of a discrete group-identity already evident in earliest circles of the Jesus-movement.11 These brief observations provide the context in which to note the first distinguishing feature of the descriptions of earliest Christian exorcistic and healing practices: Jesus’s name is used exclusively.12 That is, over against the frequent use of names of various, and sometimes multiple, beings in pagan magic, and over against a somewhat similar adjuration of various angelic or patriarchal figures in Jewish practices, the earliest Christian evidence is rather consistent in reflecting exorcism and healing in the name of Jesus, and in Jesus’s name alone. Consider, for example, the accounts in Acts where healings or exorcisms are performed by adherents of the Jesus-movement.13 In the first such incident (Acts 3:1–16), Peter is portrayed as ordering a lame man ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ to stand up and walk (v. 6), and Peter then explains to the gathered crowd that the healing was accomplished “through/on the basis of faith in his [Jesus’s] name” (ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ, v. 16).14 Indeed, Peter’s statement goes on the claim that Jesus’s name healed the man (τοῦτον … ἐστερέωσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ). Then, in the arraignment before Jewish leaders, when Peter is asked (4:7) “by what power or in what name [ἐν ποίῳ ὀνόματι]” he acted, Peter responds that it was “in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth” (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραίου, 4:10). Note also that it is in the context of this healing and the ensuing controversy over it that we have the climactic saying ascribed to Peter in Acts 4:12, “there is salvation in none other, for there is no other name under heaven given by which we must be saved.” In short, in this extended narrative, the healing demonstrates the singular efficacy of Jesus’s name, for healing and for salvation, and illustrates also his divine exaltation and designation as the unique and universal saviour.

Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic, 88. I have surveyed the relevant data in a previous publication: “Earliest Expressions of a Discrete Group-Formation among Jesus-Believers,” EstBib 75.3 (2017): 451–470. 12 Parkinson, “‘In the Name of Jesus’,” 207–307, on “The Phenomenology of the Name of Jesus.” 13 A helpful discussion that is now often overlooked is Silva New, “The Name, Baptism, and the Laying on of Hands,” in The Beginnings of Christianity, Part 1: The Acts of the Apostles, Volume V, ed. Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury (London: Macmillan and Co., 1932; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966), 121–139. 14 English translation is my own. 10 11

The Ritual Use of Jesus’s Name

145

The emphasis on Jesus’s name in Acts continues as the Jewish leaders order Peter and John to desist from teaching “in [ἐπί] this/Jesus’s name” (4:17–18, a demand echoed in 5:28, 40), and then also as the gathered Jewish believers then appeal to God to grant them boldness to continue declaring “your word” and to work “signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus” (διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ ἁγίου παιδός σου Ἰησοῦ, 4:29–30). Indeed, in Acts more broadly, the references to Jesus’s name outstrip in frequency any other NT writing, and (to anticipate a later point in this discussion) various other actions are done in Jesus’s name, including baptism (e.g., 2:38, ἐπὶ τῶ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ; 8:16; 19:5, εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ; cf. 10:48, ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ), preaching (e.g., 9:27–28, ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι), and exorcism (16:18, ἐν ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ).15 As well, believers are described as suffering “for” Jesus’s name (ὑπέρ, 5:41; 9:16), called to “bear” his name (βαστάσαι, 9:15), obtaining forgiveness “through” his name (διὰ, 10:43), and risking their lives “for the sake of [ὑπέρ] the name of the Lord Jesus” (15:26). Moreover, we find this pattern in which miracles of healing and exorcism are portrayed as worked exclusively through Jesus’s name in the Gospels narratives as well, where Jesus’s followers are empowered to perform these feats. So, in Luke 10:17 Jesus’s seventy disciples return from their mission and declare joyously that “the demons are subject to us ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι σου.” This seems to be reflected also in a backhanded way in Matt 7:21–23, where Jesus warns that “many” who call him “Lord” and who protest that they have prophesied, cast out demons, and worked many miracles in Jesus’s name (τῷ σῷ ὀνόματι) will, nevertheless, not be admitted to the kingdom of heaven, because they have not done “the will of my Father in heaven.” Also, in Mark 9:38–39 (par. Luke 9:49–50), John Zebedee, reports to Jesus about forbidding a man from casting out demons in Jesus’s name (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου), and Jesus’s more generous response affirms anyone who works miracles “ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου.” However we view this vignette as an actual incident in Jesus’s ministry, in Mark it rather clearly reflects the ritual use of

I count twenty-eight references to Jesus’s name in Acts. The variety of prepositional phrases referring to Jesus’s name is interesting, but it is not always clear whether there was any strong distinction among them. In the NT overall (using BibleWorks 9 and searching the NA27 text), I count at least fourteen instances of ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι, twenty-eight instances of ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι, twelve more of ἐν ὀνόματι, nine instances of εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, and three instances of τῷ ὀνόματι. Textual variants such as ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι (instead of ἐπὶ τῷ ὸνόματι) in Acts 2:38 in B D 1739 and some other witnesses may reflect a preference for, or greater familiarity with, that prepositional phrase in referring to baptism among some circles. See, e.g., the comments on this text in Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 261. 15

146

Larry W. Hurtado

Jesus’s name in the circles of believers for whom Mark wrote, and also likely a certain diversity among them.16 The practice of healing in Jesus’s name is also likely attested in Jas 5:13– 15, where the ill person is to summon church “elders,” who pray over and anoint him/her with oil “in the name of the Lord” (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου, v. 14), and “the prayer of faith” will be produce the desired outcome. In the context of early Christian discourse, “the Lord” whose name is invoked here must be Jesus.17 I emphasize that in all these NT references to exorcisms and healings the only name that is invoked or assigned efficacy is Jesus’s name. So, on the one hand, the linkage of these deeds to Jesus’s name reflects the wider belief in and use of powerful names. But, on the other hand, the use of Jesus’s name exclusively in these accounts sets them apart from the evidence of wider practices of the time in which various and/or multiple beings and names were invoked. Other early Christian texts explicitly draw attention to this exclusive use of Jesus’s name. Justin Martyr (2 Apol. 5.5–6) described how the power of Jesus is displayed in the exorcisms performed by Christians: For throughout the whole world and in your own city many of us who are Christians exorcised in the name of Jesus Christ [κατὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ] who was crucified under Pontius Pilate many who were possessed by demons. And they healed them, though they had not been healed by all the others – exorcists and enchanters and sorcerers [ἐπορκιστῶν καὶ ἐπᾳστῶν και φαρμακευτῶν]. And still they heal, breaking the power of the demons and chasing them away from human beings who were possessed by them.18

16 The man was forbidden because “he was not following us,” which I take here as not being in the same group as John and the twelve. As Adela Yarbro Collins judged, in its present context the scene likely reflected and spoke to the “post-Easter” setting in which there were various circles that comprised the early Jesus-movement of the late first century CE: Mark: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 448 (446–448 for her further discussion of this text). See also Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, 125–127, who (rightly in my view) posited that the issue in the text was “allegiance to the particular group of followers of Jesus, not the method of exorcism” (126). Twelftree also contended that the reference to miracles done “in [ἐπὶ] Jesus’ name” here (9:39) connoted “an exorcism performed by a follower of Jesus as if it had been done by Jesus himself” (127), citing the preceding statements in Mark which refer to receiving one of Jesus’s followers “ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου” as receiving Jesus himself. This may milk more out of the expression in v. 39 than is warranted, however. The variation in participles in the Markan text may, instead, suggest that they were used somewhat interchangeably and simply to ascribe to Jesus the efficacy of the exorcisms. 17 So, e.g., Martin Dibelius and Heinrich Greeven, James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 252. The textual variants, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ are secondary and reflect early attempts to remove any ambiguity as to who the “Lord” is. So, Metzger, Textual Commentary, 614. Later in this discussion I also point to Jas 2:7 and “the good name invoked over you.” 18 Text and translation (slightly modified) from Denis Minns and Paul Parvis, eds., Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 288–289.

The Ritual Use of Jesus’s Name

147

In the Dialogue with Trypho (30.3), Justin similarly claims that in his own day demons are overcome when exorcised in Jesus’s name (ἐξορκιζόμενα κατὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ), showing their subjection to his name (τὰ δαιμόνια ὑποτάσσεσθαι τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ).19 Again, in another passage (Dial. 85.2–3), Justin declares that every demon is overcome and subdued when exorcised (ἐξορκιζόμενον) with Jesus’s name (κατὰ ... τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ τούτου τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ), and he goes on to contrast the efficacy of Jesus’s name with the invocation of the names of “kings, or righteous men, or prophets, or patriarchs” and the use of “fumigations and incantations” (θυμιάμασι καὶ καταδέσμοις) by gentile and Jewish exorcists. Irenaeus makes a similar claim about early Christian ritual practice in performing “various miracles.” He denies the invocation of angels or other incantations, or “any other wicked curious art,” and insists that Christians simply pray to “the Lord [here, God], who made all things … calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Haer. 2.32.5; ANF 1:409).20 Now, of course, we should expect that, despite these claims, the actual practices of Christians in attempting exorcisms or healings contemporary with these early texts may have been more varied, and may have involved the invocation of names and figures other than Jesus. To be sure, in evidence that may reach back as early as the second century CE, it appears that at least some Christians engaged in ritual practices that were much closer to those more typical of the wider environment. Particularly in light of the variety in early Christianity, we should expect to find a certain variety in ritual practices.21 But, to 19 This and other Dialogue texts from Edgar J. Goodspeed, ed., Die ältesten Apologeten: Texte mit kurzen Einleitungen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1914; reprint 1984). 20 In somewhat similar phrasing, Origen (Cels. 3.24) claims that Christians evidence “a marvellous power by the cures which they perform, invoking no other name over those who need their help than that of the God of all things, and of Jesus,” contrasting this efficacy with the inability of others (translation from ANF 4:473). 21 E.g., Marvin Meyer and Richard Smith, eds., Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994). Theodore de Bruyn, “What Did Ancient Christians Say When They Cast out Demons? Inferences from Spells and Amulets,” in Christians Shaping Identity From the Roman Empire to Byzantium: Studies Inspired by Pauline Allen, ed. Geoffrey Dunn and Wendy Mayer (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 64–82, cites examples of Christian practices of the second century and later that involve recitation of what he terms “Christological summaries” and acclamations as part of rituals of exorcism and healing (68– 69), and the use of “esoteric incantations” in some magical amulets that also include appeals to God and/or Jesus (69–72), these, too, dating to the third century and later, as well as more elaborate “long incantations” that formed part of some exorcism efforts in amulets. He concluded that “the evidence leaves no doubt that there were many permutations to what Christian exorcists – or exorcists appealing to the Christians’ god – would have said when warding off or expelling demons” (77). His qualification is worth noting, as it is often difficult to determine whether amulets and “magical” texts that invoke Jesus derive from Christians or from pagans who treated Jesus’s name as a powerful device.

148

Larry W. Hurtado

underscore the point, the NT writings and these other early Christian texts show that the ritual practice that was preferred and found efficacious, at least in those circles that these texts reflect, was the exclusive use of Jesus’s name, and the sole ascription of miracle-working power to Jesus (and/or God working through Jesus). And this exclusive use of Jesus’s name (instead of invocation of various beings/names) identified and distinguished these depictions of the ritual practice of these Christian circles in the ancient context.22 It seems appropriate, therefore, to probe the likely reasons for and meaning of this emphasis on the exclusive use of Jesus’s name in the ritual settings of exorcism and healing. The most obvious and immediate answer is that this reflects the strong belief in Jesus’s uniquely high status and significance that characterized various early Christian circles.23 It is rather clear (and, I presume, not at issue) that, from our earliest extant texts onwards, the risen Jesus was believed to have been exalted by God far above any other power. I trust that no more than a few illustrative texts will be necessary. To begin with a text from one of our earliest extant Christian writings, in Phil 2:9–11, Paul relates the belief that God “highly exalted” (ὑπερύψωσεν) Jesus and bestowed on him “the name above every name,” making it obligatory now for every order of creation to give him obeisance as “Lord Jesus Christ.” Or consider Heb 1:1–14, which emphatically marks off as singular Jesus’s exalted status “in/on the right hand of the majesty on high” (ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, v. 3), superior (κρείττων) to all angels and having “inherited a much more excellent name than theirs” (ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον παρ’ αὐτοὺς κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα, v. 4).24 And recall also Acts 4:12, noted earlier in this discussion, which declares that Jesus’s name alone has heavenly affirmation and is uniquely efficacious for salvation. Given their firm conviction that (other than God) Jesus was far superior to any other being, earthly or unearthly, this is likely why earliest believers apparently invoked Jesus alone as fully sufficient for exorcism and healing. In their faith, Jesus simply trumped all other spiritual powers and authorities.

22 Parkinson, “‘In the Name of Jesus’,” 311, noted the “stark contrast” between the “normative” use of multiple names in Roman-era magical/exorcistic practices and the early Christian use of Jesus’s name alone. 23 I have analysed more fully the place of the risen Jesus in the faith and devotional practices of earliest Christian circles in Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). 24 I have elsewhere proposed that NT references to Jesus ἐν δεξιᾷ in relation to God (in distinction from the phrasing in LXX Ps 109:1, ἐκ δεξιῶν) may have had a particular connotation of greater intimacy, and may reflect the early reading of Ps 16 as predictive of Jesus’s resurrection and exaltation: “Early Christological Interpretation of the Messianic Psalms,” in Ancient Jewish Monotheism and Early Christian Jesus-Devotion: The Context and Character of Christological Faith (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2017), 559–582 (esp. 578–581).

The Ritual Use of Jesus’s Name

149

Why invoke them, when they could call upon the one universal Lord, to whom all else was subject?25 In light of Bohak’s observation mentioned earlier that in early Jewish practice various angels and other figures were invoked, but not YHWH, two further observations present themselves.26 First, the invocation of Jesus in early Christian practice may reflect this differentiation also. For the basic Christological conviction espoused in various early texts is that Jesus (especially in light of his resurrection/exaltation) is the unique agent of God, appointed by God to rule (e.g., 1 Cor 15:20–28; Phil 2:9–11; Heb 1:1–4). Jesus was differentiated, thus, from God, but also, to be sure, uniquely glorified and validated by God, and intimately linked with God in beliefs and devotional practice.27 This introduces my second observation arising from Bohak’s characterization of Jewish magical invocation of various names. In earliest Christian belief and devotion, Jesus was not one powerful figure among others, but, as we have just noted, the singularly exalted Kyrios, his singularity also reflected directly in the ritual practice depicted in our earliest Christian texts. And the exclusive appeal to and invocation of Jesus depicted in earliest accounts of Christian exorcism and healing comprise a specific phenomenological difference, not only from wider pagan practice, but also from practice in other Second Temple Jewish groups.

2. The Early Christian Devotional Pattern The connection to earliest beliefs about Jesus leads to a second major distinguishing feature of the ritual use of Jesus’s name in early Christian healing and exorcism: It forms part of a larger pattern of devotional practice in which the exalted Jesus was central. As noted earlier, Jewish magicians and exorcists might invoke Michael or other angels or esteemed figures such as Solomon, but the point to highlight here is that there is no indication that any of these figures was the object of organized cultic devotion in Jewish circles of the time. Similarly, the eclectic invocation of various beings in pagan magical and exorcistic spells simply reflected the notion that, with the effective wording and

25 “By invoking exclusively the name of Jesus, these early Gentile Christians testify to the fact that they see Jesus as being at the top of the divine hierarchy” (Parkinson, “‘In the Name of Jesus’,” 219–220, and see his chapter six passim). 26 Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic, 54: “The Jewish practitioners were remarkably willing to adjure an endless host of angels and demons, but God Himself was left alone. This was a line in the sand that they never tried to cross.” 27 E.g., Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; London: SCM, 1988; 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998; 3rd ed. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 93–99.

150

Larry W. Hurtado

technique, one might be able to prevail upon these beings to accomplish one’s purpose. No ongoing devotional practice directed to these figures was needed or typical. But the early Christian ritual appeal to Jesus in healing and exorcism was both based on the belief in his superiority that we have noted briefly, and was also one of several ritual settings in which Jesus’s name (or person) featured. I have repeatedly pointed to the “dyadic” devotional pattern evident from our earliest Christian evidence, in which Jesus was reverenced in cultic settings and actions along with God. In this discussion I draw upon this previous work selectively to make the point that early Christian use of Jesus’s name in exorcism and healing was part of this larger devotional pattern.28 Probably the most familiar and most frequently studied setting in which Jesus’s name was invoked is baptism, the initiation ritual that was widely (commonly?) practiced from earliest Christian circles onward.29 As noted briefly already, there is a variety of prepositional phrases used with reference to baptism and its connection to Jesus’s name. This is illustrated in the references to baptism in Acts, which can refer to baptism ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (2:38), εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ (8:16; 19:5), and ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (10:48). In 1 Cor 1:13–15, Paul’s statements that the Corinthian believers were not baptized εἰς τὸ ὄνομα Παύλου or εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα, we most likely have a

Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 93–124; idem, At the Origins of Christian Worship (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 63–97; idem, Lord Jesus Christ, esp. 134–153. In these earlier publications, I used the term “binitarian” to characterize this “two-ish” shape, but more recently I have preferred the term “dyadic,” to avoid the assumption that I was reading later theological categories back into the early period. See, e.g., my discussion of earliest Christian discourse and devotional practice in God in New Testament Theology (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2010). 29 Wilhelm Heitmüller, “Im Namen Jesu”: Eine sprach-und-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Neuen Testament, speziell zur altchristlichen Taufe, FRLANT 1/2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903), is the classic study. He contended that the use of Jesus’s name in baptism marked the baptized person as Jesus’s property. Cf. esp. Lars Hartman, ‘Into the Name of the Lord Jesus’: Baptism in the Early Church (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), however, who argued that referring to baptism as “in the name of Jesus” mainly served to distinguish Christian baptism from others such as John the Baptizer. Cf. also Böcher, Dämonenfurcht und Dämonenabwehr, who argued that early Christian baptism had an exorcistic aspect. Adelheid Ruck-Schröder, Der Name Gottes und der Name Jesu: Eine neutestamentliche Studie, WMANT 80 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener-Verlag, 1999), is focused more on the theological meaning of NT references to Jesus’s name, and offers little as to early Christian ritual practices. Charles A. Gieschen, “The Divine Name in Ante-Nicene Christology,” VC 57 (2003): 115–158, posited that earliest NT references to Jesus’s “name” do not reflect the ritual use of “Jesus,” but instead reflect the conviction that Jesus is and bears the divine name, YHWH. Then, “with the dimming of the practical role of the Tetragrammaton in Christology came the brightening of the significance of the personal name of Jesus as ‘the name that is above all names’ and a centrepiece in worship” (157). I find this line of argument dubious. 28

The Ritual Use of Jesus’s Name

151

reflection of baptism “εἰς” Jesus’s name. In his other references to baptism, the phrasing is slightly different: εἰς Χριστόν Ἰησοῦν (Rom 6:3) and εἰς Χριστόν (Gal 3:27). In yet another apparent reference, Paul speaks of believers as “washed,” “sanctified,” and “justified” ἐν τὸ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ πνευμάτι τοῦ θεοῦ (1 Cor 6:11). But in the sonorous command to baptize in Matt 28:19, the phrasing is εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. I also take the reference in Jas 2:7 to “τὸ καλὸν ὄνομα τὸ ἐπικληθὲν ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς” as reflecting the ritual use of Jesus’s name in baptism.30 Scholars have differed over the precise connotation of these various expressions, but it is neither possible nor necessary for me to engage in considering that issue here. I simply note that in all of these statements the person and the name of Jesus are central, and, indeed, appear to be closely linked. Moreover, it is likely that in the earliest period baptism into the Jesus-movement included an invocation or confession of Jesus by name by the person baptized. Note Acts 22:16, where Ananias is portrayed as urging Paul to rise and be baptized, ἐπικαλεσάμενος τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ [Jesus], this verb typically connoting an appeal to someone (e.g., Acts 25:11) or as here, with the middle-voice forms in cultic contexts, specifically the invocation of a deity.31 The verbal action of “calling upon” the name of Jesus in baptism may have been understood as also a confession or declaration of the faith of the person baptized, affirming Jesus as the one to whom allegiance is now given. In any case, it was clearly a ritual action with cultic significance. In other texts, Acts portrays the dedicated Pharisee, Saul, as directing his efforts against “all those who call upon your [Jesus’s] name” (πάντας τοὺς ἐπικαλουμένους τὸ ὄνομά σου, 9:14), which serves here as a simple characterization of believers. Likewise, in 1 Cor 1:2, Paul uses a similar phrase with the same effect, referring to “all everywhere who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). So, to “call upon the name of Jesus/the Lord Jesus” was a typical cultic action that characterized various early Christian circles. It likely began with a believer’s baptism, and then perhaps continued as a regular feature of the corporate worship setting. The phrasing and the cultic action it designates quite obviously derive from OT references to calling upon the name of YHWH, and particularly Joel 2:32 (LXX 3:5).32 This is evident in Paul’s appropriation of the wording of this text

30 So, e.g., Dibelius and Greeven, James, 140–141, who rightly note that the phrase here is an appropriation and adaptation of an OT expression about the name of YHWH. 31 See, e.g., W. Kirchschläger, “ἐπικαλέω,” EDNT 2:28–29. 32 Among other numerous OT uses of the expression, e.g., Ps 116:13, 17, or the exhortation to “call upon his [YHWH’s] name” in 1 Chr 16:8. Further discussion and instances in Carl

152

Larry W. Hurtado

in Romans 10:13, where he refers to the acclamation, “κύριος Ἰησοῦς” (10:9), and is also attested in the speech ascribed to Peter in Acts 2, which includes a more explicit and extended citation of the Joel passage that likewise culminates in the promise that “whoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved” (v. 21). In relation to exorcism, however, we may have a more striking phenomenon in Paul’s directions to the Corinthian church about how to deal with a man guilty of a particularly unusual form of “porneia” (1 Cor 5:1–5). We cannot linger here over the various other questions posed by this passage, such as what precisely was to be the effect of Paul’s order to “hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh” (v. 5).33 Whatever else was involved, the immediate intention was to expel the man from the Corinthian church fellowship. The point that I focus on here is that the gathering of the church and, in my view, the execution of this ritual were to be done “ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ.” The numinous significance of this is likely confirmed in the accompanying phrase “σὺν τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ” (v. 4).34 The action in question seems to be almost a polar opposite of exorcism. Instead of expulsion of a demon, the offending member of the church is solemnly “handed over” (παραδοῦναι) to Satan (albeit, with a positive ultimate aim), and the efficacy of the actions in question lies in the “name” and “power” of Jesus. But the ritual in question surely reflects a belief in the unique efficacy of Jesus and the ritual power of his name. Scholars often see another allusion to the acclamation/confession of Jesus by name in 1 Cor 12:3, where Paul says that the Holy Spirit prompts the cry, “Κύριος Ἰησοῦς!”35 There is likely another allusion to this cultic action in Phil 2:9–11, which declares that “ἐν ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ” all spheres of creation are to confess, “Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός.” Early believers probably saw their confession of Jesus in baptism and the worship setting as an anticipation of the eschatological, universal obeisance to him portrayed in this text. Judson Davis, The Name and Way of the Lord: Old Testament Themes, New Testament Christology, JSNTSup 129 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 103–110. 33 David R. Smith, ‘Hand This Man Over to Satan’: Curse, Exclusion and Salvation in 1 Corinthians 5, LNTS 386 (London: T&T Clark, 2008), contended that the action was intended to cause the man’s death, but cf. J. T. South, “A Critique of the ‘Curse/Death’ Interpretation of 1 Cor. 5:1–8,” NTS 39 (1993): 539–561, and the extended discussion of the various views in the history of scholarship on the question in Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 384–400. 34 I ignore here the textual variants in both phrases, which have to do with precisely how Jesus is referred to. There is no question that he is the referent in these phrases, whose name and power is invoked. 35 For a recent analysis and review of the many proposals about the possible setting of the contrasting cries in 1 Cor 12:3, “Jesus is cursed,” and “Jesus is Lord,” see, e.g., Thiselton, Corinthians, 918–927.

The Ritual Use of Jesus’s Name

153

In other devotional actions as well, the risen Jesus was central. Among these, note Jesus’s importance in the common meals of various early Christian circles. Paul refers to the meal as “the Lord’s supper” (1 Cor 11:20) and links it explicitly with Jesus’s death and parousia (11:23–26). He also judges taking part in cult-meals in honor of pagan deities as incompatible with believers partaking of the Christian common meal, which he refers to also in cultic terms as “the cup of the Lord” and “the table of the Lord” (1 Cor 10:21); and it should be obvious that the “Lord” here is the risen Jesus. Other early texts reflect Jesus’s central place in early Christian prayer, whether as the unique intercessor or agent through whom prayer is offered to God, or as the unique co-recipient (with God) of prayer, or as the direct recipient himself of prayer.36 Perhaps particularly germane to the use of Jesus’s name are the seven-fold encouragements to prayer in Jesus’s name (ἐν ὀνόματὶ μου) in the “farewell discourse” in John.37 Whether this involved the overt use of this phrase in prayer, it must surely advocate prayer that proceeds on the basis of Jesus’s unique status and favor with God. Recall also the characterization of the “children of God” in John as “those who believe in his [Jesus’s] name” (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ, 1:12), and that the stated aim of the author of John was to further belief that Jesus is the Son of God, so that “believing you may have life in his name” (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ, 20:31). In 1 John 3:23, similarly, the author states as the divine commandment “that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ” (πιστεύσωμεν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). My point here is that in earliest Christian beliefs and, importantly, in devotional practices as well, Jesus’s name was often (perhaps typically) central.38

36

E.g., Jesus as intercessor (Rom 8:34; 1 John 2:1), Jesus as recipient/co-recipient of prayer (1 Thess 3:11–13; 2 Thess 2:16–17; 3:5, 16; 2 Cor 12:6–10; Acts 7:55–56), prayer to God through Jesus (Rom 1:8; 7:25). Larry W. Hurtado, “The Place of Jesus in Earliest Christian Prayer and Its Import for Early Christian Identity,” in Early Christian Prayer and Identity Formation, ed. Reidar Hvalvik and Karl Olav Sandnes (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 35–56, republished in Larry W. Hurtado, Ancient Jewish Monotheism and Early Christian Jesus-Devotion: The Context and Character of Christological Faith (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2017), 615–634. 37 John 14:13, 14, 26; 15:16; 16:23, 24, 26. See esp. Franz Georg Untergassmair, Im Namen Jesu—Der Namensbegriff im Johannesevangelium: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den johanneischen Namenaussagen, FB 13 (Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974). Also now, cf. Joshua J. F. Coutts, The Divine Name in the Gospel of John, WUNT II 447 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), who argues that the Johannine emphasis on the name of God (“the Father”) is distinctive among early Christian texts. 38 For a discussion of this in another, later Christian author, see Larry W. Hurtado, “‘Jesus’ As God’s Name, and Jesus As God’s Embodied Name in Justin Martyr,” in Justin Martyr and His Worlds, ed. Sara Parvis and Paul Foster (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 128–136; republished in Larry W. Hurtado, Ancient Jewish Monotheism and Early Christian Jesus-

154

Larry W. Hurtado

This makes the early Christian use of Jesus’s name in healings and exorcism one of several features of a larger pattern of devotion to Jesus, and, thereby, this is another phenomenological distinction of early Christian exorcism and healing. Whereas, more typically, exorcists and other miracle-workers might invoke the names of various figures, simply because their names were held to possess some potency, with no ongoing devotional or cultic practice directed to them, the earliest Christian use of Jesus’s name (and, recall, the exclusive use of Jesus’s name) was part of a large fabric of devotional/cultic practice.

3. The Simplicity of Method As noted briefly earlier, Roman-era descriptions of the practices involved in healing and exorcism typically portray various techniques employed to assure success. We have already noted the use of various powerful names. Another frequent feature was the use of various potions, rings, seals, fumigations, and sounds.39 One of the most well-known examples is the instruction by the angel Raphael to Tobias for driving off the demon in Tob 6:1–9, which involved burning a fish’s heart and liver to make a smoke that will have the desired effect (v. 8). Or consider Josephus’s account of the exorcist, Eleazar, who is portrayed as drawing upon a body of exorcistic lore attributed to Solomon (Ant. 8.44–49). Josephus claims to have witnessed this man’s technique in dealing with a person afflicted by a demon, which included the use of a ring with a special seal, various incantations (ἐπῳδάς) and a strong-smelling root of a plant, by which Eleazar would draw out the demon through the nostrils of the afflicted person, thereby (says Josephus), demonstrating “the understanding and wisdom of Solomon” (8.49). It is interesting, therefore, that, by contrast, the earliest Christian descriptions of healings and exorcisms, by Jesus and members of the Jesus-movement, reflect a much simpler approach.40 In the Gospel narratives of Jesus’s miracles, Devotion: The Context and Character of Christological Faith (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2017), 601–613. 39 Many examples given in Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri, e.g., 3–4 (PGM I.1–42), a spell for success in securing sex with someone, which involves the use of fingernails, hairs, a falcon, milk from a black cow, Attic honey, and myrrh, plus other offerings. For an overview of ancient magical practice, see Hull, Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition, 20–44. Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic, esp. 87–114, for the techniques of Jewish exorcism in the Second Temple period. 40 Cf. Twelftree, In the Name of Jesus, esp. ch. 2, “Jesus and Other Exorcists” (35–54). There is a similarity to the descriptions of the miracle-working of certain Jewish hasids, such as Honi “the circle-drawer,” and also Apollonius of Tyanna, although the texts for all these figures are much later, and at least in the case of Philostratus’s account of Apollonius, was

The Ritual Use of Jesus’s Name

155

for example, he does not invoke any other being, or pronounce any powerful name, but, instead, is depicted as exorcising and healing by his own authority (which, to be sure, the Gospels portray as delegated to him by God).41 In scenes such as Mark 1:21–28 the author narrates Jesus simply expelling the demon with a command, and portrays the onlookers as highly impressed at this (v. 27). To be sure, there are also some occasional similarities between the Gospel accounts and descriptions of exorcists and the behaviour of demons and their victims in non-Christian texts.42 So, for example, in the lengthy account in Mark 5:1–20, the demonic horde complies with Jesus’s demand to identify themselves (v. 9), and the destruction of the herd of pigs is a dramatic confirmation of the flight of the demons from the man (vv. 12–13).43 Likewise, the portrayal of the demon shrieking and convulsing the afflicted boy in Mark 9:25–27 may be another instance of this. Also, as the case with other exorcists of the time, to be sure, Jesus orders demons to exit their victims and not return (ἔξελθε, e.g., Mark 1:25; 9:25). But, to cite a noteworthy difference between the earliest Christian accounts and the wider practice of magic, neither in Jesus’s miracles nor in the miracles ascribed to his followers do we see them using the common terms to address and command or compel demons, ὁρκίζω, ἐνορκίζω, ἐξορκίζω. Indeed, the only two instances of ὁρκίζω in the entire NT are in the futile attempt of the demons to thwart Jesus in Mark 5:7, and the unsuccessful effort of Jewish exorcists to use Jesus’s name magically in Acts 19:13.44 Instead, I reiterate that

clearly a response to, and was likely influenced by, the Gospel accounts of Jesus. Twelftree classified various types of exorcists, and placed Jesus in a category he labelled “charismatic exorcists” (44–45). 41 Noted by Todd E. Klutz, “The Grammar of Exorcism in the Ancient Mediterranean World: Some Cosmological, Semantic, and Pragmatic Reflections on How Exorcistic Prowess Contributed to the Worship of Jesus,” in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism, ed. Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 156–165. 42 Bonner, “The Technique of Exorcism,” 39–49, points to similarities between exorcism accounts in the Gospels and pagan magical texts, but fails to note the significant differences that I discuss briefly here. 43 But we should also note that details in this lengthy account in Mark seem to have some symbolic connotations. The demonic name “legion” is obviously a Roman military term, and the large herd of pigs that drown may likewise allude to pagan cultic practices, in which pigs were commonly sacrificed See, e.g., Earl S. Johnson, “Mark 5: 1-20: The Other Side,” IBS 20 (1998): 50–74. 44 The related word, ἐξορκίζω, is used only in Matt 26:63, on the lips of the high priest, who adjures Jesus to confess his claim to be Messiah (cf. the variant, ὀρκίζω, in D L Θ and some other witnesses). The only use of ἐνορκίζω is in 1 Thess 5:27, where Paul orders that his letter be read to all the church.

156

Larry W. Hurtado

the accounts in the Gospels and in Acts depict healings and exorcisms performed by Jesus or early Christian leaders with rather simple commands.45 As examples, in the Gospels Jesus simply orders demons to be silent and depart (Mark 1:25; 5:8), and his healings likewise are effected typically by short and simple commands, as in the Markan accounts of the leper (1:41–42), the paralyzed man (2:11–12), or the Syrophoenician woman (7:29–30). The same is true of the dramatic storm-stilling narrative in Mark 4:39. Granted, the author depicts Jesus rebuking the wind and addressing waves as animate forces, but in starkly simple commands: “be silent, be muzzled.”46 If we peruse the relevant accounts in Acts, we get the same pattern with regard to the exorcisms and healings ascribed to Jesus’s followers. For example, in the healing of the lame man at the Temple gate, Peter’s bare statement, 45

As noted the case in Luke-Acts by Susan R. Garrett, The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Luke’s Writings (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 92. The same is true for the other Gospels. Twelftree (In the Name of Jesus, 46) seems to overstate matters in stating that the Gospels portray Jesus as making use of “standard formulas or incantations used by exorcists of ancient magic.” Ordering demons to depart or be silent or not return to their victims hardly comprises “incantations.” Cf., however, Twelftree’s acknowledgement of “some distinctive features of Jesus as an exorcist” (48–49). 46 Twelftree (In the Name of Jesus, 48) notes that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’s use of “the emphatic I” has “no parallel in any other incantation or exorcism story in the ancient world.” The account of Jesus’s healing of the deaf-mute in Mark 7:31–37 may seem a contrast, with Jesus putting his fingers in the man’s ears, spitting, touching the man’s tongue, sighing, and looking heavenward, and the utterance, “εφφαθα” (“be open”; Aramaic: ‫)אתפתח‬. But the exceptional features of this scene seem to make it more likely that the author intended to portray something other than magical technique (contra, e.g., Hull, Hellenistic Magic, 82–86). Instead, these details may simply be for dramatic effect, and to portray Jesus acting out a kind of signlanguage, to indicate to the man what he intends to do. Certainly, here as in 5:41, Mark includes the use of non-Greek words, which at first may appear to be examples of ῥήσεις βαρβαρικαί, the use of foreign words or exotic-sounding words in magical incantations. But the consistent translation of these words in Mark in fact violates the key principle of the magic, as noted earlier by various scholars cited and agreed with by Barry Blackburn, Theios Anēr and the Markan Miracle Traditions (WUNT II 40; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 221 n198. I suggest that Mark, thus, deploys these Semitic words with their translations in these particular miracle stories as a literary device, precisely to distinguish Jesus’s actions from magical practices! I made the basic observation offered here earlier: Larry W. Hurtado, Mark, NIBCNT (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1989), 87. Cf. Yarbro Collins, Mark (285, 372), who rightly states that these are not instances of magical formulas or incantations, but then, curiously, suggests that for the Greek-speaking original readers “the Aramaic words were in themselves perceived to be mysterious and powerful” (286), agreeing here with Gerd Theissen, The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 254, and Hull, Hellenistic Magic, 85. Hull claimed, dubiously, that foreign words were “sometimes” translated “for the professional use of the healers and exorcists” (citing PGM XXXVI.315, which does not actually substantiate Hull’s claim). In any case, Mark was not written for such a purpose! On this whole topic, see now Alfredo Delgado Gomez, “¡Levàntate! ¡Ábrete! El Idiolecto de Marcos a la Luz de la Sociolingüistica,” EstEcl 93 (2018): 29–86.

The Ritual Use of Jesus’s Name

157

“in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, stand up and walk” (3:6) is more a command than an incantation or a spell. The same is true of Peter’s healing of Aeneas (9:32–35): “Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you; get up and make your bed!” In another scene, even when reviving a dead woman, Peter merely says, “Tabitha, get up” (9:40). In the narrative of his healing of a crippled man in Lystra, Paul says simply, “Stand upright on your feet” (14:10). Even in the scene where Paul exorcises the spirit of divination from a young woman, he only issues the command (παραγγέλλω), “in the name of Jesus Christ … come out of her” (16:18). On the one hand, it is fairly clear that the healings and exorcisms in Acts are worked “in the name of Jesus,” and in at least some cases this likely involved actually saying something to this effect, naming Jesus explicitly, and thereby invoking his power. Indeed, to repeat an earlier emphasis, Jesus is the only power or authority that they invoke or cite. On the other hand, the variation in the wording ascribed to Jesus’s followers in these Acts narratives (noted previously) gives us no fixed formula or incantation to be conveyed and recited carefully. Instead, the Acts narratives seem to emphasize more the power of the person of Jesus, rather than the efficacy of mechanically pronouncing names or a form of words.47 This is perhaps most dramatically conveyed in the somewhat humorous account of the seven Jewish exorcists briefly noted earlier, who attempt to invoke Jesus’s name magically, with unfortunate results (Acts 19:11–16). The narrative then declares, somewhat ironically, that the news of their misadventure among the city populace produced awe, “and the name of the Lord Jesus was praised” (19:17). But the author obviously meant the story to demonstrate, not “Jesus” as a powerful name that could be used in magic spells by just anyone. Instead, the text projects something distinguishable. This is conveyed in the ensuing narrative, which depicts a number of those who had practiced magic burning their books of incantations and spells (v. 19), and so, “the word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed” (v. 20).48

47 Twelftree (In the Name of Jesus, 53) posited that “the most significant” distinguishing features of the exorcisms ascribed to Jesus’s followers are their “high level of confidence” and “the extreme brevity of their method, both of which are not generally seen in the magical literature.” 48 The reference to those who practiced τὰ περίεργα in Acts 19:19 is rightly to be taken as a reference to various magical practices, as shown long ago by Adolf Deissmann, Bible Studies, trans. Alexander Grieve (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1923), 323 n5. Consequently, I am not persuaded by Dirk Rohmann’s view that the term presents a semantic “problem,” and that the books may have included works of philosophy, etc.: Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2017), 112– 113.

158

Larry W. Hurtado

4. Summary I hope that the preceding discussion has made my points adequately clear, and so a brief summary will suffice. For earliest Christians, demonic forces and the need to exorcise them were uncontested facts, and so we should expect there to be certain similarities between early Christian ritual practices of exorcism and healing and those of the wider Roman world. We might particularly expect there to be similarities with ancient Jewish practices. In some matters, this expectation is not disappointed. To cite perhaps the most important example, early Christians called upon the exalted Jesus, and typically by name, to effect exorcism and healing, reflecting somewhat similar practices of appealing to and/or invoking the names of various beings in the wider environment. But it is striking that the earliest depictions of, and references to, Christian exorcism and healing reflect the distinguishing practice of invoking Jesus alone, to the exclusion of the many other deities and angels that feature in the evidence of pagan and also Jewish exorcism and “magic.” This exclusive invocation of Jesus comports clearly with the unique place of Jesus in earliest Christian beliefs. Another distinguishing feature of earliest Christian exorcism and healing is that this exclusive invocation of Jesus was only one expression of a devotional pattern in which Jesus was reverenced uniquely in ways otherwise reserved for God in other expressions of Second Temple Jewish tradition. That is, unlike non-Christian practices (pagan and Jewish), earliest Christian exorcistic and healing practices reflect, and were part of, a constellation of devotional practices in which Jesus was uniquely central. This in turn helps account for other distinguishing features of earliest Christian exorcism and healing. For example, we do not have evidence of the use of fixed formulas or incantations. Jesus was invoked by name, but the variations in phrasing indicate that earliest Christians looked to the power and person of Jesus, rather than to the power of any form of words. Similarly, we do not see use of standard terms found in other magical/exorcistic texts that reflect the aim of coercing a spirit-power to perform a desired deed. Instead, the earliest Christian texts advocate a ritual practice that is tied to a relationship of trust and obeisance to the person of Jesus. In short, a truly historical analysis of earliest Christian exorcism and healing practices leads us to see both some similarities to the wider world of Romanera exorcism and magic (though some are of a somewhat simple, even banal nature), and also certain distinguishing features, which I think are all the more interesting.49 Moreover, these distinguishing features are not trivial or 49 One might also cite the curious descriptions in Acts where ill people are placed in the hope of Peter’s shadow falling on them (5:15), or where healing and exorcism were produced through the use of cloths that had touched Paul’s skin (19:11–12), as “magical” phenomena,

The Ritual Use of Jesus’s Name

159

incidental matters, but, instead, directly correspond to the core content and character of earliest Christian beliefs and devotional life in which Jesus was central.

Bibliography Aune, David E. “Magic in Early Christianity.” Pages 1507–1557 in ANRW, 2.23/2. Edited by H. Temporini and W. Haase. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980. Becker, Michael. Wunder und Wundertäter im frührabbinischen Judentum: Studien zum Phänomen und seiner Überlieferung im Horizont von Magie und Dämonismus. WUNT II 144. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Betz, Hans Dieter, ed. The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Including the Demotic Spells, Volume 1: Texts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. Blackburn, Barry. Theios Anēr and the Markan Miracle Traditions. WUNT II 40. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991. Böcher, Otto. Dämonenfurcht und Dämonenabwehr. Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der christlichen Taufe. BWA(N)T 90. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970. –. Christus Exorcista: Dämonismus und Taufe im Neuen Testament. BWA(N)T 96. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972. –. Das Neue Testament und die dämonischen Mächte. SBS 58. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1972. Bohak, Gideon. Ancient Jewish Magic: A History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Bonner, Campbell. “The Technique of Exorcism,” HTR 36 (1943): 39–49. –. Studies in Magical Amulets, Chiefly Graeco-Egyptian. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1950. Ciraolo, Leda Jean. “Supernatural Assistants in the Greek Magical Papyri.” Pages 279–295 in Ancient Magic and Ritual Power. Edited by Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Coutts, Joshua J. F. The Divine Name in the Gospel of John. WUNT II 447. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. Davis, Carl Judson. The Name and Way of the Lord: Old Testament Themes, New Testament Christology. JSNTSup 129. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. de Bruyn, Theodore. “What Did Ancient Christians Say When They Cast out Demons? Inferences from Spells and Amulets.” Pages 64–82 in Christians Shaping Identity from the Roman Empire to Byzantium: Studies Inspired by Pauline Allen. Edited by Geoffrey Dunn and Wendy Mayer. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Deissmann, Adolf. Bible Studies. Translated by Alexander Grieve. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1923. Dibelius, Martin and Heinrich Greeven. James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976.

which the author relates without apparent disapproval. Aune, “Magic in Early Christianity,” emphasizes features of early Christian ritual practice that are similar to those associated with “magic.” Without denying similarities, there are also distinguishing features, and to identify them is not no place early Christianity in a sealed box or to portray is as fallen from heaven!

160

Larry W. Hurtado

Garrett, Susan R. The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Luke’s Writings. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989. Gieschen, Charles A. “The Divine Name in Ante-Nicene Christology.” VC 57 (2003): 115– 158. Gomez, Alfredo Delgado. “¡Levàntate! ¡Ábrete! El Idiolecto de Marcos a la Luz de la Sociolingüistica,” EstEcl 93 (2018): 29–86. Goodspeed, Edgar J. Die ältesten Apologeten: Texte mit kurzen Einleitungen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1914; reprint 1984. Hartman, Lars. ‘Into the Name of the Lord Jesus’. Baptism in the Early Church. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997. Heitmüller, Wilhelm. “Im Namen Jesu”. Eine sprach-und-religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Neuen Testament, speziell zur altchristlichen Taufe. FRLANT 1/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903. Hopfner, Theodor. Griechisch-Ägyptischer Offenbarungszauber. Mit einer eingehenden Darstellung des griechisch-synkretistischen Daemonenglaubens und der Voraussetzungen und Mittel des Zaubers überhaupt und der magischen Diviniation im besonderen, ed. R. Merkelbach. 2 vols. Leipzig: Haessel, 1921, 1924; reprint Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1974, 1983. Hull, John M. Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition. SBT 28. London: SCM, 1974. Hurtado, Larry W. Mark. NIBCNT. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1989. –. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press; London: SCM, 1988; 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998; 3rd ed. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. –. At the Origins of Christian Worship: The Context and Character of Earliest Christian Devotion. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. –. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. –. God in New Testament Theology. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2010. –. “The Place of Jesus in Earliest Christian Prayer and Its Import for Early Christian Identity.” Pages 35–56 in Early Christian Prayer and Identity Formation. Edited by Reidar Hvalvik and Karl Olav Sandnes. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014, republished in Larry W. Hurtado, Ancient Jewish Monotheism and Early Christian Jesus-Devotion: The Context and Character of Christological Faith (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2017), 615–634. –. “Earliest Expressions of a Discrete Group-Formation among Jesus-Believers.” EstBib 75 (2017): 451–470. –. “Early Christological Interpretation of the Messianic Psalms.” Pages 559–582 in Ancient Jewish Monotheism and Early Christian Jesus-Devotion: The Context and Character of Christological Faith. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2017. –. “‘Jesus’ As God’s Name, and Jesus As God’s Embodied Name in Justin Martyr.” Pages 128–136 in Justin Martyr and His Worlds. Edited by Sara Parvis and Paul Foster. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007; republished in Larry W. Hurtado, Ancient Jewish Monotheism and Early Christian Jesus-Devotion: The Context and Character of Christological Faith (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2017), 601–613. Johnson, Earl S. “Mark 5: 1-20: The Other Side,” IBS 20 (1998): 50–74. Klutz, Todd E. “The Grammar of Exorcism in the Ancient Mediterranean World: Some Cosmological, Semantic, and Pragmatic Reflections on How Exorcistic Prowess Contributed to the Worship of Jesus.” Pages 156–165 in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism. Edited by Carey C. Newman, James R. Davila, and Gladys S. Lewis. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

The Ritual Use of Jesus’s Name

161

Kotansky, Roy. “Greek Exorcistic Amulets.” Pages 243–278 in Ancient Magic and Ritual Power. Edited by Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Lesses, Rebecca Macy. “The Adjuration of the Prince of the Presence: Performative Utterance in a Jewish Ritual.” Pages 185–206 in Ancient Magic and Ritual Power. Edited by Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki. Leiden: Brill, 1995. –. Ritual Practices to Gain Power: Angels, Incantations, and Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Meyer, Marvin and Richard Smith, eds. Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994. Minns, Denis and Paul Parvis, eds. Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. New, Silva. “The Name, Baptism, and the Laying on of Hands.” Pages 121–139 in The Beginnings of Christianity, Part 1: The Acts of the Apostles, Volume V. Edited by Kirsopp Lake and Henry J. Cadbury. London: Macmillan and Co., 1932; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966. Origen, Cels. In The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325. Vol. 4, Edited by Sir James Donaldson and Alexander Roberts. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Parkinson, William Q. “‘In the Name of Jesus’: The Ritual Use and Christological Significance of the Name of Jesus in Early Christianity.” PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 2003. Rohmann, Dirk. Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, Studies in Text Transmission. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2017. Original edition, Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016. Ruck-Schröder, Adelheid. Der Name Gottes und der Name Jesu: Eine neutestamentliche Studie, WMANT 80. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener-Verlag, 1999. Segal, Alan F. “Hellenistic Magic: Some Questions of Definition.” Pages 349–375 in Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions. Edited by R. Van Den Broek and M. J. Vermaseren. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Smith, David R. ‘Hand This Man Over to Satan’: Curse, Exclusion and Salvation in 1 Corinthians 5. LNTS 386. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Sorensen, Eric. Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity. WUNT II 157. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. South, J. T. “A Critique of the ‘Curse/Death’ Interpretation of 1 Cor. 5:1-8.” NTS 39 (1993): 539–561. Theissen, Gerd. The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983. Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. NIGTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Twelftree, Graham H. In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Untergassmair, Franz Georg. Im Namen Jesu—Der Namensbegriff im Johannesevangelium: Eine exegetisch-religionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den johanneischen Namenaussagen, FB 13. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1974. Yarbro Collins, Adela. Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.

Part II

Healing and Exorcism in the Early Church

The Wondrous Gospel of John: Jesus’s Miraculous Deeds in Late Ancient Editorial and Scholarly Practice Jennifer W. Knust and Tommy Wasserman The Old Greek chapter divisions in the Gospels and their accompanying titles, Hermann von Soden observed over a century ago, focus attention on “the colorful (farbigen) and somehow wonderful (irgendwie wunderbaren) images” of Jesus.1 Late ancient Gospel editors placed divisions – chapters (kephalaia) marked with titles (titloi) and listed in a table (pinax) – at the start of miracle stories, parables, or major speeches by Jesus; miracles, in particular, were each assigned a separate kephalaion.2 More recent studies have also taken note of this phenomenon. As Greg Goswell observes, for example, the “hermeneutical effect” of these chapters and titles is “to elevate in the eyes of the reader certain passages over others” and “it is the miracle stories that are highlighted.”3 Miracles were treated as discrete narrative blocks in these divisions, James Edwards notes, irrespective of their place in a broader Gospel narrative.4 The kephalaion with the titlos “concerning the woman with a flow of blood” (at Matt 9:20; Mark 5:25; Luke 8:43), for example, “wrenches the woman from Hermann von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte, 2 parts in 4 vols., 2nd unchanged ed. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911–1913), 1:429: “Man wird ihm den Vorwurf kaum ersparen können, dass er nicht mit voller Beherrschung des Materials an seine κεφ-Markierung sich machte, dass er vor allem in der Fassung der Titel sehr skrupellos war, dass er unverdienter Massen eine Reihe von eigenartigen Erzählungen unmarkiert liess, dass er zu einseitig sich für die farbigen und irgendwie wunderbaren Bilder interessierte.” 2 Von Soden, Die Schriften, 1:422; Henry K. McArthur, “The Earliest Divisions of the Gospels,” SE III (= TU 88) 271; cf. James R. Edwards, “The Hermeneutical Significance of Chapter Divisions in Ancient Gospel Manuscripts,” NTS 56 (2010): 413–426; Greg Goswell, “Early Readers of the Gospels: The Kephalaia and Titloi of Codex Alexandrinus,” JGRChJ 6 (2009): 134–174. 3 Goswell, “Early Readers,” 141, 171. 4 Edwards, “Hermeneutical Significance,” 418. As Edwards explains, the remaining three miracles are (1) the summary report of Jesus’s exorcisms in Mark 3:7–12; (2) the healing of the severed ear of the high priest’s servant in Luke 22:51 (in the passion narrative which is already the most highly structured in the divisions); and (3) the opening of the tombs at the crucifixion in Matt 27:52–53 (technically not a miracle by Jesus) (p. 419). Edwards concludes that Christology is the main purpose of these chapters; thus, the miracles are designed to contribute to Christological understanding (Hermeneutical Significance, 420–421). 1

166

Jennifer W. Knust and Tommy Wasserman

the flanking stories of Jairus’s daughter” (Matt 9:18–26; Mark 5:21–43; Luke 8:40–56), interrupting the chiastic structure of the two stories.5 Similarly, a titlos marks the miracle of the paralytic (Matt 9:1–8; Mark 2:1–12; Luke 5:18– 25) at the point in the narrative where Jesus encounters the paralytic (Matt 9:2; Mark 2:3; Luke 5:18) and not at the opening scene.6 Miracles are not the exclusive focus of the kephalaia and titloi – striking deeds and teachings are also marked – but they play a prominent role, especially in the system as it appears in John.7 Seven Johannine miracles – each of the “signs” (σημεία) – are commonly marked, along with other remarkable episodes like Jesus’s encounter with Nicodemus, the washing of the disciples’ feet, and the promise of the Paraclete, for a total of eighteen chapters.8 Written into the folia of the Gospel, these divisions and their titles enabled readers to locate the wondrous deeds of Jesus quickly, placing an emphasis on the surprising capacity of Christ – and therefore of the Christian God – to transform the material world.

1. The Kephalaia in a World of Wonders The heightened focus on Jesus’s teachings and wondrous deeds, as reflected in the kephalaia and titloi, sometimes even at the expense of a Gospel’s literary structure, may seem surprising to readers more accustomed to Bibles transmitted by way of Western Europe. Modern critical editions of the New Testament omit the titloi entirely, sometimes including the kephalaia numbers but without either their accompanying titles or the prefatory pinakes.9 Instead, these editions print a set of chapter divisions supplied to the Vulgate by thirteenth-century scholars at the University of Paris and a versification system introduced by Robert Estienne (Stephanus) during the early age of printed Protestant Bibles.10 Like the kephalaia and titloi, these Western European chapters and 5 Edwards, “Hermeneutical Significance,” 418. This was noted by Von Soden, Die Schriften, 1:422, “Jede Wundererzählung bildet ein besonderes κεφ, und dies wird so peinlich durchgeführt, dass selbst die Zwischenepisode mit dem blutflüssigen Weiblein Mt ις, Mk ιγ, Lk κς als ein κεφ für sich gezählt wird, obgleich so das κεφ mit Jairi Töchterlein zerstört wird …” 6 Goswell draws a similar conclusion about the chapter divisions, concluding, “One clear trend within all four Gospels is the highlighting of the element of the miraculous in the ministry of Jesus and (the reverse side of this) the downplaying of his teaching (“Early Readers,” 173). 7 McArthur, “Earliest Divisions,” 271; also see W. Andrew Smith, A Study of the Gospels in Codex Alexandrinus: Codicology, Palaeography, and Scribal Hands, NTTSD 48 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 161–179. 8 Goswell, “Early Readers,” 169–170; Smith, Codex Alexandrinus, 177–178. 9 This is the practice of the NA28. The UBS5 and SBLGNT editions do not print either the kephalaia numbers or the titloi. The forthcoming Novum Testamentum Graecum Editio Critica Maior (ECM) editions of the Gospels will also exclude this information. 10 Chapters: Amaury d’Esneval, “La division de la vulgate latine en chapitres dans l’édition Parisienne du XIIIe siècle,” RSPT 62 (1978): 559–568; Laura Light, “The Bible and the

The Wondrous Gospel of John

167

verses broke up the text into manageable units, enabled ready citation and cross-reference, and served as helpful finding aids.11 Yet their purposes were quite different: medieval chapters were introduced in a university setting and spread thanks to a rising commercial Bible market in Paris.12 The addition of verses, invented alongside the Protestant Textus Receptus, was a technological innovation that enabled even greater citational specificity, a helpful feature in an age when contestation over the “literal” and “grammatical” meaning of scriptures was at the center of Protestant-Catholic controversy.13 The introduction of the Old Greek Chapters and titles was also a technological and editorial innovation, but with a different history, now largely lost to us; no Christian writer explains why the kephalaia were added, when, and with what criteria in mind. Still, the interest in Jesus’s wondrous deeds and striking sayings resonates with a broader emphasis on the efficacy of divine intervention characteristic of the period in which the Christian Gospels were written, copied, and proclaimed. In antiquity, gods certified their regard by providing concrete benefits to those who worshiped them, offering protection from disaster, victory in battle, recovery from illness, and success in childbearing, among other blessings.14 The followers of Jesus also assumed that their God could and would offer healing, comfort, and eventually vindication, albeit at the resurrection of the righteous and not in the current age. The Gospels therefore entered a competitive world of wonders and the evangelists did not shrink from associating Jesus with miraculous deeds of power. They presented Christ expelling demons, Individual: The Thirteenth-Century Paris Bible,” in The Practice of the Bible in the Middle Ages: Production, Reception, and Performance in Western Christianity, ed. Susan Boynton and Diane J. Reilly (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011), 233–234; Paul Saenger, “The Twelfth-Century Reception of Oriental Languages and the Graphic Mise en page of Latin Vulgate Bibles Copied in England,” in Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible, ed. Eyal Poleg and Laura Light (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 48–54. Saenger has challenged the older view that Langton is (solely) responsible for the chapter divisions. Verses: Paul Saenger, “The Impact of the Early Printed Page on the Reading of the Bible,” in The Bible as Book: The First Printed Editions, ed. Paul Sanger and Kimberley van Kampen (London: British Library, 1999), 31–51. 11 David Daniell, The Bible in English (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 284– 290. 12 Light, “The Bible and the Individual,” 238–239. 13 See Roland H. Bainton, “The Bible in the Reformation,” in The West from the Reformation to the Present Day, ed. S. L. Greenslade, vol. 3 of The Cambridge History of the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 1–37; Basil Hall, “Biblical Scholarship: Editions and Commentaries,” in The West from the Reformation to the Present Day, ed. S. L. Greenslade, vol. 3 of The Cambridge History of the Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 38–93. 14 As Paula Fredriksen, Augustine and the Jews (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010), 6, puts it, “Gods and humans were the two key populations of the ancient empire, which could prosper only if they cooperated. … [W]e need to imagine the world as they did, a world that was filled with gods.”

168

Jennifer W. Knust and Tommy Wasserman

commanding the sea, healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, and bringing young girls back to life, among other miracles, and of course also rising from the dead.15 For the evangelists, the question was not whether Christ could or would perform miracles, but why, in what contexts, and to what purposes.16 A dispute between Origen of Alexandria and his “pagan” opponent Celsus illustrates this dynamic. “Let us believe that these miracles were really done by you,” Celsus averred; how, then are “you” different from the “sorcerers” and “Egyptians” who, for a few obols, “drive demons out and blow away diseases”? (Cels. 1.68).17 Jesus’s miracles were of a different order, Origen retorted: Jesus did not perform miracles for his own selfish gain but to induce both those who benefitted from them and those who witnessed them to heal their souls as well as their bodies. “How could anyone with reason compare Christ with the sect of impostors,” Origen wanted to know, and fail to conclude instead that Jesus is God in human form, appearing incarnate to accomplish good?18 As this disagreement highlights, gods reveal what kind of god they are by directly intervening in the material world. It is up to humans to explain the significance of what these actions can and should mean.19 15 See the helpful overview by Halvor Moxnes in his essay, “Ethnography and Historical Imagination in Reading Jesus as an Exorcist,” Neot 44.2 (2010): 327–341. As Morton Smith (in)famously argued in 1978, this way of interpreting Jesus portrayed him as yet another ancient “divine man” (θεῖος ἄνηρ), a magician first and an ethical teacher only second, whose fame spread not because of what he taught but because of what he (purportedly) did; see his Jesus the Magician (New York: Gollancz, 1978). This “backhanded” contribution to the study of the historical Jesus sought to correct the post-Enlightenment habit of ignoring the “massive presence of the miracle tradition in the sources” (John P. Meier, “The Present State of the ‘Third Quest’ for the Historical Jesus: Loss and Gain,” Bib 80.4 [1999]: 459–487). Yet miracle working, healings and exorcisms should be seen as a central aspect of Jesus’s historical ministry, Meier argues; “a number of the criteria [for determining Jesus’s historical activity] argue forcefully in favor of the global assertion that, during his public ministry, Jesus claimed to work what we would call miracles and that at times his followers – and indeed also his enemies – thought he did so” (480). 16 New Testament scholars can still find it difficult to assimilate the “fact of the miracles” into their interpretive projects. See, for example, Udo Schnelle, “The Signs in the Gospel of John,” in Glimpses of Jesus through the Johannine Lens, vol. 3 of John, Jesus, and History, ed. Paul. N. Anderson, Felix Just, and Tom Thatcher (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016), 243: “The miracle stories are ‘not merely a concession to human weakness,’ as if humanity had to be tricked by bodily healing in order to come to the knowledge of Christ, but instead “demonstrations of the δόξα θεοῦ – the glory of God.” 17 Origen, Cels. 1.68 (trans. Chadwick, 62–63). 18 “Jesus did this in order that his disciples might give themselves up to teaching men according to the will of God, and that the others, who have been taught as much by his doctrine as by his moral life and miracles the right way to live, might do every action by referring to the pleasure of the supreme God” (Cels. 1.68; trans. Chadwick, 63). 19 Compare Iamblichus, De Mysteriis I. 21.66.6–16. As Emma Clarke points out, Iamblichus “asserts over and over that all things come from the gods, and that all wonders or

The Wondrous Gospel of John

169

The introduction of the kephalaia and titloi, then, was an important exegetical tool: locating Jesus’s miracles, a reader found both a confirmation of Christ’s power over and involvement in the world and a ready guide to his theological as well as his material significance. As John Chrysostom put it in a sermon on the story of the man born blind (kephalaion ten of John in the Old Greek chapter system), the “fact of the miracle” witnessed not only to the outward sight Christ offers but also to the importance of training the inner “eye of faith” to view and experience what the outer eye could clearly see: a material world infused with the conceptual, spiritual, sensate, and somatic truth of the Christian God.20 Origen made a similar point a century and a half earlier: the task of John the evangelist involved more than recounting “in what way the Savior healed a man born blind from birth, raised a dead man beginning to stink, or performed any of his remarkable deeds;” his task included producing a “hortatory discourse” designed to “confirm the things concerning Jesus,” namely that he was the incarnate Word of God (Comm. Jo. 1.3/18).21 The Johannine kephalaia and titloi further confirm this late ancient appetite for stories about Jesus’s wonders. They also invite an acknowledgement that any modern discomfort with the depiction of Jesus as a wonder-worker is an indication not of the purposes of the Evangelists but of modern scholarly practices and preferences. Paratextual additions and late ancient discussions of the Evangelist’s compositional goals suggest that the Gospel of John was loved not only for its role as “the spiritual Gospel” but also for what it revealed about the wondrous deeds of the Lord.22

demonstrations of power are their work alone” (Iamblichus’ De Mysteriis: A Manifesto on the Miraculous [Altershot and Burlington: Ashgate, 2001], 23). 20 John Chrysostom, Hom. Jo. 58 (FC 41:111); on the relationship between the inner and the outer eye and the material significance of this connection, see Georgia Frank, The Memory of the Eyes: Pilgrims to Living Saints in Late Antiquity, Transformations of the Classical Heritage 30 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 124 and Patricia Cox Miller, The Corporeal Imagination: Signifying the Holy in Late Ancient Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009), 106–107. 21 ἐπὰν ἐξετάσωμεν τί τὸ ἔργον τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ, ὅτι οὐ πάντως διηγήσασθαι τίνα τρόπον ὁ σωτὴρ τυφλὸν ἀπὸ γενετῆς ἰάσατο, ὀδωδότα νεκρὸν ἀνέστησεν ἥ τι τῶν παραδόξων πεποίηκεν, οὐκ ὀκνήσομεν, χαρακτηριζομένου τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ καὶ ἐν προτρεπτικῷ λόγῳ τῲ εἰς πιστοποίησιν τῶν περὶ Ἰησοῦ, εὐαγγέλιόν πως εἰπεῖν τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων γεγραμμένα (Comm. Jo. 1.3/18; SC 120 bis:64, emphasis added). For Origen’s subordination of the miracles to moral transformation and other aspects of Jesus’s ministry, and the possibility that some of his polemic was directed to fellow Christians who overemphasized Jesus’s miracles, see Karl Olav Sandnes, “Ancient Debates on Jesus as Miracle Worker: Emic and Etic Perspectives,” pp. 193–214 in this volume. 22 For John as “the spiritual Gospel,” see esp. Maurice F. Wiles, The Spiritual Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960).

170

Jennifer W. Knust and Tommy Wasserman

2. Dividing Up the Gospels Ancient grammarians trained their students to read by teaching them to divide “the classics” into manageable sections rife with a surplus of meaning. Older works were separated into fragments as words, sentences, and paragraphs were displaced and then re-placed within a broader unifying epistemological frame.23 Juxtaposed in lists, such verbal fragments “encouraged readers to envision language, and literary texts, as classifiable into two temporally defined corpora, that of the ‘ancients’ and that of themselves,” as Catherine M. Chin explains.24 Separating, dividing, fragmenting, and listing provided access to a literary patrimony that students could, through practice, claim as their own. Fourth- and fifth-century Christian writers employed these same practices of fragmentation – and therefore also validation – to the Christian Scriptures and, in the process, they represented them as a new kind of “classic.” The grammatical treatises of Didymus the Blind offer an example of this kind of Christian intellectual and epistemological labor. As Blossom Stefaniw shows, Didymus cultivated young Christian knowledge by selecting individual words, textual variants, striking phrases, and brief passages for further discussion; in Didymus’s lesson plans, each isolated unit became an optical instrument through which students could perceive creation, God’s purposes, and their place in a divinely suffused universe.25 His predecessor Origen, among the earliest to apply grammatical and philosophical paideia to Christian literature, adopted a similar perspective. When one examines words “as if through a window,” he stated, one gazes through “a narrow opening leading to multitudes of the deepest thoughts” (Princ. 4.2.3).26 By the fourth century, if not sooner, this custom of dividing, fragmenting, and listing for the sake of discernment was applied to the Gospels not only 23 Catherine M. Chin, Grammar and Christianity in the Late Roman World (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007), 74: “The marking and negotiating of literary dislocation becomes, in grammatical work, the multiplication of linguistic elements …” 24 Chin, Grammar and Christianity, 7. 25 Blossom Stefaniw, “The School of Didymus the Blind in Light of the Tura Find,” in Monastic Education in Late Antiquity: The Transformation of Classical Paideia, ed. Samuel Rubenson and Lillian I. Larsen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 153–181; also see her Christian Reading: Language, Ethics, and the Order of Things (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2019). Lincoln H. Blumell, “The Classroom Context of the New Testament Text of Didymus the Blind: A Reconsideration of the Tura Papyri and their Text-Critical Value” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Denver, November 2018), has recently demonstrated how some of Didymus “commentaries,” are actually classroom lectures recorded by stenographers, and that many of his “textual variants” result from the oral context of his lectures. 26 κἀκεῖ ὡς δι’ ὀπῆς μεγίστων καὶ πλείστων νοημάτων βραχεῖαν ἀφορμὴν παρεχόντων (Origen, Princ. 4.2.3; Herwig Görgemanns and Heinrich Karpp, Origenes vier Bücher von den Prinzipien, Texte zur Forschung 24, 2nd ed. [Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1985], 706). Translated and discussed by Chin, Grammar and Christianity, 75–76.

The Wondrous Gospel of John

171

exegetically but also paratextually, in the form of numbered divisions.27 The fourth-century pandect Bible Codex Vaticanus (B 03), for example, preserves a comparatively rare set of chapters which were added later in the fourth or fifth century.28 This rare chapter system is also preserved in the late seventhcentury Codex Zacynthius (Ξ 040), a fragmentary copy of Luke with catenae, or “chains” of extracted patristic commentary.29 The system divides Matthew into 170 sections marked with numbers in the margins, Mark into 62, Luke into 152, and John into 80.30 Recently, Charles E. Hill has argued that this system largely corresponds to the unnumbered textual divisions in some early papyri (at least in Matthew, Luke, and John) which would take these divisions back into the second century, suggesting that the practice of transforming the Gospels into “classics” was already underway.31 Perhaps these Christians, like the Hellenistic grammarians credited with dividing the Odyssey and the Iliad into twenty-four numbered “books” corresponding to the letters of the Greek alphabet, were looking for a system capable of transforming the Gospels into works

27 For a discussion of these divisions, see McArthur, “Earliest Divisions,” 266–272. Cf. Christian-Bernard Amphoux, “La division du texte grec des Évangiles dans l’Antiquité,” in Titres et articulations du texts dans les oevres antiques, ed. Jean-Claude Fredouille (Paris: Institut des études Augustiniennes, 1997), 301–312; Edwards, “Hermeneutical Significance,” 413–426. 28 Jesse R. Grenz, “Textual Divisions in Codex Vaticanus: A Layered Approach to the Delimiters in B (03),” TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 23 (2018): 13–22; online at http://jbtc.org/v23/TC-2018-Grenz.pdf (last accessed 2019-09-27). 29 The catenae present a later development in the practice of reciprocal substantiation by way of fragmentation, not only of the Gospels but also of the writers whose works were extracted, collected, and preserved in these works. For a relatively recent assessment of Codex Zacynthius, see J. Neville Birdsall and David C. Parker, “The Date of Codex Zacynthius (Ξ): A New Proposal,” JTS 55 (2004): 117–131. This codex, a palimpsest, is currently being reexamined by a project team led by D. C. Parker at the Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing (University of Birmingham). 30 The system is not present in minuscule 579, as Yvonne Burns, “Chapter Numbers in Greek and Slavonic Gospel Codices,” NTS 23 (1977): 321–322; Edwards, “Hermenutical Significance,” 414, and others have claimed; the numbers, according to Charles E. Hill, “appear to be simply the Ammonian sections without the Eusebian canon numbers.” See Charles E. Hill, “Rightly Dividing the Word: Uncovering an Early Template for Textual Division in John’s Gospel,” in Studies on the Text of the New Testament and Early Christianity. Essays in Honor of Michael W. Holmes, ed. Daniel M. Gurtner et al, NTTSD 50 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 224. The misunderstanding seems to derive from Ezra Abbot, “On the Comparative Antiquity of the Sinaitic and Vatican Manuscripts of the Greek Bible,” JAOS 10 (1872): 190. 31 Hill, “Rightly Dividing the Word,” 217–238. Hill concludes that “the numbering system used in John in B is based on the same system of textual division that lies behind "75. A few other peculiarities confirm the appearance of a genetic relationship” (p. 233).

172

Jennifer W. Knust and Tommy Wasserman

that could be more easily cross-referenced and more widely regarded as authoritative documents.32 These less-common divisions, however, were soon supplanted by a second, much more ubiquitous paratextual apparatus: the so-called “Ammonian sections” and “Eusebian canons.” This system was introduced by Eusebius of Caesarea early in the fourth century.33 According to the bishop, together these sections and canons display the harmonious witness of the Gospels to the life and deeds of Jesus. As he explained to his patron Carpianus, he formulated this system “while preserving (σωζομένου) completely both the content and sequence (τοῦ τῶν λοιπῶν δι᾽ὅλου σώματος, lit. “the whole body through the parts”). He continued: If then, having opened any one of the Four Gospels, you may wish to study a certain desired chapter (κεφαλαίον), and to know which (of the other three) have said things very similar and to find in each (Gospel) the related passages … when you have taken the present number of the pericope (περικοπῆς) you hold, seek it in the canon (ἐν τῷ κανόνι) which the rubricate note has suggested (Letter to Carpianus).34

According to Pseudo-Plutarch’s Life of Homer, these two poems were divided by grammarians into “as many books as there are letters in the alphabet” (Vit. Hom. 2.4) As René Nünlist notes, the attribution to grammarians is also found in a Homeric scholion that states “the division by letters … is the work of grammarians;” the earliest mention of a reference to the Iliad by number/book is in a work of Apollodorus of Athens in the second century BCE. René Nünlist, “A Neglected Testimonium on the Homeric Book-Division,” ZPE 157 (2006): 47–49. The tenth-century “Venetus A,” a remarkable copy of the Iliad with scholia, includes not only these numbered book divisions, but also a one-line summary at the top of each book, in red-ink (Christopher W. Blackwell and Casey Dué, “Homer and History in Venetus A,” in Recapturing a Homeric Legacy: Images and Insights from the Venetus A Manuscript of the Iliad, ed. Casey Dué, Hellenistic Studies Series [Cambridge: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2009], 9–13). For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that the Odyssey and the Iliad were transmitted as if they contained twenty-four lettered (i.e., “numbered”) books each. The question of when this system was introduced, while fascinating, is outside the scope of our own work. For a full overview of the debate as it stood in 1999, see Minna Skapte Jensen et al., “Dividing Homer: When and How Were the Iliad and the Odyssey Divided into Songs?” SO 74 (1999): 5–91. 33 It is unclear exactly what Eusebius took over from Ammonius, and several scholars have pointed out that it is misleading to speak of “Ammonian sections,” at all since the section division must have been the work of Eusebius himself; see John W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established (London: James Parker and Co., 1871), 304; Theodor Zahn, Tatian’s Diatessaron, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur 1 (Erlangen: Deichert, 1881), 31–32; Eberhard Nestle, “Die Eusebianische Evangeliensynopse,” NKZ 19 (1908): 41. As Von Soden remarks, the Ammonian sections, devised by Ammonius of Alexandria in the third century, must have been widespread by the time Eusebius developed his canons based on the sections (Die Schriften, 1:430). Perhaps a better term for Ammonius’s invention, as suggested by Matthew R. Crawford, is “Ammonian parallels” (“Ammonius of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea and the Origins of Gospels Scholarship,” NTS 61 [2015]: 19–22). 34 Greek text printed in the NA28, 89*–90*. Translation adapted from Harold H. Oliver, “The Epistle of Eusebius to Carpianus,” NovT 3 (1959): 144–145. 32

The Wondrous Gospel of John

173

This apparatus, as Jeremiah Coogan memorably states, served as a “map” with three components: the Letter to Carpianus, the numbers in the margins of the running Gospel texts, and the ten reference tables or “canons,” through which the intersections between the Gospels could be located and itineraries planned.35 Often illuminated in later manuscripts, prefaced canon tables also served as a kind of visual gateway into this mystical unity, the “whole body through the parts.”36 The first material appearance of the Eusebian apparatus can be found in the fourth-century pandect Codex Sinaiticus (‫ א‬01), which partially incorporated the Eusebian system, but with errors and omitting both the accompanying tables and the Letter to Carpianus.37 A more complete Apparatus is a common feature of nearly every medieval four-fold Gospels book, in Latin as well as Greek, although not always with the canon tables. Apparently, the numbers alone (the “rubricate notes”) appear to have been useful in keeping track of the pericopai or kephalaia, with or without the accompanying tabular gateways and instructions about how to employ them. The numbered divisions also likely assisted later editors in identifying liturgical sequences and arranging catenae, further developments in the fragmentation-classification-validation process.38 Numbers, titles, cross-references, and lists were not only useful tools for establishing the Gospels-as-patrimony and the Gospels-as-unity, they also added to their numinous significance; signs for words and signs for numbers were interpreted as keys that could unlock the hidden secrets of a veiled providential economy within a divinely ordered universe.39 35 Jeremiah Coogan, “Mapping the Fourfold Gospel: Textual Geography in the Eusebian Apparatus,” JECS 25 (2017): 337–357. 36 A Homeric scholion also refers to the “whole” and “the parts,” distinguishing between what Homer created, “one body,” and “parts” (Nünlist, “A Neglected Testimonium,” 47). On the Eusebian apparatus, see Carl Nordenfalk, Die spätantiken Kanontafeln: kunstgeschichtliche Studien über die eusebianische Evangelien-Konkordanz in den vier ersten Jahrhunderten ihrer Geschichte, 2 vols. (Göteborg: Oscar Isacsons Boktyckeri, 1938); idem, “The Eusebian Canons: Some Textual Problems,” JTS 35 (1984): 96–104; Walter Thiele, “Beobachtungen zu den eusebianischen Sektionen und Kanones der Evangelien,” ZNW 72 (1981): 100–111; Amphoux, “La division,” 301–312; Burns, “Chapter Numbers,” 320–333. 37 Peter Head, “The Gospel of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus: Textual and Reception-Historical Considerations,” TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 13 (2008): 1–38; online at http://jbtc.org/v13/Head2008.pdf (last accessed 2019-09-27). Head’s detailed study of paragraphing, numbering, punctuation and divisions offers a helpful review of this issue as it pertains to Mark. 38 Stefan Royé argues that the sections were used in planning the Byzantine lectionary; see his “The Cohesion between the Ammonian-Eusebian Apparatus and the Byzantine Liturgical Pericope System in Tetraevangelion Codices: Stages in the Creation, Establishment and Evolution of Byzantine Codex Forms,” in A Catalogue of Byzantine Manuscripts, ed. Klas Spronk et al. (Turnhout: Brepols, 2013), 55–116. Coogan makes the connection with the catenae, “Mapping the Fourfold Gospel,” 355–356. 39 François Bovon, “Names and Numbers in Early Christianity,” NTS 47 (2001): 267–288.

174

Jennifer W. Knust and Tommy Wasserman

3. The Old Greek Chapters – Kephalaia in John The Old Greek Chapters were, it seems, a later addition to these emerging systems. First found materially in two fifth-century codices, Codex Alexandrinus (A 02), a gorgeous and nearly complete fifth-century pandect Bible held by the British Library in London, and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C 04), a most important palimpsest held by the National Library in Paris, the kephalaia, titloi, and accompanying pinakes seem to have appeared almost out of nowhere, though their popularity as an important guide to the Gospels’ content among later Christians cannot be doubted. Strikingly, the Eusebian apparatus in Codex Alexandrinus is riddled with cascading errors, leading W. Andrew Smith in his recent reassessment to conclude that these scribes were “merely going through the motions of providing the Apparatus, perhaps for readers who would never use it.”40 By contrast, the kephalaia, titloi, and pinakes were carefully incorporated.41 In John, titloi in the upper margins of the appropriate place in the Gospel are missing, likely due to trimming of the manuscript, but the kephalaia numbers are placed in the margins where each individual kephalaion begins, often with a seven-shaped paragraphus mark. The pinax is present and appears on the first column of the Gospel, with the Gospel beginning in column two.42 Table 1 lists the kephalaia and titloi in the pinax: Table 1: Pinax with Kephalaia and Titloi in Codex Alexandrinus43 α′ περι του εν κανα γαμου β′ περι των εκβληθεντων εκ του ιερου γ′ περι νικοκημου

1. Concerning the Wedding at Cana 2. Concerning the Casting Out from the Temple 3. Concerning Nicodemus 4. A Discussion Concerning Purification 5. Concerning the Samaritan Woman

Smith, Codex Alexandrinus, 249. The chapter list of Matthew is missing from Alexandrinus (lacunose). 42 This list follows Goswell’s summary of the kephalaia as present in Codex Alexandrinus (“Early Readers of the Gospels,” 169–171) with slight improvements by Smith, Codex Alexandrinus, 177–178. The contemporary Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C 04) preserves fifteen of these eighteen kephalaia in a table preceding the Gospel of John (fol. 50v) with slight variation in wording. The first three kephalaia are not visible on the photo but were likely present. The sixth-century Codex Petropolitanus Purpureus (N 022) likely had 18 kephalaia in John. On the published facsimile it is possible to trace several numbers, including the eighteenth (ι̅η) on fol. 345v at John 19:38. 43 Smith, Codex Alexandrinus, 177–178. Later manuscripts sometimes add a nineteenth and occasionally also a twentieth kephalaion, advancing the titlos “about the blind man” by one to accommodate the kephalaion “concerning the adulteress” (ι´ περι της μοιχαλιδος), and adding a penultimate kephalaion “concerning Peter’s denial (περι της αρνησεως πετρου). See further discussion in Jennifer W. Knust and Tommy Wasserman, To Cast the First Stone: The Transmission of a Gospel Story (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019), 268–286. 40 41

The Wondrous Gospel of John δ′ ε′ ϛ′ ζ′

ζητησεις περι καθαρισμου44 περι της σαμαριτιδος περι του βασιλικου45 περι του τριακοντα και οκτω ετη εχοντος εν τη ασθενεια46 η′ περι των πεντε αρτων· και των δυο ϊχθυων47 θ′ περι του εν θαλασση περιπατου ι′ περι του τυφλου ια′ περι λαζαρου ιβ′ περι της αλιψασης τον κ̅ν μυρω48 ιγ′ περι ων ειπεν ϊουδας ιδ′ περι του ονου49 ιε′ περι των προσελθοντων ελληνων ιϛ′ περι του νιπτηρος ιζ′ περι του παρακλητου ιη′ περι της αιτησεως του σωματος του κ̅υ 50

175

6. Concerning the Official 7. Concerning the Man Who Had Been Afflicted for Thirty-Eight Years 8. Concerning the Five Loaves and Two Fish 9. Concerning the Walk on the Sea 10. Concerning the (Man Born) Blind 11. Concerning Lazarus 12. Concerning the Anointing of the Lord with Myrrh 13. Concerning the Rebuke of Judas 14. Concerning the Donkey 15. Concerning the Greeks who Approached 16. Concerning the Washing 17. Concerning the Paraclete 18. Concerning the Request for the Body of the Lord

As already observed, seven of these eighteen designated pericopai are miracles, three of which are also identified in the kephalaia and titloi of Matthew, Mark, and/or Luke (the healing of the official’s son, the paralytic, and the loaves and fishes), often in identical terms. By employing the same or similar titles for parallel chapters (“the anointing,” “the donkey,” and the “request for the body of the Lord,” for example), this system also highlights shared Gospel passages, albeit in a less systematic way than the Eusebian apparatus.51 Both 44 The numbers for these first four kephalaia do not appear in the chapter index due to damage but, Smith concludes, they were once present (Codex Alexandrinus, 177). 45 Compare Matt ζ´ (περι του εκατονταρχου) and Luke ιη´ (περι του εκατονταρχου). Comparison with the other Gospels is found in Von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 1.1:405–411 (we refer to the standard kephalaia since the chapter index of Matthew is not preserved in Alexandrinus). 46 Compare Mattt ιγ´ (περι του παραλυτικου), Mark ε´ (περι του παραλυτικου), and Luke ιγ´ (περι του παραλυτικου). 47 Compare Matt κς´ (περι των πεντε αρτων και των δυο ιχθυων), Mark ις´ (περι των πεντε αρτων και των δυο ιχθυων), and Luke κη´ (περι των πεντε αρτων και των δυο ιχθυων) 48 Compare Matt ξβ’ (περι της αλειψασης τον κυριον μυρω), Mark μδ´ (περι της αλειψασης τον κυριον μυρω), and Luke κα´ (περι της αλειψασης τον κυριον μυρω). 49 Compare Matt με´ (περι της ονου και του πωλου), Mark λβ´ (περι του πωλου), and Luke ξη´ (περι του πωλου). 50 Compare Matt ξη´ (περι της αιτησεως του κυριακου), Mark μη´ (περι της αιτησεως του κυριακου), and Luke πβ´ (περι της αιτησεως του κυριακου σωματος). 51 The possibility that the kephalaia were intended to highlight parallel material is considered by Von Soden (Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments 1.1:426–429) and rejected by McArthur, “Earliest Divisions,” 270–271.

176

Jennifer W. Knust and Tommy Wasserman

of these paratextual systems pre-date the codex, Smith concludes, and yet were copied from separate exemplars, suggesting that these scribes were “early adopters” of the two distinctive and yet complementary editorial innovations.52 Later manuscripts customarily include both systems, albeit with some variation. Strikingly, Codices Alexandrinus and Ephraemi Rescriptus are not the only late antique manuscripts to preserve traces of this process of dividing, labeling, and highlighting with titles. In the sixth century they are attested in Codex Petropolitanus Purpureus (N 022), Codex Guelferbytanus A (P 024), Codex Dublinensis (Z 035), Codex Zacynthius (Ξ 040), and in a partly different form in Codex Bezae (D/d 05, a Greek-Latin diglot), where the secondary hands that intervened in the margins of the Greek portion also added titloi in the upper register of the Gospels in the sixth century, some but not all of which match what is found in Alexandrinus, as seen in Table 2:53 Table 2: The Titloi of John in Codex Bezae Folio 114v

Running Titloi

116v 117v 118v 122v

[π]ερι του θερισμου, [περ]ι του βασιλησκου [πε]ρι του παραλυτυκου [πε]ρι τον πεντε αρτον

124v

περι του περιπατουντος εν τι θαλασι

128v

[οτ]ι σκληρος εστιν ο λογος ουτος … 54

129v

[περι] της ισκηνοπυηας55

[περι] της σαμαρητιδος

Number (in A 02), Translation and Location 5. Concerning the Samaritan Woman (4:5) Concerning the Harvest (4:35) 6. Concerning the Official (4:46b) 7. Concerning the Paralytic (5:5) 8. Concerning the Five Loaves (6:5) 9. Concerning the Walk on the Sea (6:19) That the saying is difficult (6:60) Concerning Tabernacles (7:2)

Smith, Codex Alexandrinus, 250. The numbers that accompany the kephalaia and titloi in other manuscripts are omitted in Bezae; we have included them for reference. Goswell, “Early Readers,” 139, erroneously assigns Codex Nitriensis (R 027) the siglum N (022). For a list of majuscule MSS up to the tenth century that preserve kephalaia/titloi in the Gospel of John, see Knust and Wasserman, To Cast, 280–281. 54 A second line is left undeciphered here. Virtually all titloi in the Gospels commence with the preposition περί, whereas ὅτι is attested in the Euthalian kephalaia. See Vemund Blomkvist, Euthalian Traditions: Text, Translation and Commentary, TUGAL 170 (Berlin-Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2012), 45–73. 55 J. Rendel Harris takes the presence of the iota “to s impurum” here (ἰσκηνοπυήα for σκηνοπηγία) as a clue to the dialect of those who used the codex, “a question between a possible Greek dialect and a Gallicism.” See J. Rendel Harris, The Annotators of the Codex Bezae (with Some Notes on Sortes Sanctorum) (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1901), 44. 52 53

The Wondrous Gospel of John 138v

[περ]ι του τυφλου

145v

[πε]ρι του λαζαρου

177

10. Concerning the Blind Man (9:1) 11. Concerning Lazarus (11:1)

Seven of these ten titloi correspond to kephalaia lists present in other manuscripts; of the seven miracles or “signs” also highlighted in Alexandrinus and Ephraemi Rescriptus, only the Wedding at Cana is absent (Bezae is lacunose in 2:1 where this first sign is located). An additional three titloi appear to be unique (at modern 4:35, 6:60, and 7:2), whereas at least five kephalaia in Alexandrinus are not present here (none of which concerns a miracle story).56 It is further to be noted that the wording of several titloi are different. For example, the seventh titlos in Alexandrinus, “Concerning the man who had been afflicted for thirty-eight years,” is simply “Concerning the paralytic” in Codex Bezae (attested also in F 09).57 This demonstrates that there was some flexibility in dividing the kephalaia and affixing the titloi to highlight specific texts. Even so, the seven signs in John are present in each set of titloi, as far as we can judge from the extant manuscript evidence, further confirming the strong focus on Jesus as a miracle worker. As in Alexandrinus, there are only three kephalaia to cover John 13–21, which is remarkable but also telling; there are no miracles in the latter half of this Gospel. In Codex Bezae, no kephalaia were added beyond (modern) 11:1.

4. The Elusive Origin of the Kephalaia Any conclusions about what these chapters and titles sought to accomplish can only be speculative. At least Eusebius explains what he was intending to achieve; there are no comparable explanations for these additions. Nevertheless, the coincidence of the introduction of the chapters with other, similar developments in the presentation of Greek books is notable. As already observed, copies of the Iliad and the Odyssey were circulated with marked book divisions, perhaps from the second century BCE.58 Henry McArthur, in his review of the evidence, finds a parallel in legal documents, which also divided

The kephalaia in Codex Alexandrinus at (modern) 12:3, 12:4, 12:14, 12:20 and 15:26 are definitely missing from Bezae. The kephalaion at 13:2 was probably present (but erased on fol. 154v), whereas the passage 19:38 is lacunose. 57 The same pattern holds true for Matthew and Luke. The titloi in Bezae overlap with what became the conventional Byzantine set, with additions and omissions, and those that correspond often have a different wording. 58 Apollodorus of Athens referred to “book 14” of the Iliad in the second century BCE, suggesting that “everyone knew” what “book 14” meant (Carolyn Higbie, “Divide and Edit: A Brief History of Book Divisions,” HSCP 105 [2010]: 10. 56

178

Jennifer W. Knust and Tommy Wasserman

materials into numbered sections.59 Ancient Christian writers referred to sections of scripture both as “chapters” (kephalaia) and “passages” (pericopai) in their commentaries, using both terms unsystematically.60 Clement of Alexandria, for example, described his own Stromateis (“Miscellanies”) as a “systematic exposition of chapters (kephalaia)” but for him the term meant “extract” not “division” per se (1.1.1.14.2).61 The earliest scholar explicitly to preface a work with a chapter list was probably Iamblichus (ca. 245–ca. 325 CE) who composed a list of numbered kephalaia with accompanying summaries as an opening to his Protrepikos (“Exhortation to Philosophy”).62 A list of one hundred and thirty numbered kephalaia with titloi and a pinax also provided a structure to the late antique work Placita philosophorum (“The Doctrines of the Philosophers”), misattributed to the second-century moralist Plutarch by Eusebius of Caesarea.63 This apparatus has much in common with the kephalaia to the Gospels, including the characteristic use of περί followed by a genitive object to describe the chapter’s contents and a chapter system that commences after an introductory discussion.64 Unlike the Gospels, however, the Placita is a compendium of philosophical opinions on physics, not a narrative; a chapter “concerning the moon,” for example, collects diverse points of view

McArthur, “Earliest Divisions,” 271. Joel Kalvesmaki suggests that Evagrius of Pontus, the first to employ kephalaia as a structuring device for his own composition, was likely inspired by Biblical books like Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, the use of the term kephalaia for passages of scriptures, and philosophical distillations like Arrian’s Handbook of Epictitus and Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations; see his “Evagrius in the Byzantine Genre of Chapters,” in Evagrius and His Legacy, ed. Joel Kalvesmaki and Robin Darling Young (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2016), 261–263. 61 Discussed by Kalvesmaki, “Evagrius,” 284, n13, 21; cf. André Méhat, Étude sur les ”Stromates” de Clément d’Alexandrie, Patristica Sorbonensia 7 (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1966), 121–122. 62 Iamblichus, Protreptikos, edited by Édouard des Places (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1989), 155 n2: “Nos Képhalaia sont peut-être le plus ancien exemple authentique, dans un texte philosophique, de ce genre littéraire”). This Protreptikos may contain portions of Aristotle’s lost work of the same name, but the kephalaia and the summaries that accompany them are certainly the work of Iamblichus himself. 63 The Placita Philosophorum was studied by Hermann Diels in 1867 as evidence of a now lost work he called the Doxographi Graeci (Berlin: Remeiri, 1879). Diels’s work has now been carefully studied and largely confirmed as part of a project headed by Jaap Mansfeld and David T. Runia, published in 4 volumes, Aëtiana: The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer, Philosophia Antiqua 73, 114, 118, 148 (Leiden: Brill, 1997–2018). Eusebius cites this work in his Praeparatio evangelica 14.1. 64 The chapters begin after a proem with chapter one, “What is nature” and end with chapter thirty, “Concerning nature.” For discussion, see Jaap Mansfeld and David T. Runia, Aëtiana, vol. 2: The Compendium, PhA 114 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 60–61. 59 60

The Wondrous Gospel of John

179

on the character and source of the moon’s light, without offering a final opinion on the matter.65 At some point, probably in the fourth century, editors associated with the name “Euthalius,” provided a collection of ancillary paratextual material to Acts, the Catholic and Pauline Letters, including such as kephalaia and titloi for each book.66 Prologues to Acts, the Catholic and Pauline Letters mention a Euthalius, who was once a deacon and now a bishop of a place named Sulca, but it is uncertain who this person is, and whether he was actually responsible for the whole edition, and to what degree he took over existing material. In the prologue to the Pauline Letters, for example, Euthalius makes reference to his reliance on the work of Eusebius of Caesarea.67 Günter Zuntz assumed that Euthalius transcribed and rearranged existing material, including the kephalaia, from a Vorlage in the library of Caesarea.68 One important piece of evidence for dependence on Eusebius or Pamphilus is found in a colophon to the Corpus Paulinum in the sixth-century Codex Coislinianus (H 015), the earliest Greek manuscript witness to the Euthalian apparatus, stating that the book was collated against the copy in Caesarea from the library of the holy Pamphilus copied by his hand.69 The first line of the colophon, which has been erased in Coislinianus, probably contained the name “Evagrius,” which is attested in minuscule 88, another witness to the colophon (Εὐάγριος ἔγραψα, “I, Evagrius, copied”).70 This led Albert Ehrhard to conclude that the compiler of the Euthalian edition was the Christian ascetic Evagrius of Pontus (345–399 CE).71 However, Zuntz argued persuasively that Evagrius was rather “an intrusion in the earlier, and anonymous, ‘Euthalian’ form of the summary” in the colophon, Mansfield and Runia offer this chapter as an example of the genuineness of these chapter headings; without them, the lemmata from philosophers would be difficult to understand (the lemmata do not actually include the word “moon”); see Aëtiana 2:3–5, 200–201. 66 Louis Charles Willard, A Critical Study of the Euthalian Apparatus, ANTF 41 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009). As Willard points out, it is likely that the editor took over some earlier material, e.g., the lection lists, as suggested by Günther Zuntz (Critical Study, 26–28). See Günther Zuntz, The Ancestry of the Harklean New Testament, The British Academy, Supplemental Papers 7 (London: Oxford University Press, 1945), 104–105. 67 Willard, Critical Study, 111–113. Willard further draws attention to minuscule 808 which attributes the chapter list of Acts to Eusebius Pamphilus and four that attribute the list to Pamphilus (307, 453, 610, 1678) (., 114). 68 Zuntz, Ancestry, 86–88. 69 ἀντεβλήθη δὲ ἡ βίβλος πρὸς τὸ ἐν Καισαρίᾳ ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ ἁγίου Παμπφίλου χειρὶ γεγραμμένον (Greek text in Willard, Critical Study, 83). Minuscule 88 has another similar colophon to Acts and the Catholic Letters (not preserved in H 015), which talks about “the most accurate exemplars in the library of Eusebius Pamphilus in Caesarea” (τὰ ακριβῆ ἀντίγραφα τῆς ἐν Καισαρείᾳ βιβλιοθήκης Εὐσεβίου τοῦ Παμφίλου; ., 85). 70 Willard, Critical Study, 84. 71 Albert Ehrhard, “Der Codex H ad epistulas Pauli und ‘Euthalios diaconos,’” Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 8 (1891): 397, 403–411 (esp. 409). 65

180

Jennifer W. Knust and Tommy Wasserman

since he is not mentioned elsewhere in the material, including the prologues.72 Louis Charles Willard, who largely follows Zuntz in his recent investigation of the Euthalian apparatus, concludes that the kephalaia belong to the earliest layer of the Euthalian apparatus, an edition he dates to 380–396 with Caesarea as the likely location.73 We agree with Zuntz’s theory that the fourth-century editor took over earlier material. Interestingly, a different set of kephalaia is attested in the Epistles of Peter in "72 (250–350 CE).74 Although Evagrius of Pontus was likely not the compiler of the Euthalian apparatus, he did compose a number of works he specifically described as consisting of “chapters” (kephalaia), brief paragraphs designed for ascetic training and contemplation.75 This genre grew in popularity in monastic contexts, as Evagrius’s disciples compiled their own “chapters.”76 The point is that the term kephalaia, though put to various uses and employed in a number of different contexts, could designate blocks of text and, in late antiquity at least, also be coordinated with numbered titloi employed to highlight these divisions.77 The practice of dividing Greek works was not new, but dividing, labeling, and summarizing kephalaia as part of a philosophical edition was perhaps a developing practice.78 72 Günther Zuntz, “Euthalius = Euzoius?,” VC 7 (1953): 18. Zuntz is followed by Willard, Critical Study, 127. 73 Willard, Critical Study, 130–131. 74 Tobias Nicklas and Tommy Wasserman, “Theologische Linien im Codex Bodmer Miscellani?” in New Testament Manuscripts and Their World, ed. Thomas. J. Kraus and Tobias Nicklas, TENTS 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 183–185. Another set of kephalaia in Acts and Epistles, independent of the Euthalian edition, is attested in minuscule 81 (British Library, Add MS 20003). More research is necessary to ascertain its relationship to the Euthalian kephalaia, but the minuscule, dated in a colophon to 1044, notably preserves a very ancient New Testament text. 75 On Evagrius and the introduction of kephalaia as a monastic genre, see Paul Géhin, “Les collections de kephalaia monastiques: naissance et succès d’un genre entre création originale, plagiat et florilège,” in The Minor Genres of Byzantine Theological Literature, ed. Antonio Rigo in collaboration with Pavel Ermilov and Michele Trizio (Belgium: Brepols, 2013), 1–50. We would like to thank Nathan Tilley for calling our attention to this essay. 76 [Évagre le Pontique], Chapitres des Disciples d’Évagre, ed. Paul Géhin, SC 514 (Paris: Cerf, 2007). 77 Paul Géhin describes three senses to the term, as it emerges in the third and fourth centuries: (1) the word designates the central point of a discourse with a section summary; (2) it refers to a title with a summary of a few words or sentences placed in tables (pinakes) most often placed at the head of the book; (3) it describes a paragraph of a few lines developing a single moral, theological, or epistemological theme. Of these types, the kephalaia to the Gospels fit sense (2) and the works of Evagrius sense (3); see Géhin, “Les collections de kephalaia,” 8. 78 The second-century CE work identified here as the Placita appears to be the first philosophical treatise to be structured in this way (Mansfeld and Runia, Aëtiana, 2:199–200). Still, collections of epigrams by title and category offer an earlier precedent. See, for example, P. Mil. Volg. VIII 309, translated and discussed in The New Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry

The Wondrous Gospel of John

181

Philosophical circles may seem to be an odd setting for an interest in Jesus’s miraculous deeds, if that is what these kephalaia intend to highlight. Yet, when viewed from the perspective of late antiquity, philosophy was precisely the proper setting for such a discussion; Porphyry and Iamblichus, for example, were as engaged with the topic as their elder colleague Origen.79 Divine involvement in the material world was what was at stake, not the possibility that (in Iamblichus’s words) “the divine intellect” is knowable, in part, through the experience of events that are “beyond nature” (ὑπὲρ φύσιν).80 Among Christians, then, Jesus’s wonders not only affirmed the healing efficacy of the Christian God, they also demonstrated this God’s involvement in a cosmos he created, inviting allegorical as well as “fleshly” interpretation.81 As Didymus explained to his students, Jesus graciously performed wonders for the benefit of those who “living at the level of sense and appearances” require physical

Book, ed. Kathryn Gutzwiller (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). This collection of poems is organized into nine titled sections, graphically set apart; a tenth section is visible but broken off. Nita Krevans notes that books of the Greek Anthology were transmitted with headings and thematically organized (“The Editor’s Toolbox: Strategies for Selection and Presentation in the Milan Epigram Papyrus,” in The New Posidippus, 81–96). Also see the kephalaia prefacing later editions of Greek plays, gathered and discussed by A. W. A. M. Budé, “De hypotheseis der Griekse tragedies en komedies. Een onderzoek naar de hypotheseis van Dicaearchus” (PhD diss., Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, 1977). Monique van Rossum-Steenbeek depends upon Budé’s work but calls some of his conclusions into question; see her Greek Readers’ Digests? Studies on a Selection of Subliterary Papyri, Mnemosyne Supplement 175 (Leiden: Brill 1998), 32–34. We would like to thank William Johnson for calling our attention to both of these studies. 79 For a helpful discussion of the inter-relationships of these “pagan” and “Christian” scholars, see Jeremy M. Schott, “‘Living Like a Christian, but Playing the Greek’: Accounts of Apostasy and Conversion in Porphyry and Eusebius,” Journal of Late Antiquity 1 (2008): 258– 277. Concerned about the value of theurgy as a philosophical practice, Porphyry wrote his fictitious and erudite “Epistle to Anebo” to challenge distasteful theurgical practices like the pronunciation of nonsense syllables; his student Iamblichus responded by writing De Mysteriis (“The Master Abamôn’s Response to Porphyry’s Letter to Anebo, and the solutions to the difficulties contained in it” or “On the Mysteries of Egypt”), a learned treatise that defends the proper use of amulets, the efficacy of “barbarian names,” and knowledge granted by visions of the gods (Clarke, De Mysteriis, 4–18; also see Jeremy M. Schott, “Philosophies of Language, Theories of Translation, and Imperial Intellectual Production: The Cases of Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Eusebius,” CH 78 [2009]: 855–861). 80 De Myst. V.18.223,10–224,2; translated and discussed by Clarke, De Mysteriis, 19. Thus, Iamblichus composed a work Emma Clarke has described as a “manifesto of the miraculous,” defending the study of miracles as an intellectual pursuit of extreme importance. 81 For example, one of the disciples of Evagrius employed the miracles of the raising of Lazarus, the healing of the man born blind, the parting of the Red Sea, the release of Peter’s prison chains, and other miracles to consider the opposition of movement and repose in the ascetic life, affirming the value of “symbolic interpretation” (νοἠσεις συμβολικῶς); Chapitres des Disciples d’Évagre, 21 (SC 514:122–124).

182

Jennifer W. Knust and Tommy Wasserman

enactments to engage symbolic truths.82 Christ healed the blind man, brought Lazarus back to life, and enlivened the numb limbs of the paralytic, Didymus pointed out; about these facts there can be no doubt. The recovery of souls from the blindness of sin and ignorance and the restoration of the “eye of faith,” however, was the more important and challenging task, “more admirable and more important than bodily healing.”83 Didymus also occasionally employed labels for Gospel stories that also appear in the Old Greek Chapters, including in his discussion of the story “about the Samaritan woman” and “about the man born blind.”84 As a useful finding aid, the kephalaia, titloi, and pinakes seem to have offered one way to engage these stories quickly, and with ease, as the distinctive unnumbered titloi of Codex Bezae also show. Still, the introduction of a full chapter system in the Gospels required an editor with a proper grammatical training as well as a patron (or set of patrons) able to provide the resources necessary to fund the production of a fourfold Gospels copy that incorporated them. A setting like Caesarea or Alexandria or perhaps even Ephesus (a possible site for the production of Alexandrinus)85 seems likely, if not secure. Wherever and whenever this system was introduced, however, it was received enthusiastically by later editors.

5. A Gospel Filled with Wonders The importance of the Johannine “signs” – described variously as “wonders” (παράδοξα), “miracles” (δυνάμεις), and “marvels” (τεράτα or θαῦματα) – was not lost on early readers of the Gospel. Eusebius, for example, argued that the Apostle John employed stories involving the “wonder-working power of Christ” (θαυματουργῷ τοῦ Χριστοῦ δυνάμει) to announce the knowledge of the Kingdom of Heaven (Hist. eccl. 3.24.3).86 John, he continues, set out to Didymus, In Gen. 6; trans., Robert C. Hill, Didymus the Blind: Commentary on Genesis, FC 157 (Washington D.C.: Catholic University Press, 2016), 157. 83 Didymus, In Gen. 6, 157. 84 Οὕτως εὐρίσκεις κ[αὶ] περ[ὶ] τῆς Σαμαρίτιδος γεγραμμένον [ὅτι καὶ] … (“So also one finds in the story about the Samaritan woman it is written …”); Didymus, Comm. Eccl., f. 361 l. 12 (Gerhard Binder and Leo Liesenborghs, eds., Didymos der Blinde. Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes, pt. 6, Kommentar zu Eccl. Kap. 11–12, Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 9 [Bonn: Habelt, 1969], 234); and τὸν περὶ τοῦ ἀπὸ γέννης τυφλοῦ λόγον (“the report about the man born blind …”); Didymus, Comm. Job f. 118 l. 20 (Albert Henrichs, ed., Didymos der Blinde. Kommentar zu Hiob [Tura-Papyrus], Teil 2, Kommentar zu Hiob Kap. 5,1–6,29, Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 2 [Bonn: Habelt, 1969], 29). 85 Scot McKendrick, “The Codex Alexandrinus: Or the Dangers of Being a Named Manuscript,” in The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text, ed. Scot McKendrick and Orlaith O’Sullivan (London: The British Library and Oak Knoll Press), 9–11. 86 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.24.3 (LCL 153:248–249). 82

The Wondrous Gospel of John

183

relate what Jesus did prior to the imprisonment of John the Baptist as a complement to the work of the other three Evangelists from “this is the first of the incredible deeds Jesus performed” (ταύτην ἀρχὴν ἐποίησεν τῶν παραδόξων ὁ Ἰησοῦς; 3.24.11; cf. John 2:11).87 In other words, John filled in what was missing in the other three Gospels, specifically Jesus’s miracles in order, starting with the miracle in Cana (later kephalaion α´).88 Eusebius employed the term παραδόξων (“of wonderful deeds”) instead of σημείων (“of signs”), the word that actually appears in the Gospel, to describe these miracles; this terminology, as well as other evidence, may indicate that he was depending on information from an earlier source that also identified the Johannine signs as “wonders” (παράδοξα).89 Other Christian writers, however, were equally free with their terminology. According to Origen, for example, John narrates “wonders” (παράδοξα) like the stories of the man born blind and the raising of Lazarus, employing these and other “signs” (σημεία) to reveal the significance of Christ’s wonders to those who are able to understand (Comm. Jo. 1.3/18).90 87 LCL 153:252 (translation our own). Notably, the scribe of "66 (200–250 CE) started to write πρωτην in John 2:11 but cancelled the word with dots and copied αρχην. The two nouns are synonymous in the context (cf. BDAG s.v. ἀρχή 1a), although πρῶτος more clearly carries the notion of the first in a sequence. 88 Charles E. Hill has argued convincingly that Eusebius drew this information from an older source, which, Hill argues, was most likely Papias. Eusebius’s use of the phrases, καὶ ἀληθής γε ὁ λόγος (“and the record is indeed true”), φασι (”they say”) in our passage, and κατέχει λόγος (“a record preserves”) (Hist. eccl. 3.24.5) offers evidence of a source, but it is of course impossible to confirm that his specific source is Papias. See Charles E. Hill, “What Papias Said about John (and Luke): A ‘New’ Papian Fragment,” JTS 49 (1998): 582–629. For discussion of Hill’s proposal, see Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 433–437; and T. Scott Manor, Epiphanius’ Alogi and the Johannine Controversy: A Reassessment of Early Ecclesial Opposition to the Johannine Corpus (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 200–211. Bauckham and Manor both agree that Eusebius is drawing from an older source (not necessarily Papias), but Manor thinks the dependence is limited to the passage in Hist. eccl. 3.24.5–8a which is framed by κατέχει λόγος and καὶ ἀληθής γε ὁ λόγος as “an inclusio" (Manor, Epiphanius’ Alogi, 209). Bauckham, on the other hand, agrees with Hill that φασι does pick up the source again, but emphasizes that “Eusebius is not quoting but paraphrasing” (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 433), and that φασι suggests that the “written source was itself reporting oral tradition” (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 434–435). 89 Hill, “What Papias Said,” 597. Sandnes, “Ancient Debates,” 195 n13, points out that the term παράδοξος “refers to occurrences that are incredible or contrary to all expectations.” 90 … τί τὸ ἔργον τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ ὅτι οὐ πάντως διηγήσασθαι τίνα τρόπον ὁ σωτὴρ τυφλὸν ἀπὸ γενετῆς ἰάσατο, ὀδωδότα νεκρὸν ἀνέστησεν ἥ τι τῶν παραδόξων πεποίηκεν (Comm. Jo. 1.3/18; SC 120 bis:64). Origen discusses Johannine “signs” throughout his Commentary, as in Book Ten, when he explains that the “saints” (ἅγιοι), in a manner similar to John the Baptist, received “signs and marvels” (ἀπὸ τῶν σημείων καὶ τεράτων) through which they observed Christ’s character and believed in the one whom they awaited (commenting on the “sign,” which was this: “Upon whomever you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon his, this is the Son of God” [τὸ δὲ σημεῖον ἧν· “Ἐφ᾽ὅν ἂν ἴδῃς τὸ πνεῦμα καταβαῖνον καὶ μένον ἐπ᾽αὐτόν, οὗτός ἐστιν” ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ], Comm. Jo. 13.59/405 (SC 222:256); trans., Ronald E.

184

Jennifer W. Knust and Tommy Wasserman

Early in the fifth century, Theodore of Mopsuestia repeated the story about John’s compositional process already known to Eusebius, expanding the earlier account: “The faithful throughout Asia,” Theodore reported, requested that “the blessed John” evaluate the earlier Gospels based on his own recollections. Judging them to be accurate and true, he observed that they had “omitted only a few of the miracles that ought to be told” and whereas they had discussed “the presence of Christ in the flesh” they somewhat neglected “the statements that concerned His divinity.”91 John’s companions therefore asked him quickly to write down whatever should be elaborated, and he complied, beginning his Gospel with “the teachings that relate to the divinity,” and then proceeding with “the beginning of the signs,” starting with the wedding at Cana (2:11). Theodore continued: … whenever [the Evangelist] mentions a sign also mentioned by the others, he does that because it needs to be mentioned, as, for example, in the story of the loaves which was also mentioned by the others. … [That] miracle was the occasion for the teachings; and it is indeed not appropriate to mention the teachings without mentioning the reason for them. (Commentary on John, Preface)92

By the time Theodore was writing, this version of these events – the Christians in Asia requested that the Evangelist compose his Gospel and he complied, supplementing the other three Gospels with miracles and divine teachings – appears to have settled into tradition.93 Theodore took the work of his Heine, Origen: Commentary on the Gospel of John. Books 13–32, FC 89 [Washington D.C.: Catholic University Press, 1993], 155). Charles Hill points out that the Muratorian Fragment (2d/4th century) also concludes, “For in this way [John] [himself] professes to be not only an eye-witness and hearer, but also a writer of all the marvelous deeds (mirabilium) of the Lord, in their order (per ordinem).” Mirabilium is the Latin translation of παράδοξος in Luke 5:26 as well, used to describe “the strange or marvelous things the crowds saw at the hands of Jesus” (“What Papias Said,” 584). Translation of the restored Latin text of the MF is from Edmond L. Gallagher and John D. Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Text and Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 179. For a brief review of the discussions and debate over the fragment, see pages 175–178 (including bibliography); cf. Clare Rothschild, “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake,” NovT 60 (2018): 55–82. The Fragment displays a similar concern for the right order of the narratives of the miracles, a point made in a fragment of Papias preserved by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.39.15); Hill, “What Papias Said,” 579; cf. Manor, Epiphanius’ Alogi, 207 n23, who is critical of the attempt to link Eusebius’s account to the Muratorian Fragment, and to make too much of Eusebius’s choice of παραδόξων. 91 Translation by George Kalantizis, Theodore of Mopsuestia. Commentary on the Gospel of John, Early Christian Studies 7 (Strathfield: St. Paul’s Publications, 2004), 41–42. 92 Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary, 42. 93 Ilaria Ramelli has examined more closely several related sources behind the traditions about John’s compositional method, including what is preserved by Theodore and Photius of Constantinople (810–891). Theodore mentions that papyri/rolls (τὰς βίβλους) of the other gospel authors brought to John who supplemented the miracles that were most necessary to be

The Wondrous Gospel of John

185

predecessors a step further, however, checking this account by comparing miracles across the Gospels and noticing when the same miracle appears in all four; he then offered a suitable explanation for the phenomenon. Theodore does not refer to kephalaia or titloi specifically or by name, but he employed a method of comparing miracle stories across his sources. The pattern of highlighting miracles in a list, already observed in Origen’s Commentary on John, is actually a common feature of fourth- and fifth-century Christian writings. In the mid-fourth century, for example, Athanasius of Alexandria, mentions that, thanks to the power of Christ, “the dead were raised (John keph. 11 [11:38–44]; cf. Matt keph. 16 [9:18–26], Mark keph.12 [5:34– 43]; Luke keph. 25 [8:49–56]), the lame walked (Matt keph. 46 [21:14]), the blind regained their sight (John keph. 10 [9:1–12]; cf. Mark keph. 23 [8:22– 26]), lepers were cleansed (Luke keph. 60 [17:11–19]), water became wine (John keph. 1), and five thousand were filled from five loaves of bread (Matt keph. 26 [14:12–22], Mark keph. 16 [6:30–44]; cf. John keph 8 [1–15]; Luke keph. 28 [9:10–17])” (Decr. 1.3).94 Athanasius’s list is drawn from all four Gospels, but he framed the discussion with the Gospel of John.95 Accusing “the Arians” of “Jewish malice” (τῆς Ιουδαικῆς κακοηυείας) he marveled that they, like “Jews” in John, were unwilling to accept Jesus’s status as God, despite his “many signs” (πολλὰ σημεία): “… there were so many signs that even they said, ‘What should we do? For this man works many signs’” (Decr. 1.3).96 In other words, Athanasius suggests, miracles are found in all of the Gospels but the explanation for their significance comes from John, a point of view that was also shared by Theodore. recounted, a detail also found in the Acts of Timothy (see below). Although Photius’s account is shorter, it displays striking parallels – people brought to John papyrus rolls (τόμος) of the Gospels written in different languages recording Jesus’s Passion, miracles and teaching (τὰ σωτήρια τοῦ Δεσπότου πάθη τε καὶ θαύματα καὶ διδάγματα). John acted as the final redactor arranging the Gospels in order and assigning them their names. See Ilaria Ramelli, “John the Evangelist’s Work: An Overlooked Redaktionsgeschichtliche Theory from the Patristic Age,” in The Origins of John’s Gospel, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Hughson T. Ong, Johannine Studies 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 30–52. Ramelli assumes that “the redacted material available to Photius was probably earlier than Acta Timothei” (40). Photius himself labels his source as the “Martyrdom of the Apostle Timothy” (Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 254). 94 Greek text edited by Hans-Georg Opitz, Athanasius Werke II.1 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1935–1941), 1. Translation by Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius (New York and London: Routledge, 2004), 143. 95 The detail about the 5000 fed by five loaves of bread, for example, appears only in Matthew and Mark, and John includes no story about the healing of the lame. In our list, we have highlighted those Gospel episodes that receive notice in the titloi. The modern chapters and verses, however, correspond to our own numbering system. 96 Opitz, Athanasius Werke II.1; Anatalios, Athanasius, 143. On the setting of this letter regarding the Council, see Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993), 198–199 and the introduction by Anotolios, 142–143.

186

Jennifer W. Knust and Tommy Wasserman

The Acts of Timothy expands on the tradition about John and his preservation of Jesus’s miracles, adding further details about the Evangelist’s compositional practice and his intent.97 Once again, miracles are highlighted but, in this case, John is also given a role in the publication of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. In Acts Tim. 8 the writer reports that, “those who had followed after the disciples of our Lord Jesus Christ did not know how to organize the sheets of papyrus (χάρτας/cartas) in their possession.”98 These sheets “had been sporadically organized” and “concerned the miracles (θαυματουργημάτων/miraculis) of our Lord Jesus Christ that happened at their time.” These poorly organized documents, akin perhaps to “notes” placed in “notebooks” (ὑπομνήματα),99 were then brought before “the truly reverent John the theologian.” The Evangelist then took on the role of an editor, putting “the things said by them in order in three Gospels” and assigning the names Matthew, Mark, and Luke to their Gospels (Acts Tim. 9). Since he found them to be lacking a proper account of “the genealogy of the matters relating to the economy of the incarnation,” he then supplied such an account in his own Gospel, “supplementing also the divine miracles (θεῖα θαυματουργήματα/diuina miracula) recounted in the chapters (ἐν τοῖς κεφαλαίοις/in capitulis) missing from them (i.e., the other Gospels, emphasis added; Acts Tim. 10).” Eusebius, Theodore, and the Acts of Timothy agree: the Gospel of John is a particularly valuable source of information about Christ’s miracles and it is this Evangelist who supplies the most important description of the “genealogy of Christ’s incarnation.” These Acts, however, go further by crediting the Apostle John with the work of editing not only his own Gospel but also the other three. The Acts of Timothy is also the first extant Christian writing to locate “divine miracles” in “chapters” (kephalaia). Significantly, the writer identifies what the Evangelist included with the prepositional phrase, ἐν τοῖς κεφαλαίοις,

97 Greek and Latin texts edited by Hermann Usener, Acta S. Timothei (Bonn: Caroli Georgi Universitas, 1877), 9–10; Claudio Zamagni has recently edited the Greek text and provided a French translation on the basis of seven Greek manuscript witnesses (Usener had access to a single Greek witness, which, however, preserves the earliest text). See Claudio Zamagni, “Passion (ou Actes) de Timothée étude des traditions anciennes et edition de la forme BHG 1487,” in Poussières de christianisme et de judaïsme antiques: Études réunies en l’honneur de JeanDaniel Kaestli et Éric Junod, ed. Albert Frey and Rémi Gounelle, Publications de l'institut romand des sciences bibliques 5 (Prahins: Éditions du Zèbre, 2007), 368–371. The English translation follows Cavan W. Concannon, “The Acts of Timothy: A New Translation and Introduction,” in New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 1, ed. Tony Burke and Brent Landau (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016), 403, except in places in italics (our translation). 98 We follow Zamagni’s versification. 99 On the character of the hypomnēmata, see Matthew Larsen, The Gospels Before the Book (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018).

The Wondrous Gospel of John

187

“in the chapters” (our translation).100 By the time the Acts was compiled, perhaps the “chapters” (kephalaia) of Jesus’s Johannine miracles were known as precisely that, chapters. Did this writer have access to a copy of the Fourfold Gospels with a full kephalaia, titloi, and pinakes apparatus in place? An affirmative answer is at least possible. The Acts of Timothy cannot have been composed earlier than the second half of the fourth century and may well be later.101 It was also likely written in Ephesus, as numerous small details included in the story suggest.102 Remarkably, this book may therefore also share an origin with Codex Alexandrinus; as Scot McKendrick has recently argued, Ephesus is a competitively plausible site for the production of this manuscript.103 Still, we cannot be totally confident about either of these suggestions: The term kephalaia is broad and can refer to many different textual divisions, including the Eusebian (Ammonian) sections, and arguments about the provenance of Codex Alexandrinus will only ever be educated guesses. Nevertheless, the Acts of Timothy more clearly emphasizes the physical task of collecting and editing the four gospels, the work of organizing sheets of papyri in various languages, and the decision to assign names (titles) to each gospel – which is only necessary for a collection. Moreover, the Evangelist is described as adding “chapters” with traditions missing from the other three. Perhaps the Acts provides further evidence for some kind of mutually reinforcing process in which, on the one hand, writers highlighted miracles in lists and identified them as a particularly important characteristic of the Gospel of John and, on the other, editors introduced titloi and kephalaia to the Gospel itself, calling further attention to the Johannine “signs.” Editorial intervention and literary interpretation therefore worked hand-in-hand to emphasize Jesus’s wonderworking power. R. A. Lipsius, Die Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, 2 vols. (Braunschweig: C. A. Schwetschke und Sohn, 1884), 2:378 n1, “in den Anfangpartieen?;” Zamagni, “Passion (ou Actes) de Timothée,” 370, “sur les principaux points;” J. H. Crehan, “The Fourfold Character of the Gospel,” in SE I [= TU 73], ed. by Kurt Aland et al. (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1959), 5, “in their accounts;” Concannon, “Acts of Timothy,” 403, and Ramelli, “John the Evangelist’s work,” 45, leave the phrase untranslated. 101 The debates about the date of the Acts of Timothy are reviewed by Cavan Concannon in the introduction to his translation (“Acts of Timothy,” 396–397). Zamagni concludes that, though the Acts cannot have been written until after 350 CE, it may well contain earlier traditions (“La Passion [ou Actes] de Timothée,” 352–357). However, Crehan’s particular argument that the reference to papyri (χάρτας) in the cited passage points to a very early tradition is not persuasive (“Fourfold Character,” 6). 102 The author undeniably displays local knowledge of the topography and culture of Ephesus and likely employed knowledge based on earlier traditions, as Concannon notes (“Acts of Timothy,” 397). Also see Joseph Keil, “Zum Martyrium des heiligen Timotheus in Ephesos,” JÖAI 29 (1935): 82–92; cf. Hans-Josef Klauck, The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008), 248–249. 103 McKendrick, “Codex Alexandrinus,” 9–11. 100

188

Jennifer W. Knust and Tommy Wasserman

An even more telling reference to the kephalaia and titloi of John appears in the mid-sixth-century, in a work designed to defend the theory that the earth is a flat space with four corners, formed by God with a vaulted heaven stretched out above.104 Written anonymously but attributed to one “Cosmas Indicopleustes” (referring to the writer’s trip to India), the Christian Topography survives in three illustrated Byzantine manuscripts dated from the ninth to the eleventh centuries.105 Cosmas based this cosmology on that of Theodore Mopsuestia, though he credited his teacher Mār Abā instead.106 Perhaps he was also familiar with earlier descriptions of the composition of the Gospel of John. Included in this cosmology is yet another summary of the Evangelist’s editorial procedure, but with an added element; Cosmas lists John’s unique contributions by citing titloi: [John supplied what had been omitted by the other three Evangelists], for instance: concerning the wedding at Cana, concerning Nicodemus, concerning the Samaritan woman, concerning the official, concerning the man born blind, concerning Lazarus, concerning the indignation of Judas because of the Lord’s anointing with myrrh, concerning the Greeks who approached, concerning the washing, concerning other teachings given in the course of the narrative, concerning the Paraclete, but in particular also concerning the divinity of Christ, which he clearly proclaimed, placing that first as a foundation of his own writing, everything which was omitted by the others. (Top. 5.202)107

104 This is the Christian Topograpy attributed to Cosmas Indicopleustes (Kosmas Indikopleustes). “Cosmas” argues that the tabernacle is a pattern of the earth, a view shared with Theodore of Mopsuesta; Wanda Wolska, La Topographie Chrétienne de Cosmas Indicopleustès: Théologie et Science au VIe siècle (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1962), 113– 118. On the Christian Topography as part of a wider sixth-century debate about the character of the cosmos, see Wolska, La Topographie, 147–192; also see Kevin van Bladel, “Heavenly Cords and Prophetic Authority in the Quran and Its Late Antique Context,” BSOAS, University of London 70 (2007): 223–246. 105 On these manuscripts and their illuminations, see Leslie Brubaker, “The Relationship of Text and Image in the Byzantine MSS of Cosmas Indicopleustes,” ByzZ 70 (1977): 42–57; Maja Kominko, “The Christian Topography of Kosmas Indikopleustes,” in A Companion to Byzantine Illustrated Manuscripts, ed. Vasiliki Tsamakda, Brill’s Companions to the Byzantine World 2; Leiden: Brill, 2017), 395–406. This work was of interest to early modern scholars, as is evident from the hand-written copy of Biblioteca medicea laurenziana, Ms. Plut. 9.28 at the Rubenstein Library (Duke University) Greek MS 061, copied in 1682 (Online: https://repository.duke.edu/dc/earlymss/emsgk01061, last accessed 2019-09-27). 106 Adam H. Becker, Fear of God and the Beginning of Wisdom: The School of Nisibis and the Development of Scholastic Culture in Late Antique Mesopotamia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 113–114, 122. 107 … οἶον περὶ τοῦ ἐν Κανᾶ γάνμου, περὶ Νικοδήμου, περὶ τῆς Σαμαρείτιδος, περὶ τοῦ βασκλικοῦ, περὶ τοῦ ἐκ γενετῆς τυφλοῦ, περὶ Λαζάρου, περἰ τοῦ τὸν Ἰούδαν ἀγανακτεῖν διὰ τὴν ἀλείψασαν τὸν Κύριον μύρῳ, περὶ τῶν προσελθόντων Ἑλλήνων, περὶ τοῦ νιπτῆρος, καὶ περὶ ἑτέροων διδασκαλιῶν ἐν μέσῳ εἰρημένων, περὶ τοῦ Παρακλήτου, ἐξαιρέτως δὲ καὶ περὶ τῆς θεότητος τοῦ Χριστοῦ φανερῶς κηρύξας καὶ θεμέλιον τῆς ἑαυτοῦ συγγραφῆς αὐτὸ προτάξας, ἅπερ πάντα παραλελειμμένα τοῖς ἄλλοις ἦν. Edited with French translation by

The Wondrous Gospel of John

189

Cosmas’s list does not correspond precisely either to the Old Greek Chapters or to other titloi encountered in manuscripts, but the vocabulary and order are very similar. Like an Old Greek pinax to John, he begins his list with the wedding at Cana, going on to name kephalaia three, five, six, ten, eleven, fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen, combining kephalaia twelve and thirteen into one category (“concerning the indignation of Judas because of the Lord’s anointing with myrrh” [John 12:1–8] instead of “concerning the anointing of the Lord with myrrh” and “concerning the rebuke of Judas”). Between the two last in his list he might have summarized those titloi he did not specifically mention (“concerning other teachings given in the course of the narrative”). Table 3: Comparison of Titloi The Old Greek Chapters (as in Alexandrinus) α′ περι του εν κανα γαμου γ′ περι νικοδημου ε′ περι της σαμαριτιδος ϛ′ περι του βασιλικου ι′ περι του τυφλου ια′ περι λαζαρου ιβ′ περι της αλιψασης τον κ̅ν μυρω ιγ′ περι ων ειπεν ϊουδας ιε′ περι των προσελθοντων ελληνων ιϛ′ περι του νιπτηρος ιζ′ περι του παρακλητου

The List of Cosmas Indicopleustes περὶ τοῦ ἐν Κανᾶ γάμου περὶ Νικοδήμου περὶ τῆς Σαμαρείτιδος περὶ τοῦ βασιλικοῦ, περὶ τοῦ ἐκ γενετῆς τυφλοῦ108 περὶ Λαζάρου [περἰ τοῦ τὸν Ἰούδαν ἀγανακτεῖν διὰ τὴν ἀλείψασαν τὸν Κύριον μύρῳ] περὶ τῶν προσελθόντων Ἑλλήνων περὶ τοῦ νιπτῆρος [καὶ περὶ ἑτέροων διδασκαλιῶν ἐν μέσῳ εἰρημένω] περὶ τοῦ Παρακλήτου

Whereas it is very likely that Cosmas referred to the Old Greek Chapters in John, he does not mention similar systems of dividing, listing, and naming the kephalaia present in the other three Gospels, possibly because, from his perspective, John supplied what was missing in the other Gospels. Significantly, after listing the chapters (from John 2), he referred back to the prologue, “concerning the divinity of Christ” (περὶ τῆς θεότητος τοῦ Χριστοῦ; which is missing from the kephalaia) as “a foundation of his own writing,” reflecting a similar concern for what was neglected by the other Evangelists, as reported by Theodore (“the statements that concerned His divinity”) and the Acts of Timothy (“the genealogy of the matters relating to the economy of the incarnation”). Cosmas’s list of Johannine titloi, placed within his broader discussion of the character of the material cosmos, also attests to a world where scriptures Wanda Wolska-Conus, Cosmas Indicopleustès. Topographie Chrétienne, vol. 2 (Livre V), SC 159 (Paris: Cerf, 1970), 303. English translation our own. 108 This form is attested in the fifth-century Ephraemi Rescriptus (περι του εν [sic] γενετης τυφλου).

190

Jennifer W. Knust and Tommy Wasserman

– and John above all – are privileged sources through which God’s actions are to be observed and known.109 Like Origen, Didymus, and John Chrysostom before him, he assumed that the world was full of visible signs of divinity and that the Gospel of John was the central window through which divine truths could be observed.

6. What John Means Summarizing opinions about the divine scriptures held by Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea reports that, according to Clement, John, being “conscious that the outward facts (τὰ σωματικά) had been set forth in the Gospels” responded both to the exhortations of his disciples and to the movement of the Spirit when he composed “a spiritual Gospel” (Hist. eccl. 6.14.7).110 Later editors and readers agreed with this assessment, highlighting Jesus’s wondrous deeds and sayings in lists and thereby emphasizing the power that the Christian God holds over the created order. The Evangelist’s “signs” (σημεία) were important not only because of what they could demonstrate about Christ’s healing powers but also because they unlocked a truth late antique Christians also wanted to claim: their scriptures reveal the reality of the cosmos, in all its complexity. To paraphrase John Chrysostom, by reading the Gospel of John with the “eye of faith,” one was able to read the entire world. By dividing, listing, summarizing, and commenting, ancient Christian scholars transformed John into a cosmological and theological guidebook, composed by the Evangelist to supplement the “outward facts” (lit., “things of the body”) already established by his three counterparts. Anonymous late ancient editors and their patrons – those responsible for introducing the Old Greek Chapters to the Gospels – appear to have taken on a similar task, albeit apart from any explicit explanation of either their criteria or their goals. Literate exegesis and its grammatical procedures anticipated and then resonated with what the Old Greek Chapters of John also seem to certify: this Gospel is the appropriate source for special knowledge about God’s involvement in the material world. A text, Martin Irvine has argued, is a “social and institutional event with a historically situated material form.”111 This principle is no less true of the 109 Daniel Caner, History and Hagiography from Late Antique Sinai, with contributions by Sebastian Brock, Richard Price, and Kevin van Bladel, Translated Texts for Historians 53 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2010), 246: Cosmas was “an empiricist who sought to ground scriptural events in observable phenomena.” 110 τὸν μέντοι Ἰωάννην ἔσχατον, συνιδόντα ὅτι τὰ σωματικὰ ἐν τοῖς εὐαγγελίοις δεδήλωται, προτραπέντα ὑπὸ τῶν γνωρίμων, πνεύματι θεοφορηθέντα πνευματικὸν ποιῆσαι εὐαγγέλιον (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.14.7; LCL 265: 48–49). 111 Martin Irvine, The Making of Textual Culture: “Grammatica” and Literary Theory, 350–1100 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 371.

The Wondrous Gospel of John

191

Gospel of John: as its social and institutional circumstances change, so does its material form. The introduction of the Eusebian apparatus, the Old Greek Chapters, and even the comparatively more fluid textual units attested in some papyri and majuscules, encoded this text with visual aids and formatting devices that encouraged readers to read in particular ways and in pursuit of particular sorts of information. The same can be said of the introduction of modern chapters to the Vulgate and then, much later, to Greek Bibles produced in Western Europe. Layout, word division, punctuation, marginal notes, titles, and section headings present the text “as it is” – “as it is perceived to be” – in such a way that what is “outside” (the apparatus) discloses what is “inside” (the text) by collapsing the distinction between them.112 For ancient Christians, what was “inside” John was, to paraphrase Origen, a “hortatory discourse” that confirms that Jesus is the Son of God, in part by means of “signs.” The kephalaia, titloi, and pinax substantiate this point of view. Though the purpose of this paratextual device remains elusive, highlighting the wonder-working powers of Christ appears to have situated the Gospel of John at the center of a broader philosophical debate about the nature of divine intervention in the material world. The “chapters” also provided ready access to Christ’s miracles, implicitly confirming the unanimity of the Gospels on the miraculous “facts” of the incarnation and thereby confirming the efficacy of Christian faith. It is rare to find a critical edition of the New Testament that prints the Old Greek Chapters, though the Nestle-Aland Edition does include the kephalaia numbers, if not the titloi and pinakes. Overlooking them, however, misses the earlier significance of John as a Gospel filled with wonders.

Bibliography Ancient Authors Acta Timothei (Acts of Timothy). Edited by Hermann Usener. Acta S. Timothei. Bonn: Caroli Georgi Universitas, 1877; Edited by Claudio Zamagni. “Passion (ou Actes) de Timothée étude des traditions anciennes et edition de la forme BHG 1487.” Pages 341–375 in Poussères de christianisme et de judaïsme antiques: Études réunies en l’honneur de JeanDaniel Kaestli et Éric Junod. Edited by Albert Frey and Rémi Gounelle. Publications de l’institut romand des sciences bibliques 5. Prahins: Éditions du Zèbre, 2007. Translated by Cavan W. Concannon. “The Acts of Timothy: A New Translation and Introduction.” Pages 395–405 in New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures. Vol. 1. Edited by Tony Burke and Brent Landau. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Athanasius of Alexandria. De decretis Nicenae synodis. Pages 1–45 in Athanasius Werke II.1. Edited by Hans-Georg Opitz. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1935–1941. Translation by Khaled Anatolios, Athanasius. New York and London: Routledge, 2004.

112

Cf. Irvine, Textual Culture, 392.

192

Jennifer W. Knust and Tommy Wasserman

Cosmas Indicopleustes (Kosmas Indikopleustes). Christian Topography. Edited with French translation by Wanda Wolska-Conus. Cosmas Indicopleustès. Topographie Chrétienne. 3 vols. SC 141, 159, 197. Paris: Cerf, 1968–1973. Didymus the Blind. Commentarii in Ecclesiasten. In Didymos der Blinde: Kommentar zum Ecclesiastes (Tura-Papyrus). Part 6, Kommentar zu Eccl. Kap. 11–12. Edited by Gerhard Binder and Leo Liesenborghs. Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 9. Bonn: Habelt, 1969. –. In Genesim. Translated by Robert C. Hill, Didymus the Blind: Commentary on Genesis. FC 157 Washington D.C.: Catholic University Press, 2016. –. Commentarii in Job. In Didymos der Blinde: Kommentar zu Hiob (Tura-Papyrus). Teil 2, Kommentar zu Hiob Kap. 5,1–6,29. Edited by Albert Henrichs. Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen 2. Bonn: Habelt, 1969. Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica, vol. I: Books 1–5. Translated by Kirsopp Lake. LCL 153. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. –. Historia ecclesiastica, vol. II: Books 6–10. Translated by J. E. L. Oulton. LCL 265. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932. Eusebius. Epistula ad Carpianum. Greek text in NA28 (pp. 89*–90*). Evagrius of Pontus [Évagre le Pontique]. Chapitres des Disciples d’Évagre. Edited by Paul Géhin. SC 514. Paris: Cerf, 2007. Iamblichus. Protreptikos. Edited by Édouard des Places. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1989. Origenes. Commentarium in evangelium Joannis. Edited and translated by Cécile Blank. Commentaire sur Saint Jean, Tomes 1, Livres I–V. SC 120 bis. Paris: Cerf, 1996; Tome 3, Livre X. SC 222. Paris: Cerf, 1975. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Origen: Contra Celsum Translated with an Introduction and Notes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953; and Ronald E. Heine, Origen: Commentary on the Gospel of John. Books 13–32. FC 89. Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1993. Theodore of Mopsuestia. Commentary on the Gospel of John. Translated by George Kalantizis. Early Christian Studies 7. Strathfield: St. Paul’s Publications, 2004.

Modern Authors Abbot, Ezra. “On the Comparative Antiquity of the Sinaitic and Vatican Manuscripts of the Greek Bible.” JAOS 10 (1872): 189–200. Amphoux, Christian-Bernard. “La division du texte grec des Évangiles dans l’Antiquité.” Pages 301–312 in Titres et articulations du texts dans les oevres antiques. Edited by JeanClaude Fredouille. Paris: Institut des études Augustiniennes, 1997. Bainton, Roland H. “The Bible in the Reformation.” Pages 1–37 in The West from the Reformation to the Present Day. Edited by S. L. Greenslade. Vol. 3 of The Cambridge History of the Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Barnes, Timothy D. Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993. Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Becker, Adam H. Fear of God and the Beginning of Wisdom: The School of Nisibis and the Development of Scholastic Culture in Late Antique Mesopotamia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. Birdsall, J. Neville and David C. Parker. “The Date of Codex Zacynthius (Ξ): A New Proposal.” JTS 55 (2004): 117–131. Blackwell, Christopher W. and Casey Dué. “Homer and History in Venetus A.” Pages 1–18 in Recapturing a Homeric Legacy: Images and Insights from the Venetus A Manuscript of the

The Wondrous Gospel of John

193

Iliad. Edited by Casey Dué. Hellenistic Studies Series. Cambridge: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2009. Blomkvist, Vemund. Euthalian Traditions: Text, Translation and Commentary. TUGAL 170. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Blumell, Lincoln H. “The Classroom Context of the New Testament Text of Didymus the Blind: A Reconsideration of the Tura Papyri and their Text-Critical Value.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Denver, November 2018. Bovon, François. “Names and Numbers in Early Christianity.” NTS 47 (2001): 267–288. Brubaker, Leslie. “The Relationship of Text and Image in the Byzantine MSS of Cosmas Indicopleustes.” ByzZ 70 (1977): 42–57. Budé, A. W. A. M. “De hypotheseis der Griekse tragedies en komedies. Een onderzoek naar de hypotheseis van Dicaearchus.” PhD diss., Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, 1977. Burgon, John W. The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Vindicated Against Recent Critical Objectors and Established. London: James Parker and Co., 1871. Burns, Yvonne. “Chapter Numbers in Greek and Slavonic Gospel Codices.” NTS 23 (1977): 320–333 Caner, Daniel. History and Hagiography from Late Antique Sinai. Translated Texts for Historians 53. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2010. Chin, Catherine M. Grammar and Christianity in the Late Roman World. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007. Clarke, Emma. Iamblichus’ De Mysteriis: A Manifesto on the Miraculous. Altershot and Burlington: Ashgate, 2001. Coogan, Jeremiah. “Mapping the Fourfold Gospel: Textual Geography in the Eusebian Apparatus.” JECS 25 (2017): 337–357. Cox Miller, Patricia. The Corporeal Imagination: Signifying the Holy in Late Ancient Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009. Crawford, Matthew R. “Ammonius of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea and the Origins of Gospels Scholarship.” NTS 61 (2015): 1–29. Crehan, J. H. “The Fourfold Character of the Gospel.” Pages 3–13 in SE III, Papers Presented to the International Congress on “The Four Gospels in 1957” Held at Christ Church, Oxford, 1957. Edited by Kurt Aland et al. TU 73. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1959. d’Esneval, Amaury. “La division de la vulgate latine en chapitres dans l’édition Parisienne du XIIIe siècle.” RSPT 62 (1978): 559–568. Daniell, David. The Bible in English. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Diels, Hermann. Doxographi Graeci. Berlin: Remeiri, 1879. Edwards, James R. “The Hermeneutical Significance of Chapter Divisions in Ancient Gospel Manuscripts.” NTS 56 (2010): 413–426. Ehrhard, Albert. “Der Codex H ad epistulas Pauli und ‘Euthalios diaconos.’” Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 8 (1891): 385–411. Frank, Georgia. The Memory of the Eyes: Pilgrims to Living Saints in Late Antiquity. Transformations of the Classical Heritage 30. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Fredriksen, Paula. Augustine and the Jews. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010. Gallagher, Edmond L. and John D. Meade. The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Text and Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Géhin, Paul. “Les collections de kephalaia monastiques: naissance et succès d’un genre entre création originale, plagiat et florilège.” Pages 1–50 in The Minor Genres of Byzantine Theological Literature. Edited by Antonio Rigo in collaboration with Pavel Ermilov and Michele Trizio. Belgium: Brepols, 2013.

194

Jennifer W. Knust and Tommy Wasserman

Görgemanns, Herwig and Heinrich Karpp. Origenes vier Bücher von den Prinzipien. Texte zur Forschung 24. 2nd ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1985. Goswell, Greg. “Early Readers of the Gospels: The Kephalaia and Titloi of Codex Alexandrinus.” JGRChJ 6 (2009): 134–174. Grenz, Jesse R. “Textual Divisions in Codex Vaticanus: A Layered Approach to the Delimiters in B (03).” TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 23 (2018): 13–22. Online at http://jbtc.org/v23/TC-2018-Grenz.pdf (last accessed 2019-09-27). Gutzwiller, Kathryn, ed. The New Posidippus: A Hellenistic Poetry Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Hall, Basil. “Biblical Scholarship: Editions and Commentaries.” Pages 38–93 in The West from the Reformation to the Present Day. Edited by S. L. Greenslade. Vol. 3 of The Cambridge History of the Bible. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963. Harris, J. Rendel. The Annotators of the Codex Bezae (with Some Notes on Sortes Sanctorum). London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1901. Head, Peter. “The Gospel of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus: Textual and Reception-Historical Considerations.” TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 13 (2008): 1–38. Online at http://jbtc.org/v13/Head2008.pdf (last accessed 2019-09-27). Higbie, Carolyn. “Divide and Edit: A Brief History of Book Divisions.” HSCP 105 (2010): 1– 31. Hill, Charles E. “Rightly Dividing the Word: Uncovering an Early Template for Textual Division in John’s Gospel.” Pages 217–238 in Studies on the Text of the New Testament and Early Christianity. Essays in Honor of Michael W. Holmes. Edited by Daniel M. Gurtner et al. NTTSD 50. Leiden: Brill, 2015. –. “What Papias Said about John (and Luke): A ‘New’ Papian Fragment.” JTS 49 (1998): 582– 629. Irvine, Martin. The Making of Textual Culture: “Grammatica” and Literary Theory, 350-1100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Kalvesmaki, Joel. “Evagrius in the Byzantine Genre of Chapters.” Pages 257–287 in Evagrius and His Legacy. Edited by Joel Kalvesmaki and Robin Darling Young. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2016. Keil, Joseph. “Zum Martyrium des heiligen Timotheus in Ephesos.” JÖAI 29 (1935): 82–92. Klauck, Hans-Josef. The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008. Knust, Jennifer and Tommy Wasserman. To Cast the First Stone: The Transmission of a Gospel Story. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019. Kominko, Maja. “The Christian Topography of Kosmas Indikopleustes.” Pages 395–406 in A Companion to Byzantine Illustrated Manuscripts. Edited by Vasiliki Tsamakda, Brill’s Companions to the Byzantine World 2; Leiden: Brill, 2017. Krevans, Nita. “The Editor’s Toolbox: Strategies for Selection and Presentation in the Milan Epigram Papyrus.” Pages 81–96 in The New Posidippus. A Hellenistic Poetry Book. Edited by Kathryn Gutzwiller. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Larsen, Matthew. The Gospels Before the Book. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018. Light, Laura. “The Bible and the Individual: The Thirteenth-Century Paris Bible.” Pages 228– 246 in The Practice of the Bible in the Middle Ages: Production, Reception, and Performance in Western Christianity. Edited by Susan Boynton and Diane J. Reilly. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011. Lipsius, R. A. Die Apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden. 2 vols. Braunschweig: C. A. Schwetschke und Sohn, 1884.

The Wondrous Gospel of John

195

Manor, T. Scott. Epiphanius’ Alogi and the Johannine Controversy: A Reassessment of Early Ecclesial Opposition to the Johannine Corpus. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Mansfeld, Jaap and David T. Runia. Aëtiana: The Method and Intellectual Context of a Doxographer. 4 vols. Philosophia Antiqua 73, 114, 118, 148. Leiden: Brill, 1997–2018. McArthur, Henry K. “The Earliest Divisions of the Gospels.” Pages 266–272 in SE III, Papers Presented to the Second International Congress on New Testament Studies Held at Christ Church, Oxford 1961. Edited by F. L Cross. TUGAL 88. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1964. McKendrick, Scot. “The Codex Alexandrinus: Or the Dangers of Being a Named Manuscript.” Pages 1–16 in The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text. Edited by Scot McKendrick and Orlaith O’Sullivan. London: The British Library and Oak Knoll Press. Méhat, André. Étude sur les ”Stromates” de Clément d’Alexandrie, Patristica Sorbonensia 7. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1966. Meier, John P. “The Present State of the ‘Third Quest’ for the Historical Jesus: Loss and Gain.” Bib 80.4 (1999): 459–487. Moxnes, Halvor. “Ethnography and Historical Imagination in Reading Jesus as an Exorcist.” Neot 44.2 (2010): 327–341. Nestle, Eberhard. “Die Eusebianische Evangeliensynopse.” NKZ 19 (1908): 40–51. Nicklas, Tobias and Tommy Wasserman. “Theologische Linien im Codex Bodmer Miscellani?” Pages 166–188 in New Testament Manuscripts and Their World. Edited by Thomas. J. Kraus and Tobias Nicklas. TENTS 2. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Nordenfalk, Carl. “The Eusebian Canons: Some Textual Problems.” JTS 35 (1984): 96–104. –. Die spätantiken Kanontafeln: kunstgeschichtliche Studien über die eusebianische Evangelien-Konkordanz in den vier ersten Jahrhunderten ihrer Geschichte. 2 vols. Göteborg: Oscar Isacsons Boktyckeri, 1938. Nünlist, René. “A Neglected Testimonium on the Homeric Book-Division.” ZPE 157 (2006): 47–49. Oliver, Harold H. “The Epistle of Eusebius to Carpianus,” NovT 3 (1959): 138–145. Ramelli, Ilaria. “John the Evangelist’s Work: An Overlooked Redaktionsgeschichtliche Theory from the Patristic Age.” Pages 30–52 in The Origins of John’s Gospel. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Hughson T. Ong. Johannine Studies 2. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Rothschild, Clare. “The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake.” NovT 60 (2018): 55–82. Royé, Stefan. “The Cohesion between the Ammonian-Eusebian Apparatus and the Byzantine Liturgical Pericope System in Tetraevangelion Codices: Stages in the Creation, Establishment and Evolution of Byzantine Codex Forms.” Pages 55–116 in A Catalogue of Byzantine Manuscripts. Edited by Klas Spronk et al. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013. Saenger, Paul. “The Impact of the Early Printed Page on the Reading of the Bible.” Pages 31– 51 in The Bible as Book: The First Printed Editions. Edited by Paul Sanger and Kimberley van Kampen. London: British Library, 1999. –. “The Twelfth-Century Reception of Oriental Languages and the Graphic Mise en page of Latin Vulgate Bibles Copied in England.” Pages 31–66 in Form and Function in the Late Medieval Bible. Edited by Eyal Poleg and Laura Light. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Sandnes, Karl Olav. “Ancient Debates on Jesus as Miracle Worker: Emic and Etic Perspectives.” Pages 193–214 in Healing and Exorcism in Second Temple Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Mikael Tellbe, Tommy Wasserman, and Ludvig Nyman (assistant). WUNT II. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019. Schnelle, Udo. “The Signs in the Gospel of John.” Pages 231–243 in Glimpses of Jesus through the Johannine Lens. Vol. 3 of John, Jesus, and History. Edited by Paul. N. Anderson, Felix Just, and Tom Thatcher. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016.

196

Jennifer W. Knust and Tommy Wasserman

Schott, Jeremy M. “‘Living Like a Christian, but Playing the Greek’: Accounts of Apostasy and Conversion in Porphyry and Eusebius.” Journal of Late Antiquity 1 (2008): 258–277. –. “Philosophies of Language, Theories of Translation, and Imperial Intellectual Production: The Cases of Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Eusebius.” CH 78 (2009): 855–861. Skapte Jensen, Minna et al. “Dividing Homer: When and How Were the Iliad and the Odyssey Divided into Songs?” SO 74 (1999): 5–91. Smith, Morton. Jesus the Magician. New York: Gollancz, 1978. Smith, W. Andrew. A Study of the Gospels in Codex Alexandrinus: Codicology, Palaeography, and Scribal Hands. NTTSD 48. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Soden, Hermann von. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte. 2 parts in 4 vols., 2nd unchanged ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911–1913. Stefaniw, Blossom. Christian Reading: Language, Ethics, and the Order of Things. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2019. –. “The School of Didymus the Blind in Light of the Tura Find.” Pages 153–181in Monastic Education in Late Antiquity: The Transformation of Classical Paideia. Edited by Samuel Rubenson and Lillian I. Larsen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. Thiele, Walter. “Beobachtungen zu den eusebianischen Sektionen und Kanones der Evangelien.” ZNW 72 (1981): 40–51, 93–114, 219–232. van Bladel, Kevin. “Heavenly Cords and Prophetic Authority in the Quran and Its Late Antique Context.” BSOAS, University of London 70 (2007): 223–246. van Rossum-Steenbeek, Monique. Greek Readers’ Digests? Studies on a Selection of Subliterary Papyri. Mnemosyne Supplement 175. Leiden: Brill 1998. Wiles, Maurice F. The Spiritual Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960. Willard, Louis Charles. A Critical Study of the Euthalian Apparatus. ANTF 41. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Wolska, Wanda. La Topographie Chrétienne de Cosmas Indicopleustès: Théologie et Science au VIe siècle. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1962. Zahn, Theodor. Tatian’s Diatessaron. Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur 1; Erlangen: Deichert, 1881. Zuntz, Günther. The Ancestry of the Harklean New Testament. The British Academy, Supplemental Papers 7. London: Oxford University Press, 1945. –. “Euthalius = Euzoius?,” VC 7 (1953): 16–22.

Ancient Debates on Jesus as Miracle Worker: Emic and Etic Perspectives Karl Olav Sandnes Jesus as a healer and his miracles and exorcisms were an issue between pagan critics and Christian advocates, most prominently in the debates between Celsus and Origen and between Hierocles and Eusebius.1 Any evaluation or judgment concerning Jesus as healer is necessarily perspectival. How this phenomenon is viewed is a matter of perspective and labelling, as these controversies demonstrate. Cultural anthropology differentiates between emic and etic perspectives. An emic perspective is the insider view: how participants view the phenomenon in question. An emic perspective is when the phenomenon in question is made sense of from within the New Testament itself.2 Different perspectives also appear in New Testament writings, but most of them are emic in nature. An etic perspective is how things look to an outsider, to an observer; it can easily become more critical than an emic perspective. According to Mark 3:22–27, Jesus had an argument with the Pharisees regarding his healing activities. They did not in any way deny that he performed wondrous works. The point they made was that “He has Beelzebul, and by the ruler of the demons he casts out demons” (v. 22; NRSV). In other words, Jesus’s healings are the acts of a demoniac or the devil at work. This is an etic perspective articulated within the New Testament. The present article delves into Origen versus Celsus and Eusebius versus Hierocles; the first author in each case represents the emic perspective and the latter the etic. From these debates we will also glean information on how the miracles were integrated into larger perspectives.

1 On these debates in general, see John Granger Cook, The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002). I thank Gunnar Samuelsson (Gothenburg University) for responding to this paper and offering constructive criticism. 2 Jan-Olav Henriksen and Karl Olav Sandnes, Jesus as Healer: A Gospel for the Body (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016).

198

Karl Olav Sandnes

1. Celsus on Jesus’s Miracles Around 175 CE, the Greek philosopher Celsus wrote Alêthês Logos (The True Doctrine), a now-lost book against the Christians,3 to which Origen responded in detail in eight books. The style of the refutation is to quote Celsus and then to respond (Contra Celsum). We thus gain a fairly good picture of Celsus’s lost text. Origen wrote his refutation around 248 CE, which indicates that his text has a purpose beyond simply rebutting Celsus. Origen calls his work an apology.4 1.1. Magic versus Reason Celsus touches on Jesus as healer in several passages, among which Cels. 1.6, 1.38, 1.68, and 2.48–54 are of special interest. It is natural to start with 1.6. Celsus is in no doubt that both Christians and Jesus himself possessed the power (δοκοῦσιν ἰσχύειν) to heal and perform miracles (Cels. 1.6).5 This was done by invoking “the names of certain demons (δαιμόνων τινῶν).” It is worth noting here that Celsus does not discriminate between miracles and exorcisms, which is also how Origen reasons (Cels. 1.46; 1.67).6 Horacio E. Lona points out that although δαίμων is not necessarily a negative term for Celsus, he introduces a critique that runs throughout his Alêthês Logos. Celsus later says that the demons are called by barbarous names (ὀνόματα βαρβαρικά; Cels. 6.39),7 since the power attributed to them depends upon the exotic: “if pronounced in Greek or Latin, they are no longer effective (οὐκέτι)” (Cels. 8.37).8 Greek οὐκέτι is significant here; the power called upon exists in language only, and indeed a language that is not understood, which is what “barbarous” really means.9 What Celsus hints at here is that the phenomenon is a product of conscious attempts to misguide people. People with some training are not easily attracted to this effort (Cels. 1.27; 3.44; 3.50). According to Lona, “[d]ie Horacio E. Lona, Die ‘Wahre Lehre’ des Kelsos: Übersetzt und erklärt, KfA 1 (Freiburg: Herder, 2005), 54–55. Lona’s commentary is a reconstruction based on Origen’s refutation in Contra Celsum. 4 For references, see Michael Fiedrowicz and Claudia Barthold, Origenes: Contra Celsum, Fontes Christiani 50.1 (Freiburg: Herder, 2011), 38. 5 SC 132.90.1–15. 6 Cels. 1.46 (SC 132.196.14–16); 1:67 (SC 132.266.21–25). Andrew Dauton-Fear, Healing in the Early Church: The Church’s Ministry of Healing and Exorcism from the First to the Fifth Century, Studies in Christian History and Thought (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009), 101–105, gives the two phenomena separate presentations. The way Origen treats these issues suggests considerable overlap and that it is difficult to distinguish sharply between them. 7 SC 147.272.1–2. 8 SC 150.256.3–5. Lona, Kelsos, 78. According to Irenaeus, Haer. 1.21.3 such use of barbaric or exotic names was intended to impress initiates. 9 LSJ s.v. βάρβαρος. 3

Ancient Debates on Jesus as Miracle Worker

199

Anrufung der Dämonen gerät so auf das gefährliche Terrain der Magie und Zauberei und entfernt sich auch in der Diktion vom Raum der Vernunft und Bildung.”10 This captures the audacity in Celsus’s critique of Jesus as a miracle worker: Christians and their beliefs are firmly rooted in the fact that they lack education and are simpletons.11 It is among this rabble that the rumour of Jesus as a healer came into being and where it is kept alive. His critique proceeds from the more generally applied conviction that Christian belief is contrary to reason. As Origen’s comments naturally mirror Celsus’s critique, we cite Origen’s response: He attacked Jesus, saying that it was by magic (γοητείᾳ) that he was able to do the miracles (παράδοξα πεποικέναι) which he appeared to have done; and because he foresaw that others too would get to know the same formulas (τὰ…μαθήματα) and do the same thing, and boast that they did so by God’s power (τῷ θεοῦ δυνάμει ποιεῖν), Jesus expelled them from his society (πολιτείας). He makes the accusation against him that if he was right in driving them out, although he was guilty of the same himself, he is a bad man; but if he is not a bad man for having done this, neither are they who acted as he did. But, on the contrary, even if it seems impossible to prove (ἀνέλεγκτον) how Jesus did these things, it is clear that Christians make no use of spells (ἐπῳδῶν), but only of the name of Jesus with other words which are believed to be effective taken from the divine scripture (Cels. 1.6).12

The italics indicate Origen’s citations of Celsus. Origen introduces Celsus’s dicta as citations (e.g., φησί). It is debatable, however, exactly where quotation ends and paraphrase begins. In any case, the dialogical style of Origen’s presentation is essential since it discloses that we are in the middle of a refutation that mirrors contentious issues at work in the controversy. The key phrase παράδοξα ποιεῖν is unquestionably ironic or negative.13 Hence, the recent Fontes Christiani edition renders it as “seine scheinbaren

Lona, Kelsos, 78. Karl Olav Sandnes, The Challenge of Homer: School, Pagan Poets and Early Christianity, LNTS 400 (New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 149–157. 12 SC 132.92.15–28. English translation in Henry Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum Translated with an Introduction and Notes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953). For the Greek text, see Fiedrowicz and Barthold, Origenes, which is taken from Marcel Borret, ed., Origène: Contra Celse 1–5 (SC 132; 136; 147; 150; 227; Paris: Cerf, 1967–1976). 13 In the so-called Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.63–64), this is also the term used for the miracles wrought by Jesus. This terminology refers to occurrences that are incredible or contrary to all expectations. The context is decisive as to whether a given reference is negative or simply expresses wonderment. Josephus uses this terminology for the miracles of Elisha (Ant. 9.182) and in Ant. 2.284–287 with reference to the spectacular performances of Moses in front of Pharaoh. For Testimonium Flavianum, see Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, “Das Testimonium Flavianum aus neutestamentlicher Perspektive” in Josephus und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen, ed. C. Böttrich and J. Herzer, WUNT 209 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 117–136. 10 11

200

Karl Olav Sandnes

Wunder.”14 That translation is rather precise, as the phenomenon is introduced as γοητεία. This noun includes fraud or deception; it is often associated with leading astray.15 Jesus is enrolled among charlatans. Celsus and Origen agree that magic and deception are in tandem (Cels. 2.51; 6.38–39), but they argue inversely from this shared opinion. Celsus does not deny that Jesus performed miracles and healings, only that this did not distinguish him from his contemporaries. He was at home in the guild of magicians, a fact substantiated in the New Testament. Celsus calls upon passages saying that Jesus expelled false Messiahs and prophets from his community (Mark 13:22; Matt 24:24; cf. 2 Thess 2:1–12). Jesus thus aligned himself with sorcerers. He did away with his competitors; the biblical notion of an Antichrist performing miracles is turned against Jesus himself, since Jesus said that “there will come others who employ similar miracles (ἕτεροι δυνάμεσιν ὁμοίαις χρώμενοι), wicked men and sorcerers (γόητες)” (Cels. 2.49–50).16 The key word here is of course “similar,” which places Jesus among the “wicked” and “sorcerers” and acknowledges their procedures. As for the Greek nouns μαθήματα (in Celsus’s polemic) and ἐπῳδή (in Origen’s response) found above, the first refers to knowledge or instruction, with no reference to magic or spells. The context, however, leaves no doubt that some kind of trickery is involved. Origen’s response uses a more specific term that means enchantment or spell, thus substantiating the pejorative use of μαθήματα here.17 The text in which Origen comments on how Celsus would likely expose what happened when Peter was released from prison in Acts 12:6–9 is instructive: “for he would very likely say about it that certain sorcerers (γόητές τινες) also loose chains and open doors by spells (ἐπῳδαῖς), so that he would put the stories told of sorcerers (τὰ τῶν γοήτων) on a level with those in our books” (Cels. 2.34).18 To Celsus, the miracles or healings were in some sense real, as he puts it in Cels. 1.68: “Come, let us believe that these miracles really were done by you.”19 In the context, healings, raising the dead, and the multiplication of loaves are mentioned; Celsus was familiar with stories known from the gospels. The kind of reality at play here is equivalent to the shows performed at marketplaces by γοηταί. It is worth noting that the tricksters who fill the marketplaces also make use of tricks and fantasy (φαντασία; Cels. 1.68).20 Celsus compares the tales of magicians with the gospels, which as told (ἱστορηκέναι) Fiedrowicz and Barthold, Origenes, 203. Franco Montanari, The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, (Leiden: Brill, 2015), s.v. γοητεία. 16 SC 132.396.20–25. 17 LSJ s.v. μαθήματα. 18 SC 132.368.14–17. 19 SC 132.266.7–8. 20 SC 132.266.7–19. 14 15

Ancient Debates on Jesus as Miracle Worker

201

by the disciples are characterized as τερατευσαμένοι. Characterizing the gospels thusly exposes Celsus’s view of them and on the healings in particular. The verb τερτεύομαι and its cognates are ambiguous; they can refer both to something marvellous and to humbug or juggling tricks. It is a wondrous phenomenon marked by lies, portents, and illusions.21 1.2. Jesus Learnt Magic in Egypt Celsus substantiated his view of Jesus’s healing activities with references to New Testament passages, paying particular attention to Matt 2:13–15, about the flight to Egypt: For although he [Celsus] somehow accepts the incredible miracles22 which Jesus did (ταῖς παραδόξοις δυνάμεσιν), by which he persuaded multitude to follow him as Christ, yet he wants to attack them as though they were done by magic and not by divine power (ὡς ἀπὸ μαγείας καὶ οὐ θείᾳ δυνάμει). He says (φησί): “He was brought up in secret and hided himself out as a workman in Egypt, and after having tried his hand at certain magical powers he returned from there, and on account of those powers gave himself the title of God.” (Cels. 1.38)23

It was in Egypt that Jesus picked up the knowledge which Christians considered to be his divine empowerment and eventually earned him his divine title. Celsus hints at the practice of considering miracles as Christological evidence. The story found in Matt 2, paraphrased to fit Celsus’s purpose, bridges his accusations and what the gospels themselves report about Jesus.24 Celsus’s portrayal of Jesus as a healer resonates with relevant sources on how magicians deceived simple people and took financial advantage of them. Indeed, his presentation appears at points as a blueprint for Lucian of Samosata’s satirical story about Alexander of Abonuteichos, Alexander the False Prophet.25 Whether Celsus knew Lucian’s text or not is in dispute, especially since the satirist’s treatise is dedicated to his friend “Celsus” (Alex. 1).26 Even Origen is in doubt about his opponent’s true identity (Cels. 1.8), and we do not know whether the two references to Celsus involve the same person. Be that as it may, Lucian’s piece is well-fitted heuristically, as it fleshes out what Celsus LSJ s.v. τερτεύομαι; Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, s.v. τερτεύομαι. Origen here uses the favourite Synoptic term δυνάμεις. 23 SC 132.180.1–13. Cf. Cels. 1.28. 24 According to Josephus, Egyptians were into magic; see e.g., Ant. 2.284–287. Exod 7–9 provide supporting evidence; see Daniel Ogden, Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds: A Sourcebook (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 52–60. 25 Lona, Kelsos, 118–119 also refers to Lucian’s text. As for this figure, Lucian’s hostile account is the only literary source, but the Glycon cult is also attested in inscriptions and images. For both Greek and English text, see the LCL edition (no. 162) of A. M. Harmon. 26 For a discussion, see Chadwick, Origen, XXIV–XXVI and Lona, Kelsos, 28–30. Both are hesitant to identify the two referents with any certainty. 21 22

202

Karl Olav Sandnes

has in mind. Alexander established a cult based on the appearance of Glycon, a god in serpent form with a human head. He was the incarnation of this god or Asclepius’s false priest, as Lucian sees it. He was trained by the great miracle worker in the ancient world, Apollonius of Tyana (Alex. 5). Lucian thus displays and refutes the falsity of a major miracle worker tradition in the ancient world. Alexander specialized in magic, deceitful tricks, and spells; selling oracles was the method and becoming rich the purpose (Alex. 7–8, 15–19, 23– 31). For example, Alexander developed a method to undo the seals of the requests given to the temple oracles and was thus positioned to give impressive answers, because he knew the questions in advance. Lucian leaves no doubt about the effects of this practice: “…to those driveling idiots it was miraculous (τεράστιον) and almost as good as incredible” (Alex. 20). Celsus reasons likewise with regard to the miracles of Jesus and those who had embraced the Christian faith. Origen admits that neither the nature of Jesus’s performances nor the power at work in them is easily explained but denies flatly that sorcery is an adequate analogy. Origen quotes Celsus, who says that the miracles of Jesus are “the works of sorcerers (τὰ ἔργα τῶν γοήτων) professing to do wonderful miracles (θαυμασιώτερα)” (Cels. 1.68).27 The means is the Egyptian approach (μαθήματα), including obols: in short, making money. The sorcerers benefitted themselves, and there is no difference between the charlatans who filled the markets of ancient cities and Jesus in this regard. This text goes on to detail how ancient tricksters, who made displays of expensive banquets, cakes, and fishes that did not actually exist and “who make things move as though they were alive” (ὡς ζῷα κινούντων).28 This is why Cels. 3.50 accuses the Christians, like sorcerers, of attracting people through trickery (τὰ ἐπιρρητότατα): “Those who display their trickery in the market-places and go about begging would never enter a gathering of intelligent men…”29 The label “magic” here serves the purpose of humiliating Christian belief by disassociating it from rationality and learned men. The “reality” present is only a matter of imagination; it is cheating, as Origen in Cels. 2.48–54, unfolds Celsus’s approach.

2. Origen Responds: The Miracles Are Subordinated Although Origen in Cels. 1.38 blames his opponent for making up a new story of Matt 2, his main point is to incorporate the miracles into Jesus’s ministry at large. To Origen, no magician spends time teaching a doctrine and instructing SC 132.266.8–10. SC 132.266.7–19. 29 SC 136.118.1–4. This links up with the well-known paragraph in Cels. 3.49 in which the Christian mission and preaching are ridiculed; see Sandnes, Homer, 149–152. 27 28

Ancient Debates on Jesus as Miracle Worker

203

disciples as Jesus did; the powerful deeds of Jesus are embedded in his very ministry to bring benefits to people. In Cels. 1.9, Origen addresses Celsus’s view that Christians take advantage of gullible people and their lack of education. Origen argues that the healings of Jesus are the lesser benefit, with his improving their souls the greater.30 Origen thus subordinates the miracles to other aspects of Jesus’s ministry. It is tempting here to read Origen’s refutation as also directed against fellow Christians who, in his view, were overly focused on this aspect of Jesus’s overall ministry. In Cels. 2.48, Origen mentions a list of miracles – healing the lame and the blind, raising the dead, and immunity to snakes and poison (Luke 10:19 and perhaps Mark 16:17–18; cf. Acts 28:3–6).31 By introducing Isa 35:5–6 into this picture, Origen paves the way for a spiritual dimension in the healings of Jesus, even saying that the disciples performed greater works than the physical miracles of Jesus.32 In the words of James A. Kelhoffer, “while Origen defends a literal interpretation of Jesus’s miracles, he attributes a different type of wonders to the disciples”;33 theirs involve the inner person. In this passage, Origen cites Celsus, who argues that the miracles were used to affirm the divinity of Jesus.34 It appears clear that Christology, to some Christians, was the framework within which the issue of healings were used. To Origen, the miracles were in themselves no necessary demonstration of Jesus’s divinity. What is clear evidence for him is that the blood of Jesus did not coagulate as he died; rather, water and blood poured out (John 19:34–35). Likewise, the earthquake and the portents that occurred when he died are celestial signs (τὰς θεοσημίας) pointing to the divinity of Jesus (Cels. 2.36).35 Hence, says Origen, including the miraculous portents associated with the death of Jesus leads one to join the confession of the centurion: “This man was the son of God.” In this chapter, Origen takes as his point of departure the instances where Jesus raised the dead,36 arguing that Jesus actually did not resurrect many people. Furthermore, the spectacular nature of these miracles would be enhanced if those involved had not died recently (Cels. 2.48). In short, the miracles mentioned in the New Testament are easily enumerated. This serves as an apologetic argument with the following reasoning: if these stories had been made up to enhance Jesus as a miracle worker, a vast number of miracles would have been attributed to Jesus. If they were false claims made up by Christians, they SC 132.100.38–48. See James A. Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark. WUNT II 112 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 225–228. 32 SC 132.394.36–50. 33 Kelhoffer, Miracle, 226. 34 SC 132.390.4–6. 35 SC 132.372.18. 36 SC 132.390.6–392.22. 30 31

204

Karl Olav Sandnes

would have occupied a larger and more spectacular role in the stories about Jesus. Origen thus uses accounts of Jesus raising the dead, somewhat surprisingly, to pave the way for emphasising the subordinate role of healings and miracles generally. The miracle tradition is subordinated to larger perspectives. Origen starts his presentation by pointing out two important perspectives that run through Celsus’s argument against Christianity (Cels. 1.1–2). One is social and holds that Christians form associations away public view and that they act against laws and society. The second applies directly to our topic, namely that their doctrines fail to meet the demands of Greek logic and judgment. Origen addresses this second point by insisting that “a man coming to the gospel from Greek conceptions and training would not only judge that it was true, but would also put it into practice and so prove it to be correct; and he would complete what seemed to be lacking judged by the criterion of a Greek proof (ἀπόδειξιν), thus establishing the truth of Christianity” (Cels. 1.2).37 To Origen, a philosophical basis consisting of judgement and practice is nothing less than crucial for evaluating the truth of Christian claims. The miracles call this philosophical basis into play, as they are practical demonstrations, based on power. More divine than dialectic proofs are manifestations of power, as testified in, for example, 1 Cor 2:4 (“demonstration of the Spirit and of power”).38 To this belongs the power of “the prodigious miracles,” traces (τὰ ἴχνη)39 that remain “among those who live according to the will of the Logos.” The miracles are manifestations not only of the Spirit but also of Logos, which has left traces to be pursued. Origen also mentions miracles performed by the apostles in Cels. 1.46; they represent traces (ἴχνη) of the Holy Spirit and are in accordance with Logos.40 These passages reveal that miracles were seen as embodying a persuasive power vis-à-vis people and that this was the case even in Origen’s time. As traces of the Holy Spirit leading people to convert, miracles serve a purpose beyond themselves; they are subordinate to another and more important purpose. From Cels. 1.9–10, we learn that Origen is aware that most believers do not, for reasons of day-to-day obligations, have the time to pursue a rational investigation of their belief. To the learned Christian, however, arguments must be drawn from the Scriptures and from rational arguments. The simple-minded majority rely on the ipse dixit of the Lord, on taking the Lord’s words for

SC 132.82.7–13. SC 132.82.12–50. 39 For the miracles as “traces,” see Christiana Reemts, Vernunftgemässer Glaube: Die Begründung des Christentums in der Schrift des Origenes gegen Celsus. Hereditas. Studien zur Alten Kirchengeschichte 13 (Bonn: Borengässer, 1997), 207. 40 SC 132.196.13–16. This refers to the Spirit that equipped Jesus at his baptism to perform miracles and that is also the source of apostolic miracles; see Reemts, Glaube, 204–205. 37 38

Ancient Debates on Jesus as Miracle Worker

205

granted (Cels. 4.9).41 This distinction between different levels of understanding among the believers has an immediate effect on how Origen views the miracles of Jesus. In his Peri Archôn (On First Principles), he says that understanding comes in various forms: literal, moral, and spiritual. The literal was followed by the simple-minded Christians, and literalism was vulnerable to being exploited (Princ. 4.2.1).42 Regarding our topic, Celsus attacks the miracles of Jesus from a literal perspective. Origen in no way denies this point of view, but his theology of the miracles develops from other perspectives, the moral and spiritual dimensions. 2.1. “Anything is Possible to God?” According to Celsus, God cannot in any way act contrary to nature (παρὰ φύσιν) (Cels. 5.14).43 Here, he places himself against the biblical dictum that “anything is possible to God.” According to Celsus, Christians took refuge in this phrase when pressured on their lack of arguments. This position opened the way for all kinds of credulity, especially to belief in resurrection, the raising of a corrupted body. It is worth noting that Celsus saw this belief as a result of sorcery, manifested in dreams, wishful thinking, and hallucinations or in the wish to impress others. The notion of γοητεία unites Celsus’s attitude to both miracles and resurrection.44 As Christiana Reemts points out, Origen demonstrates an understanding of his opponent’s arguments.45 God cannot do anything which is harmful, says Origen; nor does He act contrary to nature or against rationality. This is not to deny that to some people this may seem to be the case with miracles, albeit they are only God transcending the nature and Logos which He himself has created. Robert M. Grant has argued that Origen’s views on miracles and nature place him in opposition to Tertullian’s view: “Tertullian emphasized the

SC 136.206.10–18. For the Greek text, see Herwig Görgemanns und Heinrich Karpp, Origenes Vier Bücher von den Prinzipien (Texte zur Forschung; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1976), 698. This is also pointed out by Jordan Daniel Wood, “Origen’s Polemic in Princ. 4.2.4: Scriptural Literalism as a Christo-Metaphysical Error,” VC 69 (2015): 40–48. 43 SC 147.48.12–50.25. Origen addresses this issue also in Cels. 3.70. 44 Carl Andresen, Logos und Mythos: Die Polemik des Kelsos wider das Christentum. Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 30 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1955), 46–51 points out that there is a tension in Celsus regarding the miracles. On the one hand he denies them as they are contrary to nature; nonetheless, he says concerning Asclepius that “a great multitude of men, both Greeks and barbarians, confess that they have often seen and still do see not just a phantom, but Asclepius himself healing men and doing good and predicting the future (Cels. 3.24; SC 136.56). Origen draws the attention of his readers to this apparent tension. 45 Reemts, Glaube, 157–158. 41 42

206

Karl Olav Sandnes

absolute omnipotence of God, while Origen emphasizes the elements of order in the universe.”46 This marks a much wider approach to the phenomenon. Crucial to Origen’s understanding of miracles is, therefore, the notion that “sie wirken etwas, was der Mensch als richtig und gut erkennen kann.”47 In this way, they are the means by which God recovers the order of the universe. Miracles are associated with Logos, and Origen may even say that people were healed “by Logos” (τοῦ λογοῦ ἰασαμένου αὐτους; Cels. 2.48).48 Origen mentions, with reference to Isa 35:5–6, that restoring human beings in all possible ways is the work of Logos. In Cels. 3.54, he calls this “the medical treatment of the Logos,”49 which is rational, spiritual, and philosophical, directed to changing the soul. It is implied that the spiritual dimension is enhanced and that miracles are to be judged by what they do; what, then, do they do? 2.2. Moral Transformation In the introduction to his book, Origen considers accordance with Logos essential for defining truth, which is defined not only in theory but also in practice, in how it impacts human beings. In short, morality and transformation become important: “Aus diesem Grund ist das moralische Verhalten eines Menschen Zeichen für seine Logoserfülltheit und damit für seine Beziehung zu Gott.”50 Jesus did not do his great works to demonstrate his own power (Cels. 1.68). Again, the ministry of Jesus at large makes sense: “no sorcerer (οὐδεὶς μὲν τῶν γοήτων) uses tricks to call the spectators to moral reformation (ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν ἠθῶν ἐπανόρθωσιν); nor does he educate by the fear of God people who were astounded by what they saw, nor does he attempt to persuade the onlookers to live as men who will be judged by God.”51 In Cels. 2.51, Origen returns to the issue of morality by including the character of those who profess to perform miracles: “whether their lives and moral characters, and the result of their miracles harm men or effect moral reformation.”52 This is the decisive proof of the truth of Scripture53 and will prove helpful in distinguishing between those who serve demons through spells (διά τινων ἐπῳδῶν) and those who act by means of a truly divine spirit. Origen’s 46 Robert M. Grant, Miracle and Natural Law in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian Thought (Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, 1952), 193. A recent publication on the classical issue of the nature miracles, see Graham H. Twelftree (ed.), The Nature Miracles of Jesus: Problems, Perspectives and Prospects (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2017). 47 Reemts, Glaube, 161. 48 SC 132.394.38–44. 49 SC 136.128.25–29. 50 Reemts, Glaube, 199. 51 SC 132.268.20–29. 52 SC 132.404.30–406.54 cf. 7.10 (SC 150.36.16–38.19). 53 See Peter W. Martens, Origen and Scripture: The Contours of the Exegetical Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 221–226.

Ancient Debates on Jesus as Miracle Worker

207

insistence on the beneficial effects of miracles is not without important limits: it takes a critical turn with regard to pagan magic. The Greek legacy from which he reasons provides him with an opportunity to affirm the role of Jesus as a miracle worker and to turn against what Celsus held against Jesus: that he was a magician. According to John Granger Cook, “Origen’s argument is a version of the argument from consequence defined by Aristotle that became very important in the arguments of Christians and pagans.”54 The most convincing evidence against Celsus for Origen is practice, and this is also the most important aspect of Logos. Origen thus stands on the shoulders of the apologetic traditions.55 The moral transformation which followed in the wake of the Christian message was Origen’s most-favoured argument, and his views on miracles – whether performed by Christ, by Christians, or by pagans – is very much indented to this criterion. Origen summarizes Celsus’s view of pagan miracles in Cels. 3.26–33. He enters into a synkrisis, a rhetorical technique comparing two lives – Aristeas and Jesus – to address the role of miracles in the two traditions. The key point of comparison is why miracles are performed and how they benefitted humanity: τί ὠφελῆσαι τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος (Cels. 3.28).56 As for Jesus, he brought salvation (σωτήριον)57 in a wide sense. Aristeas and Jesus are to be compared by taking into account “the result in the lives of those who have been helped to reform their moral character… (ἐκ τοῦ ἀποβάντος καὶ τῶν ὠφελουμένων εἰς ἠθῶν ἐπανόρθωσιν καὶ εὐλάβειαν)” (Cels. 3.27).58 The religious and moral framework within which miracles are performed is crucial for evaluating them. For Origen, the criterion of “usefulness” or “benefit” carries more weight than the role often attributed to the miracles in Christological debates. He states this very clearly in Cels. 3.28; Jesus did not want people to believe only in his miracles and divine nature but also that he brought salvation (σωτηρίαν).59 This noun, which enjoyed wide currency in antiquity, has broader connotations in Origen’s Contra Celsum, as in 4.80 where it refers to protection against wild beasts.60 Likewise, Logos has given all animals the inclination to cure themselves (4.87).61 It is, therefore quite natural that Origen in Cels. 4.7 argues that God has been present throughout all times to offer instruction on virtues, rationality, and reformation: “For in each generation the Cook, Interpretation, 38–39; Sandnes, Homer, 169–172. See Lorenzo Perrone, “Christianity as ‘Practice’ in Origen’s Contra Celsum,” in Origeniana Nona: Origen and the Religious Practice of His Time, ed. H. Heidl, R. Somos, and C. Németh, BETL 228 (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 293–317. 56 SC 136.66.1–3. 57 SC 136.66.6–7. 58 SC 136.66.23–29. 59 SC 136.68.37–51. 60 SC 136.384.19. 61 SC 136.400.8–11. 54 55

208

Karl Olav Sandnes

wisdom of God, entering into souls which she [i.e., wisdom] finds to be holy, makes them friends of God and prophets (Wis 7.27).”62 According to this argument, Christianity is no novelty, as there have been people in every generation informed by God’s wisdom or Logos. This is the wider context in which Origen addresses the issue of miracles and by which they finally are to be judged. 2.3. The Order of the Universe: A Wobbly Argument? What impression on outsiders Origen’s argument made is far from obvious. His argument probably served elite Christians occupied with situating Christian belief within the Greek philosophical legacy. Julian, Emperor from 361 to 363 CE, offers some relevant glimpses into how Origen’s reasoning may have been received by pagan critics. I do not claim that Julian directly addressed Origen’s arguments, simply that the Emperor embarks on a logic which is instructive and contains helpful parallels to Origen’s thinking. Julian mentions Jesus’s miracles in CGal 191E: “Yet Jesus, who won over the least worthy among you, has been known by name for little more than three hundred years: and during his lifetime he accomplished nothing worth hearing of, unless anyone thinks that to heal crooked and blind men and to exorcise those who were possessed by evil demons in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany can be classed as a mighty achievement.”63 This passage is an exercise in the “rhetoric of vituperation,”64 but it reminds us of the contexts in which the question of Jesus as a healer might have been discussed among the elite. Julian tags healing stories from the gospels. These tags are wrapped up in an aristocratic attitude vis-à-vis Christians. He juxtaposes the Christians as a rabble consisting of simpletons with Jesus as a miracle worker, as did Celsus. Those persuaded by Jesus embody Julian’s view of Jesus as healer and miracle worker; both are poor and unconvincing.65 Furthermore, Jesus has been around for only three hundred years, which in Roman society makes him a comparative newcomer. Likewise, Celsus says that Jesus taught his doctrine “a very few years ago (πρὸ πάνυ ὀλίγων ἐτῶν)”66 (Cels. 1.26).67 Julian’s reference to the scene of Jesus’s ministry at Bethany and Bethsaida – both far-away villages SC 136.202.1–204.16. See the LCL edition no. 157 by Wilmer Cave Wright. 64 This phrase is used by Cook, Interpretation, 299. 65 In this regard Julian is like Celsus; see e.g., Cels. 2.46 (SC 132.3881–3): “When he was alive he won over only ten sailors and tax-collectors of the most abominable character…;” Sandnes, Homer, 149–152, and Karl Olav Sandnes, “Christian Baptism as Seen by Outsiders: Julian The Apostate as an Example,” VC 66 (2012): 503–526. 66 Origen takes this as a citation of Celsus. Cook, Interpretation, 298, shows that a reference to three hundred years is also found elsewhere in the ancient sources. 67 SC 132,146.19. 62 63

Ancient Debates on Jesus as Miracle Worker

209

– serves the purpose of marginalizing the whole movement. This accords well with CGal 206B, where the Emperor says that it was maidservants and slaves who were persuaded and comprised the fellowship around Jesus. Julian demonstrates his familiarity with New Testament stories in also mentioning Cornelius and Sergius (Acts 10 and 13), adding: “But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time – these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius – then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.”68 It is worth noting how Julian, in addressing the miracles of Jesus, in fact speaks more about the framework or context in which he sees them: the educational level, or more precisely the lack thereof, is crucial. Julian, too, puts the miracles of Jesus into a larger perspective. A key argument in Julian’s attack on Jesus, Christians, and their faith is the issue of the Jews. In the words of Robert L. Wilken, “the existence of Jewish communities was a powerful argument against the claims of the Christians.”69 The demise of Judaism was, according to Julian, a prerequisite for the truth of Christianity. This is one of the perspectives from which he addresses Jesus’s healing activities (CGal 213B–C). He asks rhetorically if Jesus did confer any benefits (τίνων ἀγαθῶν) on his own people – very much the same argument at work in Origen – to which the Galileans respond: “they refused to obey Jesus.” This provides the Emperor with an opportunity to seize. The Jews listen to Moses but not to Jesus, “who commanded the spirits, and walked on the sea, and drove out demons…” He even created heaven and earth, says Julian, although this is mentioned only by John, as he puts it, thus probably referring to the Prologue of the Fourth Gospel. Despite all this and more, about which the Christians brag, Jesus could not change the dispositions of the Jews and save them (ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ). Hence, Jesus was ineffective as a healer vis-à-vis his own people. Here, Julian applies the rhetorical argument from consequence (see Cook’s remark on Origen above).70 Since even Jesus’s miracles were unable to change how his fellow Jews thought about him, they cannot have been that impressive. In other words, the obdurate unbelief of the Jews remained despite his miracles. The benefits conferred upon a society are a decisive criterion, and Jesus brought conflict rather than benefits upon his fellow Jews. Julian’s use of “salvation” in CGal 213 is used in a wider sense here, that of conferring benefits upon society; it is at home in discourse on benefactions.71 In the words of Anthony Meredith, “[i]f benefits conferred is to be the criterion of divinity than 68 This argument of superiority clearly comes through in relationship to the Jews as well; see CGal 218A–B; 221E; 222A; 224C–D; 230A. 69 Robert L. Wilken, The Christians as the Romans Saw Them (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984), 188. 70 For Julian’s use of this rhetorical topos, see Sandnes, Homer, 169–172. 71 For examples of this use of the term, see e.g., Dio Chrysostom, Or. 38.2, 8–9, 15, 48.

210

Karl Olav Sandnes

[sic] clearly Asclepius was a greater benefactor than was Christ… how did Christ ever benefit the human race?”72 Thus does Meredith render Julian’s view. In CGal 200A–B, Julian enumerates how Asclepius benefitted humanity both widely and at large, and now the healing aspect is in focus: “His saving right hand (τὴν σωτήριον ἑαυτοῦ δεξιάν) stretched over the whole earth.” Julian’s perspective comes into view clearly in his Orat. 4.144B, in which he says that Asclepius “fulfils the fair order of the whole world (τὴν εὐταξίαν τῆς ὅλης ζωῆς).” In other words, it is the maintenance of the established order which is decisive for how Jesus as a miracle worker is evaluated. From this we may also gather that the question of miracles and healings are subsumed under this perspective and why Julian accepts similar stories about, for example, Heracles, who strangled serpents and walked across the sea (Orat. 7.219D–220A). Heracles’s actions in no way threatened the world order set up by Zeus, “the saviour of the world (τῷ κόσμῳ σωτῆρα).” The issue of world order finds corroboration when Julian holds against the Christians the fact that they have abandoned the practices of Judaism from which they derive their ancestry. The Christians do not embrace the superior laws of the Roman society, and they turned against the barbarous law of the Jews (CGal 200A).73 How can Christians who left behind the Judaism from which they arose still claim to restore order to the world? The Emperor’s sympathy for the Jews is certainly not impressive, but they serve his rhetorical purpose well. This is Julian’s use of the moral argument. In principle, Origen uses the same argument, as we have seen above, but in a very different way. At the end of the day, therefore, it is difficult to isolate Jesus as a miracle worker in Julian’s writings; that aspect is deeply embedded in Julian’s attempt to restore the established order of the Empire.74 Julian sheds light on Origen’s strategy by demonstrating that it was hardly convincing to outsiders. It is thus time to turn to the other debate mentioned in the introduction.

72

Anthony Meredith, “Porphyry and Julian Against the Christians,” ANRW II.23.2 (1980),

1146. See Wilken, Christians, 184–196. In his refutation of Julian, Contra Julianum, Cyril of Alexandria quotes Julian and then responds very much in line with Origen’s approach in Contra Celsum. Cyril also touches upon the miracles, finding that the Emperor belittles both the number of miracles and their significance (CJul 6.192/PG 76.793). For Cyril, the benefit of the miracles (τὸ θαῦμα) is to be judged by the fact that they always lead to faith. However, since faith is nothing which Jesus in his ἐξουσία commands (CJul 6.215/PG 76.829b), it is, of course, not irresistible. Hence, the fact that many fail to believe can therefore be no proof of failure. 73 74

Ancient Debates on Jesus as Miracle Worker

211

3. Sossianus Hierocles on Jesus’s Miracles Early in the fourth century CE, Sossianus Hierocles, governor of the province Syria, wrote his Philalethes (Lover of Truth). This composition circulated in the Eastern provinces, and Hierocles influenced the imperial offices to launch the “Great Persecution” in 303, during the reign of Diocletian. His text was probably composed during this time.75 According to Lactantius (ca. 240–320 CE), he was the author and instigator of the persecution.76 A key figure in Hierocles’s composition is Apollonius of Tyana. He was active in the second half of the second century CE, his biography by Philostratus (d. 217) is the key source. The role of Apollonius has a direct bearing on our issue, since he is probably the most well-known worker of wonders in antiquity.77 We know about three Christian responses to Hierocles’s work: Arnobius, Lactantius, and Eusebius.78 Traditionally, the response from Eusebius has been ascribed to Eusebius of Caesarea, but Tomas Hägg makes the case that it is another Eusebius, the Sophist.79 This work of the Sophist proceeds in ways that are similar to Origen’s approach to Celsus, quoting lengthy sections from Philalethes. The key passage for our purpose is found in Hier. 2 and is organised around Hierocles citations, introduced as such by various verba dicendi and presents a condensed version of how Hierocles considers Jesus as a miracle worker. Hence, Eusebius closes the paragraph like this: “These are the very words (ῥήμασιν αὐτοῖς) used by Hierocles in his treatise against us which he has entitled ‘Lover of Truth’.”80 The overall perspective is a synkrisis, a comparison, between Apollonius and Jesus. The first achieved his miracles not through magic (γοητεία) but through “a divine and mysterious wisdom (θείᾳ τινὶ καὶ ἀρρήτῳ σοφίᾳ)” (Hier. 2.2).81 Apollonius is the prominent figure among other men who performed

See Cook, Interpretation, 250–254. For the Greek text, see Eusèbe de Césarée, Contre Hiéroclès: Introduction, Traduction et Notes par Marguerite Forrat (SC 333. Paris: Cerf, 1986); see also the LCL edition no. 458 of Christopher P. Jones. 76 See Michael Bland Simmons, “Graeco-Roman Philosophical Opposition,” in The Early Christian World Volume 2, ed. Philip F. Esler (London: Routledge, 2000), 848–849. 77 See Erkki uniemi, Apollonios von Tyana in der neutestamentlichen Exegese: Forschungsbericht und Weiterführung der Diskussion, WUNT II 61 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 206–217 for a list of such figures. 78 Koskenniemi, Apollonios, 6–8. 79 Tomas Hägg, “Hierocles the Lover of Truth and Eusebius the Sophist,” SO 67 (1992): 138–150; Cook, Interpretation, 255–258 finds the arguments sufficient to doubt that the Caesarean bishop composed this work. Christopher P. Jones’s LCL 458, 152 finds Eusebius to be the most likely author. 80 SC 333.104.32–33. 81 SC 333.100.1–2. 75

212

Karl Olav Sandnes

πολλὰ θαυμαστὰ and τὰ παράδοξα;82 the two terms are clearly used synonymously here. Contrariwise, Jesus as a healer is a product of Christians’ having inflated stories: “They talk (θρυλοῦσι) of Jesus up hill and down dale, revering (σεμνύνοντες) him for giving sight to the blind and doing some such miracles (θαυμάσια)” (Hier. 2.1).83 This sentence nicely summarizes the gospel stories of Jesus as a healer. The dictionaries point out that the word group σεμν- is associated with what is revered, august, holy, or divine.84 Hierocles thus considers the healing activities of Jesus to be a product of Christology. The connection between miracles and Christology, and divinity in particular, is repeated later in this same paragraph. Hierocles says about Apollonius that he was reckoned to be only a man pleasing to the gods; as to the Christians, “they are led by a few illusions to miracles (δἰ ὀλίγας τερατείας) to declare Jesus a god (τὸν ᾿Ιησον θεὸν ἀναγορεύουσι)” (Hier. 2.2).85 We see how the question of Jesus’s miracles is intertwined with Christology, and that appears to be Hierocles’s primary objection here. Hierocles’s view of the stories is conveyed through θρῦλέω, which is demeaning in this context,86 but precisely what Hierocles has in mind is not obvious. According to Lactantius, Hierocles claimed that Jesus’s miracles were the work of a magician (magus) (Inst. 5.3.9),87 although this is not explicit in Eusebius’s text. From the fact that Hierocles speaks of the wonders worked by both Jesus and Apollonius as θαυμάσια, it is likely that he does not deny that Jesus performed wondrous things; rather, they are due to magical power. Another reason comes into view when Hierocles sums up his synkrisis: “Why then have I mentioned all this? So that the reader can compare our careful and sober (ἀκριβῆ καὶ βεβαίαν) judgment in respect to each with the gullibility (κουφότητα) of the Christians” (Hier. 2.2).88 In his critique, Hierocles includes the veracity and trustworthiness of the stories.89 The credulity of the Christians rests, for him, on the exalted role attributed to Jesus and the few miracles upon which this claim rests. We are reminded of how Origen also observed that Jesus’s miracles were relatively few but drew from that the conclusion that they were authentic and not made up. A third reason for Hierocles’s critique comes into view as Eusebius quotes (φάσκων) him: “… the deeds of Jesus (τὰ τοῦ ̕Іησοῦ) have been exaggerated SC 333.102.15–18. SC 333.100.5. 84 LSJ s.v. σεμν-. 85 SC 333.102.24. 86 The term means “chatter” or “babble” and is patronizing; see LSJ s.v. θρῦλέω. 87 ANF 7.138–139; for the Latin text, see Pierre Monat, Lactante, Institutions Divines Livre V, SC 204 (Paris: Cerf, 1973). 88 SC 333.102.20–21. 89 See Cook, Interpretation, 271–274. 82 83

Ancient Debates on Jesus as Miracle Worker

213

(κεκομπάκασιν) by Peter and Paul, and people of their stripe – liars (ψεῦσται), yokels (ἀπαίδευτοι), sorcerers (γόητες) …” (Hier. 2.2).90 Hierocles draws upon a stereotype created by Celsus, referring to Acts 4:13 about the apostles being ἀγράμματοί and the foolishness of the gospel (1 Cor 1–2).91 Contrary to those who were responsible for the gospels – Hierocles is by no means accurate – Apollonius’s life was recorded by men of philosophy and of the highest education (Hier. 2.2).92 The Greek verb κομπάζω means to boast, brag, or make more attractive.93 Precisely what Hierocles has in mind here is not obvious. Any interpretation likely must be guided by the immediate context about the rustic and crude level of education of those who composed the gospels. This critique is, of course, not isolated; it serves to substantiate that the gospel writings are lacking in culture.94 From this we gather that the miracle stories, according to Hierocles, add appeal to stories otherwise lacking in attraction, which means that they are fakes.

4. Eusebius Responds In his response, Eusebius makes the point that Hierocles, “the lover of truth” and official for judicial right in the province, bases his critique against the Christians on the highly questionable work of Philostratus. Eusebius finds it ironic that Hierocles’s claim depends on such a spurious source (Hier. 12.1– 3).95 Eusebius sets out to prove that Hierocles’s claim to the accuracy and solid basis of his story actually surpasses the “superficiality and gulllibility (ἡμῶν εὐχέρειάν τε καὶ κουφότητα)” which he claims of the Christians (Hier. 4.1).96 Eusebius scrutinizes the stories about Apollonius to demonstrate that the view that he “reached a very high level of education” was based on no examination (μὴ ἀπηκριβωμένων) of the facts (Hier. 2.2): For when we have subjected all these persons to a thorough examination, that will make clear, on the one hand how “careful (βεβαία) and minutely accurate” (ἀκριβὴς) (at least in his opinion) is the verdict passed on the Christians by the Lover of Truth, a man appointed to the highest court with general powers, and on the other hand it will make clear the

SC 333.102.25–27. Sandnes, Homer, 149–159, 200, 237–238. 92 SC 333.102.27–104.32. 93 LSJ s.v. κομπάζω; Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek s.v. κομπάζω. 94 Karl Olav Sandnes, The Gospel ‘According to Homer and Virgil’: Cento and Canon, NovTSup 138 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 65–84. 95 SC 333.128–130. 96 SC 333.104.1–2. 90 91

214

Karl Olav Sandnes

“superficiality and gullibility” (εὐχέρειά τε καὶ κουφότης) that they ascribe to us, whom they consider benighted fools (οἳ μωροὶ καὶβ βεβουκολημένοι). (Hier. 4.4)97

Eusebius’s approach is source-critical. Accusations of being credulous are thrown back at Hierocles (Hier. 20).98 Terms such as εὐχέρεια and κουφότης are used here, and in Hier. 27.299 γοητεία appears as well.100 Furthermore, Eusebius holds against Philostratus’s story that Apollonius is introduced as a divine man (θεῖος ἄνθρωπος) (Hier. 8.1–2).101 It is in accordance with this status that Apollonius says of himself that I “know every language, and have learned none” (Hier. 8.2).102 Eusebius ironically asks why Apollonius then was taken to a teacher to be taught the Attic dialect and why he attended lecture of rhetors and philosophers (Hier. 9).103 His critique thus targets more than the contested issue of miracles. According to Eusebius, Apollonius sometimes performed his works with the help of a demon (Hier. 35.1).104 However, in Hier. 30.2 Eusebius notes that Apollonius allegedly once raised a young girl from the dead.105 This well-known story was passed on by Philostratus, who implies that the incident may be explained without recourse to the supernatural: “it was raining at the time, and a vapour exhaled from the face of the girl.” In situation, Apollonius detected a spark of life (σπινθῆρα τῆς ψυχῆς) in her and acted upon that (Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 4.45.1–2).106 Philostratus compares this to the famous story of Heracles rescuing Alcestis from Hades and thus restoring him to life. In Hier. 36,107 Eusebius sums up his critique, saying that there were thousands (μυρία) of examples that the stories preserved about Apollonius are “easily disproved and incoherent, how fabulous and fantastic they are (ἀσύτατον μυθῶδες τε καὶ τερατῶδες).”108 Compared to Origen’s response, Eusebius appears rather stereotypical; there is much throwing back at the opponent accusations that the opponent first made. Origen adopts a more constructive approach in his attempt to argue the ways in which Jesus’s miracles differ from magic.

SC 333.108.35–44. SC 333.144.3. 99 SC 333.156.15. 100 Thus also in Hier. 42.1–2 (SC 333.190–92). 101 SC 333.118. 102 SC 333.118.12–13. 103 SC 333.120–122. As for the idea of holy illiteracy, of divine men taught by God directly, see Sandnes, Homer, 150–151 for references. 104 SC 333.176.3–4. 105 SC 333.162.7–164.30. 106 LCL edition no. 16 by Christopher P. Jones. 107 SC 333.180. 108 Cf. Hier. 48.2 (SC 333.212.15–25). 97 98

Ancient Debates on Jesus as Miracle Worker

215

5. Summary The healings and miracles of Jesus did not go unnoticed by ancient critics of Christianity. This article has examined two debates, Celsus versus Origen and Hierocles versus Eusebius. It should be noted, first, that it is scarcely possible to separate healings from miracles more generally in this material. The latter applies to remarkable deeds or wondrous acts causing widespread amazement and curiosity, among which the healings of Jesus are certainly at home. Marco Frenschkowski has argued that how the ancient world viewed miracles often is presented in an overly simplified way; the actual picture is rather complex.109 He works out attitudes on a wide spectrum, ranging from “ungebrochener, naiver Wunderglaube” to “aggressive Kritik an einzelnen Wunderkomplexen.”110 The latter model is at play in the discussions we have reviewed. This means that the miracles are seen – by both antagonist and protagonist – within wider contexts, and the competition between religious worldviews are articulated and brought to bear on the issue of miracles. From this develops what Frenschkowski calls “zweierlei Massstäben,” whereby miracles in themselves are doubtful only in the context of the other. Within such a discourse, the naïve belief in miracles becomes a “Fremdperspektiv” hurled against the opponent and fostering an attitude of superiority. The investigation has proven the truth of Robert M. Grant’s oft quoted dictum: “… in polemical writing, your magic is my miracle, and vice versa …”111 This I see most clearly in Eusebius’s response to Hierocles, which at points reads almost like a flipped photo negative. Within such a framework, it makes sense that no attempt is made to deny that Jesus had a reputation for being a healer and miracle worker. What matters is to provide an explanation. The primary explanatory model is that of magic and sorcery. Celsus in particular develops this argument, but it is found with Hierocles as well. They describe this aspect of Jesus’s ministry as a fraud and manipulation of reality; it is treated as another example of marketplace tricksters fooling people for money. Hierocles argues that the stories about the wondrous works performed by Jesus are not reliable, as they are vamped up to serve

Marco Frenschkowski, “Antike kritische und skeptische Stimmen zum Wunderglauben als Dialogpartner des frühen Christentums,” in Hermeneutik der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen: Geschichtliche, literarische und rezeptionsorienterte Perspektiven, ed. B. Kollmann and R. Zimmermann, WUNT 339 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 283–308. 110 Frenschkowski, “Antike kritische und skeptische Stimmen zum Wunderglauben als Dialogpartner des frühen Christentums,” 287, 299. 111 Robert M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1966), 93. Harold Remus, Pagan-Christian Conflict over Miracle in the Second Century (Cambridge, MA: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1983), 52–73, demonstrates how well the term “magic” fitted into polemics on both sides. 109

216

Karl Olav Sandnes

as Christological proof-texts. Hierocles thus bears witness to the fact that Jesus as a healer and miracle-worker often was used to prove his divinity. According to Quadratus (second century CE), as cited by Eusebius in his Hist. eccl. 4.3.2, the miracles of Jesus and his healings in particular were accessible through those who experienced them and were themselves healed; even in Quadratus’s time some of them were still alive. This sort of argument is, of course, impossible as time passes. When Origen and Eusebius took up the challenge posed to them by Celsus and Hierocles, they found themselves in a situation very different from Quadratus. The miracles of Jesus were no longer a vivid reality but a memory of something passed that now served other purposes than commemorating Jesus’s ministry. Origen’s response to Celsus in particular develops what becomes a “miracle theology,” which also illustrates well Frenschkowski’s point that the miracles, within a dispute such as the one in which Origen was involved, are not seen analytically but as building blocks in larger religious worldviews. To Origen, the miracles of Jesus are not proof texts; they are subordinated to the moral transformation and benefit they convey to their recipients. Jesus performed deeds that were in harmony with Logos and the world order of rationality, a view which Emperor Julian would certainly contest. The ancient debates which have occupied us here thus invite us to see the miracles of Jesus as working within wider complexes of ideas. At the end of the day, the disagreements regarding Jesus as a miracle-worker owe more to differences in religious “systems” than to different views on miracles themselves.

Bibliography Ancient Authors Eusebius. Contra Hieroclem. Edited and translated by Marguerite Forrat. Eusèbe de Césarée Contre Hiéroclès: Introduction, Traduction et Notes. SC 333. Paris: Cerf, 1986. Edited and translated by Christopher P. Jones. Eusebius’s Reply to Hierocles. LCL 458 (Philostratus). Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006. The Ecclesiastical History in Two Volumes. Edited and translated by J. E. L. Oulton. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964–65. Julian. Against the Galilaeans. Translated by Wilmer C. Wright. LCL 157. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1923. Lucian. Alexander the False Prophet. Translated by A. M. Harmon. LCL 162. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925. Origen. Contra Celsum. Edited and translated by Marcel Borret. Origène Contre Celse. Tome I–V. SC 132, 136, 147, 150, 227. Paris: Cerf, 1967–1976. Edited and translated by Michael Fiedrowicz and Claudia Barthold. Origenes: Contra Celsum. Fontes Christiani 50.1–5. Freiburg: Herder, 2011–2012. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Origen: Contra Celsum Translated with an Introduction and Notes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953.

Ancient Debates on Jesus as Miracle Worker

217

Vier Bücher von den Prinzipien. Edited by Herwig Görgemann and Heinrich Karpp. Texte zur Forschung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1976. Lactantius. Lactante, Institutions Divine Livre V. Edited and translated by Pierre Monat. SC 204. Paris: Cerf, 1973.

Modern Authors Andresen, Carl. Logos und Mythos: Die Polemik des Kelsos wider das Christentum. Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 30. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1955. Cook, John Granger. The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-Roman Paganism. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2002. Dauton-Fear, Andrew. Healing in the Early Church: The Church’s Ministry of Healing and Exorcism from the First to the Fifth Century. Studies in Christian History and Thought. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009. Frenschkowski, Marco. “Antike kritische und skeptische Stimmen zum Wunderglauben als Dialogpartner des frühen Christentums.” Pages 283–308 in Hermeneutik der frühchristlichen Wundererzählungen: Geschichtliche, literarische und rezeptionsorienterte Perspektiven. Edited by B. Kollmann and R. Zimmermann. WUNT 339. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Grant, Robert M. Miracle and Natural Law in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian Thought. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, 1952. –. Gnosticism and Early Christianity. New York: Columbia University, 1966. Hägg, Tomas. Hierocles the Lover of Truth and Eusebius the Sophist,” SO 67 (1992): 138–150 Henriksen, Jan-Olav and Karl Olav Sandnes. Jesus as Healer: A Gospel for the Body. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016. Horn, Friedrich Wilhelm. “Das Testimonium Flavianum aus neutestamentlicher Perspektive.” Pages 117–136 in Josephus und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen. Edited by C. Böttrich, J. Herzer. WUNT 209. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Kelhoffer, James A. Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark. WUNT II 112. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000. Koskenniemi, Erkki. Apollonios von Tyana in der neutestamentlichen Exegese: Forschungsbericht und Weiterführung der Diskussion. WUNT II 61. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994. Lona, Horacio E. Die ‘Wahre Lehre’ des Kelsos: Übersetzt und erklärt. KfA 1. Freiburg: Herder, 2005. Martens, Peter W. Origen and Scripture: The Contours of the Exegetical Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Meredith, Anthony. “Porphyry and Julian Against the Christians.” Pages 1119–1149 in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II.23.2. Edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase, 1980. Montanari, Franco. The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Ogden, Daniel. Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds: A Sourcebook. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Perrone, Lorenzo. “Christianity as ‘Practice’ in Origen’s Contra Celsum.” Pages 293–317 in Origeniana Nona: Origen and the Religious Practice of His Time. Edited by H. Heidl, R. Somos, C. Németh. BETL 228. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Reemts, Christiana. Vernunftgemässer Glaube: Die Begründung des Christentums in der Schrift des Origenes gegen Celsus. Hereditas. Studien zur Alten Kirchengeschichte 13. Bonn: Borengässer, 1997.

218

Karl Olav Sandnes

Remus, Harold. Pagan-Christian Conflict over Miracle in the Second Century. Cambridge: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1983. Sandnes, Karl Olav. The Challenge of Homer: School, Pagan Poets and Early Christianity. LNTS 400. New York: T&T Clark, 2009. –. The Gospel ‘According to Homer and Virgil’: Cento and Canon. NovTSup 138. Leiden: Brill, 2011. –. “Christian Baptism as Seen by Outsiders: Julian The Apostate As an Example,” VC 66 (2012): 503–526. Simmons, Michael Bland. “Graeco-Roman Philosophical Opposition.” Pages 840–868 in The Early Christian World. Vol. 2. Edited by Philip F. Esler. London: Routledge, 2000. Twelftree, Graham (ed.), The Nature Miracles of Jesus: Problems, Perspectives and Prospects. Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2017. Wilken, Robert L. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984. Wood, Jordan Daniel. “Origen’s Polemic in Princ. 4.2.4: Scriptural Literalism as a ChristoMetaphysical Error,” VC 69 (2015): 30–69.

How “Valentinian” Was Heracleon’s Reading of the Healing of the Son of a Royal Official? Carl Johan Berglund The interpretation of a Johannine healing story by the second-century Christian teacher Heracleon has in previous scholarship been presumed to be determined by “Valentinian” sectarian doctrines; Heracleon has been said to identify the royal official in the story with the Maker (δημιουργός), an inferior divinity who has created the material world, and his son as one of three categories of human beings whose eternal fate are determined by their spiritual, animated, or material inherent nature. This article attempts a novel reading of Heracleon’s interpretation, presuming neither that Heracleon subscribes to the ideas associated to “Valentinian” teachers by heresiological authors, nor that Origen of Alexandria always refers to Heracleon’s comments using verbatim quotations. The article argues that the identification of the royal official with the Maker is inferred by Origen based on heresiological presumptions, and that Heracleon used Synoptic and Pauline parallels to read the story as a metaphor of humanity’s perilous state as afflicted with the disease of sin, and in dire need of salvation.

1. Perspectives on Heracleon Heracleon is one of the most fascinatingly enigmatic figures of second-century Christianity. Even though he is the author of a commentary to the Gospel of John that may well be the first exegetical commentary to any of the writings that came to form the New Testament, we know almost nothing about him.1 1 Irenaeus of Lyons, Haer. 2.4.1, names Heracleon as a proponent of Valentinus’s teachings. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 4.9.71 and Ecl. 25.1, calls Heracleon “the most notable in the school of Valentinus” and presents two of his interpretations of Synoptic material. Tertullian, Val. 4, presents Heracleon as a follower of another second-century “Valentinian” named Ptolemy. The author of the Elenchus – also known as Refutatio omnium haeresium or Philosophoumena, and most commonly attributed to Hippolytus of Rome (ca. 170–235 CE) – 6.0, 6.24/29, 6.30/35, presents Heracleon as an Italian Valentinian, who held that the earthly Jesus received the divine Logos from his heavenly mother, Sophia, at his baptism. Origen, Comm. Jo. 2.14/100, presents him as a personal acquaintance of Valentinus. Theodoret also mentions

220

Carl Johan Berglund

His writings are only available in the form of quotations and other references in the writings of Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215 CE) and Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185–254 CE), and most of the ancient authors who mention him seem to know nothing more about him than his name and his association to Valentinus (ca. 100–175 CE), one of the failed candidates for the position of bishop of Rome, and generally considered to be a heretic.2 This alleged association has been enough for scholars – ancient and modern alike – to know exactly where to look for an interpretative key to Heracleon’s comments: the Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So-Called by Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 130–202 CE).3 Irenaeus helpfully describes a whole system of dogmatic ideas associated with Valentinus and his followers: an eternal Fullness (πλήρωμα) populated with thirty divine beings (αἰῶνες), one of which has fallen, which has caused the appearance of the Maker (δημιουργός) who in turn has created the material world. According to this system, the eternal fate of all human beings is determined by which of three distinct human natures they have: the spiritual ones (οἱ πνευματικοί) are predestined for an eternal spiritual life; the earthly or material ones (οἱ χοικοί or οἱ ὑλικοί) are irreparably doomed from birth; and the animated ones (οἱ ψυχικοί) may continue to exist on a non-spiritual lower plane, if they correctly respond to the call of the Savior. That all of these ideas are underlying Heracleon’s Heracleon’s name, together with Theodotus’s and Ptolemy’s, as followers of “Balentinus” (Haer. fab.1.8). The later Photius (ca. 810–893 CE), Epistle 134, also mentions Heracleon. Einar Thomassen, “Heracleon,” in The Legacy of John: Second-Century Reception of the Fourth Gospel, ed. Tuomas Rasimus, NovTSup 132 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 173, remarks: “That Heracleon was a ‘Valentinian’ is thus a point on which all our sources agree.” He does admit, however, that some of these sources seem to know no more about Heracleon than his name. 2 Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. 315–403 CE), Pan. 31.2.2–3, claims that Valentinus was born around 100 CE in Phrebonis in the Nile delta, and received a Greek education in Alexandria. Clement, Strom. 7.17, repeats a claim that he was taught by a pupil of the apostle Paul named Theodas. Tertullian, Val. 4.1, claims that Valentinus lived in Rome from the 130s to the 150s, aspired to become bishop of Rome, and eventually broke with the Christian leadership in Rome. Epiphanius, Pan. 31.7.1–2, claims that he died in Cyprus between 160 and 175 CE. See also Johannes Quasten, The Beginnings of Patristic Literature, vol. 1 of Patrology (Brussels: Spectrum, 1950), 260; Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation (London: SCM, 1987), 217; Birger A. Pearson, Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity, SAC (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 198; Christoph Markschies, Valentinus Gnosticus? Untersuchungen zur valentinianischen Gnosis mit einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten Valentins, WUNT 65 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 294, 335–336; David Dawson, Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), 127; Einar Thomassen, The Spiritual Seed: The Church of the “Valentinians,” Nag Hammadi and Manichaean studies 60 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 417–422; Birger A. Pearson, Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007), 145–146. 3 For the title, see Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.7.1; Irenaeus, Haer. 2.p.1, 4.p.1, 4.41.4, 5.p. Cf. Geoffrey Stephen Smith, Guilt by Association: Heresy Catalogues in Early Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 133–134.

How Valentinian Was Heracleon’s Reading

221

interpretations have generally been taken for granted, even though he never refers to them explicitly.4 However, the heresiological literature from which both the association of Heracleon to Valentinus and the description of the “Valentinian” system of thought are taken is not known for neutral, dispassionate descriptions of the thoughts and views of traditions other than their own. On the contrary, this literature is immensely interested in discrediting everything and everyone it describes, and to place every teacher in a genealogical chain, through which their sectarian, impious, and false ideas have been inherited, ultimately from either the Gentile Greek philosophers, or from the magician Simon of Acts 8:9–24, who was denounced by the apostle Paul himself. By linking otherwise unknown teachers and writers to previously known and denounced figures, rejecting them all becomes straightforward and simple.5 Regardless of whether the association of Heracleon to Valentinus has a basis in historical reality, repeating it was a way for ancient authors to have their readers quickly and definitely reject this writer, before they had a chance to consider his words. It is therefore important that we do not take what the heresiologists state about Heracleon for granted, but keep an open mind when approaching the remains of his works. Some elements of Clement’s and Origen’s Alan E. Brooke, The Fragments of Heracleon, TS I.4 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891), 35–49, makes a number of claims regarding Heracleon’s views and methodology that are based more on Irenaeus than on Heracleon himself. Elaine H. Pagels, The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis: Heracleon’s Commentary on John, SBLMS 17; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973), 11–19 et passim, studies Heracleon as an example of “Gnostic” exegesis, and treats Brooke’s assertions as facts. Kyle Keefer, The Branches of the Gospel of John: The Reception of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church, LNTS 332 (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 33, declares that “the consensus is that Origen faithfully represented Heracleon’s point of view, and quite likely his exact words.” Thomassen, “Heracleon,” 173–175, presumes – based on the presentation of the heresiologists – that Heracleon’s “Valentinian” perspective on the text of the Fourth Gospel can be taken for granted. 5 Smith, Guilt by Association, 4–5, 49–57, 131–134, traces a common format – ordering allegedly false teachers in chronological order, frequently presenting them as disciples of previous teachers, to give the impression of an unbroken chain of heretic transmission going back to Simon Magus – back to the first known heresy catalog, the Catalogue against all the Heresies quoted in Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 26.2–5, which he claims to have influenced Irenaeus. Jaap Mansfeld, Heresiography in Context: Hippolytus’ Elenchos As a Source for Greek Philosophy (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 56, 153–160, ingeniously describes Irenaeus’s presentation of the views of his adversaries as a cento of centos. A cento was an ancient genre in which entire lines were lifted verbatim from classical works and rearranged to tell entirely different stories. Irenaeus claims that this is what the heretics are doing with the New Testament, and Mansfeld claims that Irenaeus himself performs something similar when he arranges the words of his adversaries to present a coherent development. A similar approach, in which “heretic” teachers were presented as having imported their ideas from Greek philosophy, is described both by Mansfeld and by Winrich Alfried Löhr, “Christian Gnostics and Greek Philosophy in the Second Century,” EC 3/3 (2012): 350. 4

222

Carl Johan Berglund

presentations of Heracleon may be taken not from Heracleon’s comments to the Gospel of John, but from his association to Valentinus and, by extension, to other theological ideas developed among followers of Valentinus.6 When Christoph Markschies some years ago reviewed available material from Ptolemy, another second-century “Valentinian” teacher, he concluded that the only reliable source for a reconstruction of Ptolemy’s teachings is the Epistle to Flora, which is known from Epiphanius of Salamis.7 He finds the identification of the “Valentinian” Ptolemy and the Ptolemy mentioned by Justin Martyr to be insufficiently grounded,8 partly because we know at least fourteen different Ptolemies from this era. In addition, he finds that the identification of Ptolemy as author of an interpretation of the Johannine prologue quoted by Irenaeus does not go back to Irenaeus himself, but only to a Latin translation from the fourth century. Markschies concludes that the complex system described by Irenaeus reflects the views of neither Valentinus nor Ptolemy, but must be the result of later developments among their followers. He does not claim that the heresiologists are lying about Ptolemy and Valentinus – he thinks they are presenting “Valentinianism” to the best of their limited knowledge – but still warns against taking the heresiologists’ descriptions for granted when studying the early “Valentinians.” And this is to our advantage, Markschies argues, as the discrepancy will allow us to discern an historical development from the thinking of Valentinus and Ptolemy, to the later version described by Irenaeus.9 Similarly, this article maintains that a study of Heracleon should not start with Irenaeus’s description but with Heracleon’s own words (as best we can discern them from Clement’s and Origen’s), from the literary-critical methodology Heracleon seems to be using,10 and from the writings to which Heracleon refers himself. The information available in heresiological sources should be held in reserve, ready to be deployed if we cannot make sense of Heracleon

The idea that Origen may be conflating Heracleon’s views with those of his later followers is repeatedly stated by Ansgar Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus: Gnostische Johannesexegese im zweiten Jahrhundert, WUNT 142 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 19–21, 24–26, 244, 332, 356–357. 7 Epiphanius, Pan. 33.3.1–33.7.10. Cf. SC 24:46–68. 8 Justin Martyr, 2 Apol. 2.1–6 apud Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.17. 9 Christoph Markschies, “New Research on Ptolemaeus Gnosticus,” ZAC 4/2 (2000): 226, 246–251, 252. 10 The methodology of Greco-Roman literary criticism is described by Bernhard Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 18 (Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt, 1987); Frances M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); and Peter W. Martens, Origen and Scripture: The Contours of the Exegetical Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 41–66. The main conclusion of Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 372–381 is that Heracleon was a competent literary critic. 6

How Valentinian Was Heracleon’s Reading

223

any other way, but not be used as our primary interpretative key to Heracleon’s thinking. Only thereby will we be able to compare Heracleon to later “Valentinians” as described by Irenaeus, and discern a development from one to the other. In addition, a study of Heracleon should not presume that every view and statement attributed to Heracleon by Clement or Origen is a verbatim quotation, but rather pay careful attention to the introductory formulas used by these later authors to discern between faithful renderings of Heracleon’s words, on the one hand, and various types of recordings and paraphrases where Origen and Clement present their own understanding of Heracleon’s interpretations, on the other.11 To adapt the words cited from a previous author to better fit one’s own argumentative context was a common practice among ancient authors, common enough to be generally expected.12 This article will present an attempt at such a reading of Heracleon’s interpretation of the healing of the son of a royal official in John 4:46–54. The traditional way of reading this interpretation is that Heracleon understands the healing story as a metaphor for the conversion of the animated ones, i.e., a specific category of humans who are in need of salvation, due to their animated nature, while other humans are either irreparably doomed or predestined for 11 For the semantic difference between direct and indirect speech reports, see Florian Coulmas, “Reported Speech: Some General Issues,” in Direct and Indirect Speech, ed. Florian Coulmas, TiLSM 31 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986), 1–28; Charles N. Li, “Direct Speech and Indirect Speech: A Functional Study,” in Direct and Indirect Speech, ed. Florian Coulmas, TiLSM 31 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986), 29–30, 41; Emar Maier, “Switches between Direct and Indirect Speech in Ancient Greek,” Journal of Greek Linguistics 12/1 (2012): 118–19; Keith Allan, “Reports, Indirect Reports, and Illocutionary Point,” in Indirect Reports and Pragmatics: Interdisciplinary Studies, ed. Alessandro Capone, Ferenc Kiefer, and Franco Lo Piparo, Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 5 (Cham: Springer, 2016), 573–591. This study will use the suggestion of Maier, “Switches,” 129–136, to view ὅτι as uniformly introducing indirect speech, and regard cases where direct speech undeniably follows such an introduction as cases where the speech reporter switches to direct speech within the speech report. Coulmas, “Reported Speech,” 6–10, reviews seven alternatives to Maier’s proposal, all of which have less precision. 12 Peter A. Brunt, “On Historical Fragments and Epitomes,” CQ 30/2 (1980): 479–484; Christopher D. Stanley, Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature, SNTMS 69 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 258–264, 289–291, 337, 342–343; Annewies van den Hoek, “Techniques of Quotation in Clement of Alexandria: A View of Ancient Literary Working Methods,” VC 50/3 (1996): 223–243; Sabrina Inowlocki, “‘Neither Adding nor Omitting Anything:’ Josephus’ Promise Not to Modify the Scriptures in Greek and Latin Context,” JJS 56/1 (2005): 48–65; Dominique Lenfant, “The Study of Intermediate Authors and Its Role in the Interpretation of Historical Fragments,” Ancient Society 43 (2013): 295–301; Carl Johan Berglund, “Evaluating Quotations in Ancient Greek Literature: The Case of Heracleon’s Hypomnēmata,” in Shadowy Characters and Fragmentary Evidence: The Search for Early Christian Groups and Movements, ed. Joseph Verheyden, Tobias Nicklas, and Elisabeth Hernitscheck, WUNT 388 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017), 206–217.

224

Carl Johan Berglund

salvation. This claim is stated as a fact already by Alan E. Brooke in 1896, and repeated by Elaine Pagels in 1973 and by Kyle Keefer in 2006,13 but have been questioned by Ansgar Wucherpfennig and Ismo Dunderberg, who note that extant material from Heracleon neither suggests that the son of the royal official is an animated person, nor describes his reaction to the healing in any contrast to the response of the Samaritan woman. In addition, Dunderberg remarks that Heracleon’s conclusions on the royal official’s son are formulated in a manner that seems to include all humans, not only those of a specific nature, and he argues that Heracleon is including all Christians in the category of the spiritual ones, while only Jews are viewed as animated people.14 This article argues, rather, that the theory of three human natures is entirely absent from Heracleon’s reading of the healing of the son of a royal official, and only brought in by Origen, as the interpretative key by which he understands Heracleon.

2. The Identity of the Royal Official In the context of the Fourth Gospel, the healing of the son of a royal official occurs when Jesus is returning to Cana in Galilee, where he performed his first public miracle. There, he is met by a royal official (βασιλικός) whose son, who remains in his home in Capernaum, is on the verge of death. Jesus says, “Go, your son is alive,” and when the official returns home the next day, he realizes that the boy recovered at the exact time at which Jesus spoke with him, and he and his entire household comes to faith (John 4:46–54). In contrast to many modern readers of Jesus’s healings and exorcisms, Origen is not particularly interested in the historical reality behind the story. He asks neither whether the miracle actually took place, nor who the royal official may have been; he merely notes that the event may well have transpired as it is narrated, and that the simple-minded (ἀκεραιότερος) reader will presume the man to be either one of Herod’s men or a member of Caesar’s household. Then, he proceeds to his primary question: Of whom is the royal official a symbol? Two alternatives are offered: Either the royal official is a symbol of Abraham, whose Jewish descendants are in a perilous state as a result of their dependence on the Torah, or he is an image of the immaterial rulers (ἄρχοντες) of the present age, and his son is a symbol of humanity, suffering under their dominion (cf. 1 Cor 2:6, 8; Eph 2:2). Origen never states explicitly which of these two alternatives he prefers – even though he seems to prefer the former – which 13 Brooke, The Fragments of Heracleon, 42–43; Pagels, Gnostic Exegesis, 83–85; Keefer, Branches, 40–42. 14 Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 350–353; Ismo Dunderberg, “Valentinian Theories on Classes of Humankind,” in Gnostic Morality Revisited. WUNT 347 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 143–146.

How Valentinian Was Heracleon’s Reading

225

may suggest that the symbolic identification of the royal official was a known disputed point in contemporary exegesis, and that the positions of Origen and his opponents were well known to the intended audience.15 Unsurprisingly enough, Origen’s first mention of Heracleon is a remark on his view on the symbolic identity of the royal official: Heracleon seems (ἔοικεν) to say (λέγειν) that the royal official is the Maker, since (ἐπεί) he also reigns over those under him. But since (διὰ δέ) his kingdom was small and temporary, he says (φησί) “he was called a royal official,” namely (οἱονεί) a little king, appointed to a small kingdom by a higher king. But his son in Capernaum he describes (διηγεῖται) as being in the lower part of the middle area by the sea – that is (τουτέστιν), the region that borders on the material. He also states (λέγει) that the human attached to him was being ill – that is (τουτέστιν), he was not in his natural state but in ignorance and failure.16

In the first sentence, Origen presents what he claims to be Heracleon’s interpretative key to the passage: the royal official is a symbol of the Maker (δημιουργός), the inferior divinity who has created the material world. This statement is not a verbatim quotation. It is presented in indirect speech and attributed to Heracleon with a form of the verb ἔοικα (“seem”), which indicates that Origen is uncertain of his claim and, in extension, that Heracleon never states explicitly that the royal official is the Maker. This symbolic identification seems rather to be inferred by Origen based on one or more clues in Heracleon’s presentation.17 Even though the first sentence includes a causal sub-clause introduced by ἐπεί (“since”), the reason given therein does not support Origen’s claim. To reign over subordinates is not a unique characteristic of the Maker, but could be said of many human and non-human figures, including Abraham and the immaterial rulers to which Origen previously has been referring. In this context, the words – which we will presume reflects something of Heracleon’s 15 Origen, Comm. Jo. 13.58/394–59/415. References to our main source, Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, will be given with book number, chapter number, and paragraph number. Chapter and paragraph numbers will be separated with a slash rather than a dot, to signify that the paragraph numbering is continuous throughout each book and not subordinated to the chapter numbering. 16 Origen, Comm. Jo. 13.60/416 (SC 222:262.1–10; the first paragraph of Brooke’s fragment 40; ET: mine): Ἔοικεν δὲ βασιλικὸν ὁ Ἡρακλέων λέγειν τὸν δημιουργόν, ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐβασίλευεν τῶν ὑπ’ αὐτόν· διὰ δὲ τὸ μικρὰν αὐτοῦ καὶ πρόσκαιρον εἶναι τὴν βασιλείαν, φησί, βασιλικὸς ὠνομάσθη, οἱονεὶ μικρός τις βασιλεὺς ὑπὸ καθολικοῦ βασιλέως τεταγμένος ἐπὶ μικρᾶς βασιλείας· τὸν δὲ ἐν Καφαρναοὺμ υἱὸν αὐτοῦ διηγεῖται τὸν ἐν τῷ ὑποβεβηκότι μέρει τῆς μεσότητος τῷ πρὸς θάλασσαν, τουτέστιν τῷ συνημμένῳ τῇ ὕλῃ, καὶ λέγει ὅτι ὁ ἴδιος αὐτοῦ ἄνθρωπος ἀσθενῶν, τουτέστιν οὐ κατὰ φύσιν ἔχων, ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ καὶ ἁμαρτήμασιν ἦν. 17 This fact is also noted by Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 257 n47, who directs some criticism toward earlier scholars who have presumed this “vorsichtige Vermutung” by Origen to be a direct quotation from Heracleon. For instance, Pagels, Gnostic Exegesis, 84–85, claims that Heracleon’s symbolic identification of the royal official with the demiurge “marks his viewpoint as unmistakably Valentinian.”

226

Carl Johan Berglund

interpretation – seem rather to associate this Johannine pericope with the Synoptic story about a centurion in Capernaum whose servant was ill, which we know from Matt 8:5–13 and Luke 7:1–10.18 This centurion (ἑκατόνταρχος in Matthew; ἑκατοντάρχης in Luke) claims to understand that Jesus would be able to heal at a distance, since he also has soldiers under him to whom he could give orders (Matt 8:8–9; Luke 7:7–8).19 Rather than supporting Origen’s claim, this remark suggests that Heracleon identifies the royal official with the Synoptic centurion, or at least that he saw an analogy between these two characters. On this point, Heracleon seems to agree with many modern scholars.20 In addition, this association between the royal official and the centurion may be enough to explain Origen’s conclusion that Heracleon is reading the character as a symbol for the Maker – since Irenaeus states that the symbolic identification of the centurion with the Maker is a standard “Valentinian” exegetical practice: They [the Valentinians] say that when the Savior came, he [the Maker] learned everything from him, that he supported him with all his power, and that he is the centurion in the Gospel, who said to the savior: “I have also power over the soldiers and servants under me, and whatever I command them, they do” (cf. Matt 8:9).21

That Heracleon is referring to Matt 8:5–13 // Luke 7:1–10 is also noted by Pagels and Wucherpfennig. Pagels, Gnostic Exegesis, 84, notes that this part of Heracleon’s interpretation “contains nothing markedly different from many other Christian homilies.” Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 260, concludes that Heracleon has utilized the Synoptic tradition in his “Worterklärung” (γλωσσηματικόν) of the term βασιλικός. 19 There is no need to presume that Heracleon has access to our canonical versions of Matthew and Luke, only that he knows a Synoptic gospel tradition that is similar to them. Since Heracleon in Origen, Comm. Jo. 13.32/200–202, seems to be referring to the parable of the foolish bridesmaids (Matt 25:1–13) and in Origen, Comm. Jo. 20.24/215, seems to take examples of metaphorical children from Matt 23:13–36, his gospel tradition seems closer to the Gospel of Matthew than to the Gospel of Luke. Édouard Massaux, Influence de l’évangile de saint Matthieu sur la littérature chrétienne avant saint Irénée, ed. Frans Neirynck (BETL 75; Leuven: University Press, 1986), 452, also argues that the Gospel of Matthew had a privileged position in Heracleon’s exegesis. See further Carl Johan Berglund, “Literary Criticism in Early Christianity: How Heracleon and Valentinus Use One Passage to Interpret Another,” JECS 27/1 (2019), 27–53. 20 Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd ed. (London: SPCK, 1978), 18, 245, 247; D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 233–234; George R. Beasley-Murray, John, 2nd ed., WBC 36 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 71. 21 Irenaeus, Haer. 1.7.4 (SC 264:109.743–48; ET: mine): Ἐλθόντος δὲ τοῦ Σωτῆρος, µαθεῖν αὐτὸν παρ’ αὐτοῦ πάντα λέγουσιν, καὶ ἄσµενον αὐτῷ προσχωρήσαντα µετὰ πάσης τῆς δυνάµεως αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐτὸν εἶναι τὸν ἐν τῷ Εὐαγγελίῳ ἑκατόνταρχον, λέγοντα τῷ Σωτῆρι· “Καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ ὑπὸ τὴν ἐµαυτοῦ ἐξουσίαν ἔχω στρατιώτας καὶ δούλους, καὶ ὃ ἐὰν προστάξω, ποιοῦσι.” 18

How Valentinian Was Heracleon’s Reading

227

If Origen was aware of the “Valentinian” habit of identifying the centurion with the Maker, Heracleon’s association to the centurion may have been enough of a clue for Origen to conclude that Heracleon must be reading the Johannine pericope in the same way that other “Valentinians” read its Synoptic parallel. In the second sentence, Origen seems more certain of what Heracleon is saying, and a statement presented in direct speech is attributed to Heracleon with a single φησί (“he says”). This technique is commonly used by Origen to introduce verbatim quotations, but in this case, it is unusually difficult to discern which part of the sentence are included in the quotation. The maximalist interpretation of placing the whole sentence within quotation marks is certainly possible, but risks including interpretative remarks and summaries by Origen in what we believe to be Heracleon’s own words.22 The main clause, βασιλικὸς ὠνομάσθη (“he was called a royal official”) is certainly included in the verbatim quotation, but the preceding causal sub-clause beginning with διὰ δέ (but since) and the ensuing apposition beginning with οἱονεί (namely) are less certain. Since the causal sub-clause appears before the attribution φησί (he says), it may be summarized rather than quoted, and the apposition could be an interpretative comment added by Origen. The original comment on which Origen’s presentation is based may have stated that the centurion, whose rule – or βασιλεία (“kingdom”) – is only small and temporary cannot properly be called a βασιλεύς (“king”), but a title of βασιλικός (“royal official”) may be fitting. The comment may also have been referring to Herod Antipas, who reigned as tetrarch of Galilee and Perea from 4 BCE to 39 CE. Herod was certainly a royal figure appointed to rule over a certain limited area, encompassing both Cana and Capernaum, whose power was entirely dependent on his Roman superiors. In any case, the comment amounts to a word study on the term βασιλικός (“royal official”), and illustrates Heracleon’s competence in literary criticism.23 In the third sentence, Origen uses the verb διηγέομαι (“describe”) to attribute to Heracleon the point that the son is located is “in the lower part of the middle area by the sea.” This is also not a verbatim quotation, but διηγέομαι may be said to describe what happens in the text rather than in the mind of its author, and the statement may be regarded as a summary of Heracleon’s comment. As a summary, it reads as a geographical explanation that Capernaum is located on the northern shore of the Sea of Galilee, in the Hula Valley, the

22 So Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 250, 258. Although Wucherpfennig’s suggestion that Heracleon’s comments frequently begin with ἐπεί and cognate words is intriguing, the extant material from Heracleon is not extensive enough to draw such conclusions. 23 Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, 139–140; Young, Biblical Exegesis, 85–89; Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 56–57.

228

Carl Johan Berglund

lower region between Upper Galilee and the Golan Heights.24 To this explanation, an interpretative comment, beginning with τουτέστιν (“that is”), has been added – presumably by Origen – to connect the geographical explanation to the theory of the three human natures. Thus, Origen may be reading this theory into Heracleon’s explanation.25 In the fourth sentence, the unspecific designation ὁ ἴδιος αὐτοῦ ἄνθρωπος (“the human attached to him”) may be worded in order to bridge the Johannine ὑιός (“son”), the Matthean παῖς (“boy”), and possibly even the Lukan δοῦλος (“servant”) into a more general term. The expression οὐ κατὰ φύσιν ἔχων (“he was not in his natural state”) is standard medical language for an unhealthy state, and is therefore synonymous with the preceding ἀσθενῶν (“ill”).26 The terms ἄγνοια (“ignorance”) and ἁμάρτημα (“failure”) in Origen’s summary may have originated with Heracleon, since they recur in his interpretation of John 8:21.27 The recurring τουτέστιν (“that is”) may suggest that the interpretative comment, as it appears, is formulated by Origen.28

3. The Perilous State of Mortals In the second paragraph, the first sentence is difficult to characterize, since it is interrupted by a lacuna: Then, “out of Judea into Galilee” in the sense of out of the Judea above […] I do not know how he, proceeding to “he was about to die,” thinks (οἴεται) that the views of those suggesting that the soul is immortal are refuted and assumes that this is equivalent to “both the soul 24 Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 263–264, rightly identifies this explanation as an indication that Heracleon is a skilled literary critic, who is able to provide geographical information to his readers. 25 Pagels, Gnostic Exegesis, 85, reads all parts of Origen’s presentation as taken directly from Heracleon. Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 263 n74, admits that the framing clause τὸν δὲ ἐν Καφαρναοὺμ υἱὸν αὐτοῦ originates with Origen, but takes διηγεῖται as introducing a verbatim quotation, “direkt aus seiner Vorlage abgeschrieben,” including the interpretative comment. He also remarks, in Heracleon Philologus, 61–62, 263–272, that Heracleon’s topographical note seem to be based on actual knowledge of the geographical area – but since he reads the ensuing interpretative comment as authored by Heracleon, he concludes that Heracleon’s speculative interpretation is based on geographical knowledge. 26 Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 278–279, clarifies this point with reference to Galen, Ars medica 321.3, 355.6–7, 358.7–8 and Plutarch, De tuenda salute 18.132a, 2.134c. Thomassen, “Heracleon,” 189 n65, also accepts that this expression is a common medical one. Pagels, Gnostic Exegesis, 85, who does not recognize the medical idiom, reads it as expressing the state of a rational soul trapped in a material existence – a reading clearly dependent on her presumptions regarding Heracleon’s “Gnostic” theology. 27 Cf. Origen, Comm. Jo. 19.14/89. 28 Pace Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 250, 277, who claims the whole sentence, including the interpretative comment, to be “wörtlich zitiert” by Origen.

How Valentinian Was Heracleon’s Reading

229

and the body are destroyed in hell” (Matt 10:28). Heracleon does not believe (ἡγεῖται) the soul to be really immortal, only suitable for salvation, for he claims it to be (λέγων εἶναι) the perishable (φθαρτός) that is clothed in imperishability and the mortal (θνητός) that is clothed in immortality when its “death has been swallowed up in victory” (1 Cor 15:53–54).29

The adjective ἄνωθεν suggests that the geographical note in John 4:47 that Jesus has left Judea and entered Galilee is interpreted as a metaphor for the incarnation, Jesus’s journey from the spiritual realm to the material – but since Judea is more elevated than most of Galilee, it may also be a simple geographical remark.30 Since the clause appears within Origen’s presentation of Heracleon’s interpretation, it is reasonable to assume that the interpretation was made by Heracleon, but we may note that the extant text includes no claim that this is the case. Although the sentence cannot be taken as a verbatim quotation, it may be assumed to summarize or describe Heracleon’s position.31 In the second sentence, Origen is responding to Heracleon, whose position has to be inferred from Origen’s criticism. With that difficulty in mind, we might note that Heracleon seems to have taken the narrator’s report that the official’s son was about to die (ἤμελλεν ἀποθνῄσκειν) as proof against the view that the human soul is immortal, and as equivalent to a gospel tradition similar to Matt 10:28, in which Jesus exhorts his viewers to fear the one who can let both soul and body be destroyed in hell. If Heracleon is making a metaphorical interpretation where Jesus’s visit to Cana corresponds to his earthly existence, it is fitting that he interprets the unhealthy condition of the official’s son as a metaphor for the perilous state of human beings, whose bodies and souls are equally mortal, and who therefore are in desperate need of a savior. In the third sentence, based on what appears to be a summary of Heracleon’s argument, Origen makes what seems like a reasonable inference, that Heracleon does not believe that the human soul is immortal, only that it can be saved.32 Heracleon probably argued that what the apostle Paul refers to in 1 Cor 15:53–54, with the expressions τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο (“this perishable

29 Origen, Comm. Jo. 13.60/417–418 (SC 222:262.11–264.20; the second paragraph of Brooke’s fragment 40; ET: mine): Εἶτα τὸ “Ἐκ τῆς Ἰουδαίας εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν” ἀντὶ τοῦ “ἐκ τῆς ἄνωθεν Ἰουδαίας” * * *. Οὐκ οἶδα δὲ ὅπως εἰς τὸ “Ἤμελλεν ἀποθνῄσκειν” κινηθεὶς οἴεται ἀνατρέπεσθαι τὰ δόγματα τῶν ὑποτιθεμένων ἀθάνατον εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν εἰς τὸ αὐτὸ συμβάλλεσθαι ὑπολαμβάνων καὶ τὸ ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα ἀπόλλυσθαι ἐν γεέννῃ. Καὶ οὐκ ἀθάνατόν γε εἶναι ἡγεῖται τὴν ψυχὴν ὁ Ἡρακλέων, ἀλλ’ ἐπιτηδείως ἔχουσαν πρὸς σωτηρίαν, αὐτὴν λέγων εἶναι τὸ ἐνδυόμενον ἀφθαρσίαν φθαρτὸν καὶ ἀθανασίαν θνητόν, ὅταν “καταποθῇ ὁ θάνατος αὐτῆς εἰς νῖκος”. 30 Cf. Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 272–273. 31 Pace Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 250, who presents the clause as a quotation from Heracleon. 32 Pace Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 250–251, who presents this as a quotation from Heracleon, delimited by Origen’s ὅταν.

230

Carl Johan Berglund

object”) and τὸ θνητὸν τοῦτο (“this mortal object”), is the human soul.33 Thus, Heracleon seems to be using both Matthean and Pauline material in his interpretation of the Gospel of John – which is a sign of an early emerging Christian canon.34 In addition, Heracleon’s references to the human soul (ψυχή) neither constitutes nor presumes a claim that there is a certain category of humans with an animated (ψυχικός) nature. On the contrary, Heracleon’s reasoning seems equally applicable to all human beings, and well-integrated with the thinking of the apostle Paul.35

4. The Consequences of Law and Sin In the third paragraph, Origen’s presentation of Heracleon’s comments proceeds to the dialogue in John 4:48–50: In addition, he says (φησιν) that “unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe” (John 4:48) is appropriately said to such a person whose nature it is to be persuaded by events and by the senses, rather than to trust in a word. But “come down before my child dies” (John 4:49) he believes to have been said (εἰρῆσθαι νομίζει) because death is the end of the law, which destroys through the sins. “Before he was completely,” he therefore says (φησί), “put to death in accordance with his sins, the father begged the only Savior to rescue his son” – that is, such a nature.36

Alain Le Boulluec, La notion d’hérésie dans la littérature grecque: IIe-IIIe siècles (Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1985), 517–518, asserts that Heracleon argued neither for nor against the immortality of the soul, and that Origen’s strict dichotomy misrepresents Heracleon’s reasoning. Cf. Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 283: “Wahrscheinlich ist, dass Herakleon in seinen ursprünglichen Hypomnemata die Positionen, gegen die er sich hier wendet, wenn auch nicht mit Namen genannt, so doch wenigstens inhaltlich näher bestimmt hat.” Thomassen, “Heracleon,” 190, contends that Heracleon maintains that the survival of a psychic soul calls for a “process of total transformation” in which the perishable puts on the imperishable, an idea he describes as “characteristic of Valentinian soteriology.” Cf. Einar Thomassen, “Saved by Nature? The Question of Human Races and Soteriological Determinism in Valentinianism,” in Zugänge zur Gnosis, ed. Christoph Markschies and J. van Oort, Patristic Studies 12 (Leuven: Peeters, 2013), 145. 34 Heracleon’s use of Pauline letters and Synoptic gospel traditions in Johannine exegesis also constitutes an application of Greco-Roman literary criticism to the early Christian literature, as is argued in full in Berglund, “Literary Criticism in Early Christianity.” 35 Cf. Dunderberg, “Valentinian Theories,” 145–146. 36 Origen, Comm. Jo. 13.60/419–420 (SC 222:264.21–29; the third paragraph of Brooke’s fragment 40; ET: mine): Πρὸς τούτοις καὶ τὸ “Ἐὰν μὴ σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα ἴδητε, οὐ μὴ πιστεύσητε” λέγεσθαί φησιν οἰκείως πρὸς τὸ τοιοῦτον πρόσωπον δι’ ἔργων φύσιν ἔχον καὶ δι’ αἰσθήσεως πείθεσθαι καὶ οὐχὶ λόγῳ πιστεύειν. Τὸ δὲ “Κατάβηθι πρὶν ἀποθανεῖν τὸ παιδίον μου” διὰ τὸ τέλος εἶναι τοῦ νόμου τὸν θάνατον εἰρῆσθαι νομίζει, ἀναιροῦντος διὰ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν· πρὶν τελέως οὖν, φησί, θανατωθῆναι κατὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας δεῖται ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ μόνου σωτῆρος, ἵνα βοηθήσῃ τῷ υἱῷ, τουτέστιν τῇ τοιᾷδε φύσει. 33

How Valentinian Was Heracleon’s Reading

231

In the first sentence, a remark on Jesus’s remark in John 4:48 is attributed to Heracleon in indirect discourse with a single verbum dicendi, and we may assume Origen to be summarizing Heracleon’s argument on this point.37 In the second, the attribution is made with the verb νομίζει (“he believes”), which suggests that he is rather presenting his own understanding of Heracleon’s view.38 The third sentence appears to introduce a verbatim quotation – a statement presented in direct discourse, and attributed to Heracleon with a single verbum dicendi. At the end of this quotation, the interpretative comment τουτέστιν τῇ τοιᾷδε φύσει (“that is, such a nature”) has been added. It is doubtful whether the three words πρὶν τελέως οὖν (“Before he was completely, therefore”), which appear before φησί, are part of the quotation. Origen regularly puts one or two quoted words before the verbum dicendi, but three-word cases are less common, and therefore less clear. The most likely alternative is that οὖν is part of Origen’s sentence structure, while πρὶν τελέως is part of Heracleon’s, but other alternatives are also possible.39 Heracleon seems to be reflecting on whom Jesus is addressing with his remark. While there manifestly are characters in the Fourth Gospel who express a faith in Jesus that is not based on signs and wonders, there may also be people – in the story world as well as in the real world – who are inclined not to trust words alone, but rely more on observation of events; basically, the dichotomy between rational and empirical epistemologies. While Jesus’s remark may appear to be out of place if addressed to someone inclined towards rational knowledge, it is more fitting if spoken to a believer in empirical knowledge. Although Origen uses the word φύσις (“nature”) in his summary, Heracleon’s reflection appears to be unrelated to the theory of three human natures.40

Pace Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 301, who despite noting the oratio obliqua reads the whole sentence as an almost verbatim quotation, suggesting that the infinitive λέγεσθαι may have appeared in finite form in Heracleon’s writing. 38 Cf. Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 291: “Sein einleitendes „νομίζει” zeigt, dass es sich hier um die thesenartige Wiedergabe eines ausführlicheren Abschnitts aus Herakleons ursprünglicher Schrift handelt.“ Considering that Wucherpfennig readily believes Origen to be quoting verbatim even when he is using indirect speech, it is fitting that he takes one step away from that assessment when encountering this verb, and concludes that Origen is summarizing Heracleon. 39 My assessment that this is a verbatim quotation commencing at the beginning of the sentence seems to be in agreement with the claims of Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 251, 291, 294–295. On the other hand, we disagree on where the quotation ends, since Wucherpfennig assuredly includes the interpretative comment in what he calls “ein wörtliches Zitat Herakleons” (Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 294). 40 Pace Thomassen, “Saved by Nature?,” 136–137, who asserts that Heracleon’s remark “is another way of describing the difference between the spiritual and the psychic: whereas the spirituals attain faith intuitively and immediately, the psychics need to be convinced by means of visual demonstration.” 37

232

Carl Johan Berglund

There is a certain coherency between Origen’s paraphrase in the second sentence and the quotation in the third, in that human sin is thought to lead, ultimately, to death, and that the law (νόμος) has a role in this process. Given that Heracleon has already referred to 1 Cor 15:53–54 in this context, it is not particularly difficult to recognize that this connection between sin, law, and death is, in all likelihood, taken from 1 Cor 15:56: “The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law” (τὸ δὲ κέντρον τοῦ θανάτου ἡ ἁμαρτία, ἡ δὲ δύναμις τῆς ἁμαρτίας ὁ νόμος).41 In this compact maxim, Paul summarizes a view on sin, law, and death that he lays out in much more detail in Rom 5–8: The knowledge that some actions are forbidden is not enough to avoid them, and the resulting conscious sin will ultimately lead to death, unless the sinner can be liberated by sharing in the death and resurrection of Christ.42 Similarly, Heracleon seems to be arguing that the story expresses the universal peril of human life: sin will lead to our death, unless the Savior interferes in mercy. The notion that sin will lead to death, which is expressed in the quotation from Heracleon, is probably based on Paul’s argument in Rom 5:12–15; 6:20– 23; 7:5. The statement that death is the τέλος (“end;” “result;” or “cessation”) of the law can be viewed as a reiteration of the same notion, but can also express the complementary idea that the law has no validity beyond death, which Paul expresses in Rom 7:1–6. As in the Pauline contexts in Romans and First Corinthians, νόμος (“law”) can either be considered a direct reference to the Mosaic legislation, which would make the reasoning of Paul and Heracleon to be applicable specifically to the Jewish people, or be thought of as a more 41 For the now almost universally rejected view that 1 Cor 15:56 is a gloss, first proposed in Jan Willem Straatman, Kritische studiën over den 1en Brief van Paulus aan de Korinthiërs (Groningen: Van Griffen, 1863), 284, see: Friedrich Wilhelm Horn, “1 Korinther 15,56: ein exegetischer Stachel,” ZNW 82/1–2 (1991): 88–105. As pointed out by Chris A. Vlachos, The Law and the Knowledge of Good and Evil: The Edenic Background of the Catalytic Operation of the Law in Paul (Wipf and Stock, 2009), 15–16, Horn is forced to make ”nearly unthinkable” assumptions in order to overcome the difficulty that no ancient manuscript supports his claim. 42 Harm W Hollander and J Holleman, “The Relationship of Death, Sin, and Law in 1 Cor 15:56,” NovT 35/3 (1993): 270–273, describes a scholarly consensus to interpret 1 Cor 15:56 with reference to other Pauline letters, especially Rom 5–8, and to read νόμος as a reference to the Jewish law. Against this consensus, they argue that Paul is referring to Greco-Roman legislation, and aims to describe the miserable state of humanity in general. Vlachos, The Law and the Knowledge of Good and Evil, 9–12, argues that 1 Cor 15:56 is well connected to its literary context, and dependent on Paul’s understanding of the relationship between law and death in Gen 3, which is alluded to in the preceding references to the first and the last Adam in 15:21– 22, 45–49. Rather than the Mosaic law, Paul is referring to universal conditions of human beings that are present already in Eden, Vlachos (195–199) argues. František Ábel, “‘Death as the Last Enemy’: Interpretation of Death in the Context of Paul’s Theology,” CV 58/1 (2016): 23–26, 52–54, argues that the key to understanding Paul’s view of death is the contrast between the first and last Adam in 1 Cor 15:44–49, and its resulting dichotomy between physical and spiritual death.

How Valentinian Was Heracleon’s Reading

233

general concept of human and divine legislation, which would make the argument applicable to all humanity. The data is insufficient to draw any conclusion regarding Heracleon’s usage of the word νόμος, but since the rest of Heracleon’s interpretation of this pericope seems to apply to all humanity, it is reasonable to take the word in its more generalized sense.43 In any case, Heracleon’s reasoning seems entirely compatible with Paul’s theology on this point.

5. The Process of the Healing In the fourth paragraph, Heracleon seems to consider the process by which the Savior works this healing: Furthermore, he takes (ἐξείληφεν) “Your son is alive” as being said in humility by the Savior, since (ἐπεί) he neither said “Let him be alive,” nor indicated that it was he who had granted him life. He also states (λέγει δὲ ὅτι) that it was after he had gone down to the suffering one, healed him from the disease – that is, from the sins – and given him life through forgiveness that he said: “Your son is alive” (John 4:50a). And he remarks (ἐπιλέγει) on “the man believed” (John 4:50b) that (ὅτι) the Maker also is willing to believe that the Savior is able to heal even when he is not present.44

All three descriptions of Heracleon’s comments in this paragraph are presented in indirect speech and appear to summarize Heracleon’s argument. First, the verb ἐκλαμβάνω (“take in a certain way”) is used to describe how Heracleon understood the text. This description is supported by two reasons, added after ἐπεί (“since”), both of which appear to be summarized from Heracleon’s

The interpretation of Holger Strutwolf, Gnosis als System: Zur Rezeption der valentinianischen Gnosis bei Origenes, Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 56 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 118, of Heracleon’s reflection as a description of the dire situation of, specifically, the animated ones, presumes Origen’s description being correct. More intriguing is Wucherpfennig’s conclusion that the state of human ignorance and sin is in opposition to ordinary human nature, and the result of interference by outside forces. Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 281: “Wenn Herakleon die Krankheit des Sohnes in 4,46 als Zustand in „Unkenntnis und Sünden“ schildert, dann beschreibt er sie als einen Zustand gegen die eigene Physis des Menschen, der von Kräften beeinflusst ist, die seinem eigentlichen Ziel entgegenstehen. Sie können dem Menschen kein Leben garantieren. Sie gehören wie der Teufel zur Materie und haben folglich auch Teil an seinem leblosen Sein. Er ist nicht zeugungsfähig, wie Herakleon sagt.” 44 Origen, Comm. Jo. 13.60/421–422 (SC 222:264.30–37; the fourth paragraph of Brooke’s fragment 40; ET: mine): Πρὸς τούτοις τὸ “Ὁ υἱός σου ζῇ” κατὰ ἀτυφίαν εἰρῆσθαι τῷ σωτῆρι ἐξείληφεν, ἐπεὶ οὐκ εἶπεν· “ζήτω”, οὐδὲ ἐνέφηνεν αὐτὸς παρεσχῆσθαι τὴν ζωήν. Λέγει δὲ ὅτι καταβὰς πρὸς τὸν κάμνοντα καὶ ἰασάμενος αὐτὸν τῆς νόσου, τουτέστιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ διὰ τῆς ἀφέσεως ζωοποιήσας εἶπεν· “Ὁ υἱός σου ζῇ.” Καὶ ἐπιλέγει πρὸς τὸ “Ἐπίστευσεν” ὁ ἄνθρωπος· ὅτι εὔπιστος καὶ ὁ δημιουργός ἐστιν, ὅτι δύναται ὁ σωτὴρ καὶ μὴ παρὼν θεραπεύειν. 43

234

Carl Johan Berglund

writing. The described humility of Jesus’s saying is in harmony with the two reasons stated, and may be either concluded from those by Heracleon or inferred by Origen from Heracleon’s statements. Then, two statements are attributed to Heracleon with the verbs λέγω (“say,” “claim”), and ἐπιλέγω (“say in regard to something,” “remark”). As these statements are presented in indirect speech, introduced by the complementizer ὅτι (“that”),45 they may include some information that Origen inferred from the context, or simply presumed.46 According to the first of Origen’s summaries, Heracleon has remarked that Jesus’s answer is expressed rather modestly, since it neither is put in the third person imperative of a royal command, nor announces his ability to give life to humans. As observed by Wucherpfennig, this remark betrays Heracleon’s extensive competence in Greco-Roman literary criticism. Heracleon is able to compare the grammatical form used in this sentence to other forms usually employed in the Fourth Gospel, and discuss how the utilized grammar affects the reader’s impression of the speaking character.47 In the second summary, Heracleon is said to have asserted that Jesus states that the son is alive only after having gone down (καταβάς) to the suffering one, healed him, and given him life through forgiveness. Wucherpfennig reads this as an apologetic attempt at describing the physical means through which Jesus healed the son at a distance: an out-of-body experience by which he visited the son in Capernaum.48 However, in the context of his previous remark about ἐκ τῆς ἄνωθεν Ἰουδαίας (“out of the Judea above”) it appears more likely that he is referring to the Incarnation: the son is declared alive only after the Son has descended from the eternal realm to the suffering humanity, healed them from the disease of sin, and given them life through forgiveness. In the third summary, the word-choice of δημιουργός (“Maker”) for the royal official is probably Origen’s rather than Heracleon’s. In indirect speech, the reporting author is free to introduce information about the reported speech that are true from his point of view, as he does not claim to give the actual words that were used in the original.49 Origen has declared already at the outset of this interaction with Heracleon that Heracleon seems to identify the royal official with the maker, probably based on a perceived general “Valentinian” identification of the Synoptic centurion (Matt 8:5–13; Luke 7:1–10) with the This is one case where we make use of the proposal of Maier, “Switches,” 129–136, to view ὅτι as introducing indirect speech unless otherwise indicated by the attributed statement itself. Cf. note 11. 46 Pace Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 251, 314, who presents the first summary as a quotation, and quotes the third summary as a quotation taken directly from Heracleon. 47 Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 305–306. 48 Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 307–309. He presents, Heracleon Philologus, 314, the question of whether physical healing can take place in Jesus’s physical absence as an issue that is typical of the second century. 49 Coulmas, “Reported Speech,” 3. 45

How Valentinian Was Heracleon’s Reading

235

Maker, and may therefore have read a ἑκατόνταρχος (“centurion”) in Heracleon’s writing as an obvious reference to the Maker. Given that Heracleon has already referred to the story of the centurion as a parallel to the pericope of the royal official, this remark on his willingness to believe that Jesus can heal at a distance seems to point out the parallel between John 4:50b, where the royal official is said to believe, and Matt 8:8, where the centurion expresses his belief in Jesus’s ability to heal with the words μόνον εἰπὲ λόγῳ, καὶ ἰαθήσεται ὁ παῖς μου (“Just say the word, and my servant will be healed”), or its parallel in Luke 7:7. Heracleon thus probably referred to the Synoptic centurion, which led Origen to believe that he was talking about the “Valentinian” Maker.50 Apart from the βασιλικός (“royal official”) of the Johannine source-text, we have found Heracleon to be using exactly one epithet for the royal official: πατήρ (“father”). From the perspective of his son, the royal official is undoubtedly a father, but in view of Heracleon’s seemingly symbolic interpretation of the healing as a metaphor for the incarnated Savior’s healing of humanity from the illness of sin, we may also read πατήρ as referring to humanity’s heavenly Father. In that case, Heracleon’s abovementioned remark, “Before he was completely put to death in accordance with his sins, the Father begged the only Savior to rescue his son,”51 may be read as expressing the Father’s instruction to the Son to rescue humanity from sin.

6. Conclusion This article has attempted a novel reading of Heracleon’s comments on the healing of the son of a royal official, as mediated by Origen of Alexandria in the thirteenth volume of his Commentary on the Gospel of John, a reading that presumes neither that every view attributed by heresiological writers to the followers of Valentinus is Heracleon’s opinion, nor that every statement Origen attributes to Heracleon is a verbatim quotation from his writing. Previous scholarship has started from the presumption that Heracleon subscribed to a theory of three human natures – spiritual, animated, and earthly or material – that determined the ultimate fate of humans, and read the healing pericope as a metaphor for the perilous state of the middle category, the animated ones, who are associated with the Maker (δημιουργός), an inferior divinity who has created the physical world. We have found, on point after point, that the 50 Similar arguments may be made regarding references to the Maker in Origen, Comm. Jo. 13.60/423–426. 51 Heracleon apud Origen, Comm. Jo. 13.60/420 (SC 222:264.27–29; ET: mine): πρὶν τελέως […] θανατωθῆναι κατὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας δεῖται ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ μόνου σωτῆρος ἵνα βοηθήσῃ τῷ υἱῷ.

236

Carl Johan Berglund

identification of the royal official as the Maker, and his son as having an animated nature, may not have been present in Heracleon’s interpretation at all, but may have been inferred by Origen, who presumed Heracleon’s interpretation of the Fourth Gospel to be determined by sectarian ideas. As far as we can discern his interpretation of John 4:46–54, Heracleon interpreted this Johannine pericope using the Synoptic story of a centurion (Matt 8:5–13; Luke 7:1–10) and Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Heracleon notes the parallel between the Johannine official and the Synoptic centurion, and points out their similar willingness to believe that Jesus can heal even at a distance, as stated in John 4:50b and Matt 8:8. He also analyzes the word choice βασιλικός (“royal official”), describes the geographical location of the home of this character, and demonstrates his grammatical competence by noting that Jesus expresses himself rather humbly toward him. Thereby, Heracleon uses several of the methods of Greco-Roman literary criticism to analyze the pericope.52 On the symbolic level, Heracleon seems to be reading the healing story as a metaphor for the perilous state of humanity: afflicted by the disease of sin, which leads to death, human beings are mortal souls in dire need of a Savior. Christ descends from the eternal realm to the suffering humans and heals them from this affliction by giving them new life through forgiveness. Heracleon uses 1 Cor 15:53–54 to reflect on the mortality of the human soul, and 1 Cor 15:56 to point out the connection between sin, the law, and death in Pauline thought, and his interpretation of the healing story seems entirely compatible with Johannine and Pauline theology. Thus, Heracleon’s interpretation of the healing of the son of a royal official may be understood without reference to sectarian doctrines – as an analysis of a Johannine pericope using the methodology of Greco-Roman literary criticism and by use of Pauline and Synoptic parallels. The “Valentinian” character of Heracleon’s exegesis may be entirely in the eyes of Origen and later interpreters.

Bibliography Ancient Authors Clement of Alexandria. Stromata Buch I–VI. Edited by Otto Stählin and Ludwig Früchtel. GCS 52. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1985. –. Stromata, Buch VII und VIII; Excerpta ex Theodoto; Eclogae propheticae; Quis dives salvetur; Fragmente. Edited by Otto Stählin and Ludwig Früchtel. GCS 17:2. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1970. Epiphanius. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis: Book 1, Sects 1–46. Edited by Frank Williams. Leiden: Brill, 2008. On this point, this study confirms the results of Wucherpfennig, Heracleon Philologus, 258, 263–264, 372–381. 52

How Valentinian Was Heracleon’s Reading

237

Hippolytus. Refutation of All Heresies. Edited by M. David Litwa. Translated by M. David Litwa. SBLWGRW 40. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2016. Irénee de Lyon. Contre les hérésies I. Edited by Adelin Rousseau and Louis Doutreleau. SC 264. Paris, 1979. Justin Martyr. Apologie pour les chrétiens. Edited by Charles Munier. SC 507. Paris: Cerf, 2006. Origène. Commentaire sur Saint Jean. Texte grec, avant-propos, traduction et notes par Cécile Blanc. Edited by Cécile Blanc. Translated by Cécile Blanc. SC 120, 157, 222, 290, 385, 120 bis. Paris: Cerf, 1966–1996. Photius. Epistulae et Amphilochia. Edited by Basileios Laourdas and Leendert Gerrit Westerink. BSGRT. Leipzig: Teubner, 1983. Tertullian. Contre les Valentiniens. Edited by Jean-Claude Fredouille. SC 280. Paris, 1980.

Modern Authors Ábel, František. “‘Death as the Last Enemy’: Interpretation of Death in the Context of Paul’s Theology.” CV 58/1 (2016): 19–54. Allan, Keith. “Reports, Indirect Reports, and Illocutionary Point.” Pages 573–591 in Indirect Reports and Pragmatics: Interdisciplinary Studies. Edited by Alessandro Capone, Ferenc Kiefer, and Franco Lo Piparo. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 5. Cham: Springer, 2016. Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text. 2nd ed. London: SPCK, 1978. Beasley-Murray, George R. John. 2nd ed. WBC 36. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000. Berglund, Carl Johan. “Evaluating Quotations in Ancient Greek Literature: The Case of Heracleon’s Hypomnēmata.” Pages 201–231 in Shadowy Characters and Fragmentary Evidence: The Search for Early Christian Groups and Movements. Edited by Joseph Verheyden, Tobias Nicklas, and Elisabeth Hernitscheck. WUNT 388. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017. –. “Literary Criticism in Early Christianity: How Heracleon and Valentinus Use One Passage to Interpret Another.” JECS 27/1 (2019), 27–53. Brooke, Alan E. The Fragments of Heracleon. TS I.4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1891. Brunt, Peter A. “On Historical Fragments and Epitomes.” ClQ 30/2. New Series (1980): 477– 494. Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991. Coulmas, Florian. “Reported Speech: Some General Issues.” Pages 1–28 in Direct and Indirect Speech. Edited by Florian Coulmas. TiLSM 31. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986. Dawson, David. Allegorical Readers and Cultural Revision in Ancient Alexandria. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. Dunderberg, Ismo. “Valentinian Theories on Classes of Humankind.” Pages 137–148 in Gnostic Morality Revisited. WUNT 347. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. van den Hoek, Annewies. “Techniques of Quotation in Clement of Alexandria: A View of Ancient Literary Working Methods.” VC 50/3 (1996): 223–243. Hollander, Harm W. and J. Holleman. “The Relationship of Death, Sin, and Law in 1 Cor 15:56.” NovT 35/3 (1993): 270–291. Horn, Friedrich Wilhelm. “1 Korinther 15,56: ein exegetischer Stachel.” ZNW 82/1–2 (1991): 88–105.

238

Carl Johan Berglund

Inowlocki, Sabrina. “‘Neither Adding nor Omitting Anything’: Josephus’ Promise Not to Modify the Scriptures in Greek and Latin Context.” JJS 56/1 (2005): 48–65. Keefer, Kyle. The Branches of the Gospel of John: The Reception of the Fourth Gospel in the Early Church. LNTS 332. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Layton, Bentley. The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation. London: SCM, 1987. Le Boulluec, Alain. La notion d’hérésie dans la littérature grecque: IIe-IIIe siècles. Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1985. Lenfant, Dominique. “The Study of Intermediate Authors and Its Role in the Interpretation of Historical Fragments.” Ancient Society 43 (2013): 289–305. Li, Charles N. “Direct Speech and Indirect Speech: A Functional Study.” Pages 29–45 in Direct and Indirect Speech. Edited by Florian Coulmas. TiLSM 31. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986. Löhr, Winrich Alfried. “Christian Gnostics and Greek Philosophy in the Second Century.” EC 3/3 (2012): 349–377. Maier, Emar. “Switches between Direct and Indirect Speech in Ancient Greek.” Journal of Greek Linguistics 12/1 (2012): 118–139. Mansfeld, Jaap. Heresiography in Context: Hippolytus’ Elenchos As a Source for Greek Philosophy. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Markschies, Christoph. “New Research on Ptolemaeus Gnosticus.” ZAC 4/2 (2000): 225–254. –. Valentinus Gnosticus? Untersuchungen zur valentinianischen Gnosis mit einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten Valentins. WUNT 65. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Martens, Peter W. Origen and Scripture: The Contours of the Exegetical Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Massaux, Édouard. Influence de l’évangile de saint Matthieu sur la littérature chrétienne avant saint Irénée. Edited by Frans Neirynck. BETL 75. Leuven: University Press, 1986. Neuschäfer, Bernhard. Origenes als Philologe. Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft 18. Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt, 1987. Pagels, Elaine H. The Johannine Gospel in Gnostic Exegesis: Heracleon’s Commentary on John. SBLMS 17. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973. Pearson, Birger A. Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007. –. Gnosticism, Judaism, and Egyptian Christianity. SAC. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990. Quasten, Johannes. Patrology. Vol. 1, The Beginnings of Patristic Literature. Brussels: Spectrum, 1950. Smith, Geoffrey Stephen. Guilt by Association: Heresy Catalogues in Early Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Stanley, Christopher D. Paul and the Language of Scripture: Citation Technique in the Pauline Epistles and Contemporary Literature. SNTSMS 69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Straatman, Jan Willem. Kritische studiën over den 1en Brief van Paulus aan de Korinthiërs. Groningen: Van Griffen, 1863. Strutwolf, Holger. Gnosis als System: Zur Rezeption der valentinianischen Gnosis bei Origenes. Forschungen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 56. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. Thomassen, Einar. “Heracleon.” Pages 173–210 in The Legacy of John: Second-Century Reception of the Fourth Gospel. Edited by Tuomas Rasimus. NovTSup 132. Leiden: Brill, 2010. –. “Saved by Nature? The Question of Human Races and Soteriological Determinism in Valentinianism.” Pages 129–150 in Zugänge zur Gnosis. Edited by Christoph Markschies and J. van Oort. Patristic Studies 12. Leuven: Peeters, 2013.

How Valentinian Was Heracleon’s Reading

239

–. The Spiritual Seed: The Church of the “Valentinians.” Nag Hammadi and Manichaean studies 60. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Vlachos, Chris A. The Law and the Knowledge of Good and Evil: The Edenic Background of the Catalytic Operation of the Law in Paul. Wipf and Stock, 2009. Wucherpfennig, Ansgar. Heracleon Philologus: Gnostische Johannesexegese im zweiten Jahrhundert. WUNT 142. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. Young, Frances M. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

The Use of Scripture in Cyril of Jerusalem’s Homily on the Paralytic by the Pool (CPG 3588): Interpreting the Litter of Solomon Barbara Crostini Cyril of Jerusalem’s Homily on the Paralytic by the Pool (CPG 3588) combines a commentary on the pericope of John 5, the healing of the paralytic by the pool at Bethesda, with a much broader exegetical framework called into play by quotations of other passages in Scripture. In this article, I argue that, through such Scriptural cross-references, Cyril is actively striving to enlarge the import of this healing event to encompass a broader salvific scheme. To this end, he incorporates parallels that appear to stretch well beyond those intertextual connections immediately apparent in the Gospel text. Among these, the catechetical use of the passage on the litter of Solomon from the Song of Songs and its interpretation as a prefiguration of the cross of Christ stand out. Rather than consider such coupling as arbitrary, and despite the fact that Cyril himself refers to these chapters as “digressions,” I endeavor to point out how the use of these figures connects the suffering of the paralytic with that of Christ thematically. Cyril’s detailing of the throne of Solomon brings out in stark figurative language his discourse on Christ’s passion. Cyril resorts to the Song of Songs as a springboard to remind the audience of the overall work of redemption that the incarnate Christ accomplished through his passion and death. In this light, he makes sense of the individual miracle as a small but significant sign in the all-encompassing history of salvation. Moreover, Cyril’s interpretation of the elements of the throne of Solomon as Christ’s cross is also philologically engaging, because it helps to shed light on some notorious obscurities in the Hebrew text.

242

Barbara Crostini

1. Cyril’s Use of Scripture Despite the fact that this text is transmitted outside Cyril’s catechetical collections,1 its authorship has not been doubted. The recent book by Edward Yarnold includes a new translation of this text, thereby affirming that it belongs to Cyril’s works and celebrating its status as a piece worthy of featuring in a condensed representative anthology of this Father’s works.2 Nevertheless, Yarnold makes some comments on this unusual, stand-alone sermon, which cast some doubt precisely on its methodology of using Scripture. In classifying this “meditative homily” as one of Cyril’s early works, probably predating his office as bishop, Yarnold remarks that “The sermon contains allegorical exegesis of a type which Cyril generally avoids in his later works.”3 In the chapter dealing with Cyril’s use of Scripture, Yarnold classifies Cyril as belonging to the Antiochene rather than to the Alexandrian exegetical tradition.4 Such neat distinctions have been considerably problematized in recent scholarship.5 In fact, Cyril’s treatment of the healing of the paralytic in this homily is a very good example of when such school distinctions may indeed prove unhelpful. Rather, Cyril’s passion for considering the two Testaments as a unity, each calling across to the other by analogy and association and thus demonstrating a continuous thread of development in the history of salvation, seems fully at work here.6 More specifically, his ability for considering each detail of Jesus’s passion as prefigured in the Old Testament is here operative through a word-play on an object, the paralytic’s bed, which calls forth an exegesis of Solomon’s litter in Song of Songs 3. Thus, after surveying the approach of his initial chapters, this article will focus on that significant passage. The way of handling Scripture in this homily displays several distinctive Cyrillian features as identified for the Baptismal Catecheses by Pamela

1 According to the Pinakes records online (www.pinakes.cnrs.fr), it currently survives in only four manuscripts. The earliest of these are tenth/eleventh-century: the homiliary Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, gr. 1447 and the “collected works” by Cyril in Oxford, Bodleian Library, Roe 25. 2 E. Yarnold, Cyril of Jerusalem (London: Routledge, 2000), 71–78. 3 Yarnold, Cyril, 22. 4 Yarnold, Cyril, 56. 5 The debate on this issue is ongoing, see https://www.postost.net/2018/06/alexandria-antioch-revised-tale-two-cities (last accessed 2019-09-27) discussing Darren M. Slade, “Patristic Exegesis: The Myth of the Alexandrian-Antiochene Schools of Interpretation,” Socio-Historical Examination of Religion and Ministry 1.2 (2019), 1–19. The standard reference is to the discussion by Frances M. Young, “The Rhetorical Schools and Their Influence on Patristic Exegesis,” in The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick, ed. Rowan Williams (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 182–199. 6 Pamela Jackson, “Cyril of Jerusalem’s Use of Scripture in Catechesis,” TS 52 (1991): 432, 445.

The Use of Scripture in Cyril of Jerusalem

243

Jackson. For example, it includes the technique of narrative amplification, especially applied to the dialogue between Jesus and the paralytic. Cyril dramatizes the action for the sake of involving his audience in a process of simultaneous understanding and imaginative participation in the Gospel narrative. According to Jackson, “Cyril’s most vivid rhetorical technique for drawing candidates into the scriptural story so that they can appropriate it as their own is his addressing them as if they are the people in a scriptural narrative.”7 The intertwining of biblical and present time is facilitated, as we shall see, by the concrete involvement of Cyril in the places of the evangelical action. Such features in this homily strengthen the likelihood of its attribution to Cyril.

2. Cyril’s Context and His Audience between Criticism and Role-Modeling From the outset, Cyril establishes his point of view as that of a Jerusalemdweller, who has a unique vantage point on the Gospel text. He does not hesitate to expand the description of the place of Jesus’s actions, the pool at Bethesda, with details about its portico that are not found in John: the five porches are arranged, according to Cyril, “four around the sides of the pool and one in the middle” [1].8 However, Cyril uses the past tense about the existence of the pool. Presumably, its crowded borders had by his time been replaced by more organized institutions where professional healers operated.9 It appears that in Cyril’s mind the action of healing that Jesus performed at the pool overlaps with a reality where building work is going on at that site. Jerusalem in Cyril’s time must have been an exciting place where many of the key monuments of the Christian faith were in the process of being built, such as the Church of the Anastasis or Holy Sepulchre.10 In his work, Cyril describes Jackson, “Cyril of Jerusalem’s Use of Scripture,” 448. References are given in square brackets to chapter numbers in the translation by Yarnold, Cyril. 9 Thomas S. Miller, The Birth of the Hospital in the Byzantine Empire (Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997); Andrew Crislip, “Monastic Health Care and the Late Antique Hospital,” in Holistic Healing in Byzantium, ed. John T. Chirban (Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2010), 91–118, together with the rejoinder about the religious aspect of healing in the same volume by Derek Krueger, “Healing and the Scope of Religion in Byzantium: A Response to Miller and Crislip,” 119–130; Krueger refines his arguments in a more recent paper, “Healing and Salvation in Byzantium,” in Life is Short, Art Long: the Art of Healing in Byzantium. New Perspectives, ed. B. Pitarakis and G. Tanman (Istanbul: Istanbul Research Institute, 2017), 15–30. Krueger published an image of Jesus healing the paralytic from a sixth-century gold medallion at the Archeological Museum in Istanbul, p. 19, fig. 1a. 10 P. W. L. Walker, Holy City, Holy Places? Christian Attitudes to Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the Fourth Century (New York: Clarendon Press of Oxford University Press, 1990), 7 8

244

Barbara Crostini

the advanced establishment of a Christic geography that he fully exploits catechetically as proof of the faith he teaches. Taking advantage of his privileged location in Jerusalem, Cyril exploits his familiarity with the places of action, here the pool at Bethesda, as a vantage point from which to affirm the truth of Jesus and of his actions. Both these aspects fit well into the image of Cyril as a promoter of the Holy Places as sites of pilgrimage, and of Jerusalem as an organized topography offering special insights into the life of Christ.11 Cyril does not refrain from criticizing a number of professionals in this sermon by comparing them unfavorably to Jesus. Such freedom may reflect the early date of this sermon, before Cyril became fully involved with the establishment. On the other hand, even at that stage, such comments reveal that Cyril was speaking to a distinguished public for whom such comparisons would make sense. Professionals subtly but sharply alluded to in the text, such as constructors, building overseers, doctors, and lawyers, were surely part of Cyril’s audience: the message cast in apparently vague and general terms was likely to have had a more precise target. Cyril is not just preaching at, but teasing out attitudes and implications from the Gospel scene in ways that will resonate with his hearers. He does so by playing with the drama of the encounter between Jesus and the paralytic, but also by the fireworks of intertextual Scriptural references that allow his discourse to take off in many different directions. Cyril imagines Jesus’s activity of healing at Bethesda in competition with that of other men who “inspect the buildings” (τὰς οἰκοδομὰς ζητῶν).12 A critical note is struck against the officials who only look at buildings to determine architectural damage or progress of repairs rather than concern themselves with the human beings who inhabit them. When Cyril remarks that “Jesus is walking around the pools not to inspect the buildings but to heal the sick” [1], his attitude as a careful observer of human needs is foregrounded. Jesus’s focus on the activity of healing, expressed in medical terms, is, by contrast with that of other ineffectual, pompous officials, prized. Comparison with practitioners of the medical profession is naturally next on the agenda. At least three fronts are open on this account: a psychological one, where Cyril elaborates at length on the relationship established between doctor and patient; a socio-economical one, in which Cyril stresses Jesus’s concern for the condition of poverty that made the paralytic’s predicament even more difficult; and finally an epistemological one, where the power of Jesus is not

238. Walker does not take this homily into consideration in his book and does not mention the pool at Bethesda at all. 11 J. W. Drijvers, “Promoting Jerusalem: Cyril and the True Cross,” in Portraits of Spiritual Authority. Religious Power in Early Christianity, Byzantium and the Christian Orient, ed. J. W. Drijvers and J. W. Watt (Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1999), 83; idem, Cyril of Jerusalem: Bishop and City (Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 2004), esp. 153–155. 12 Transl. Yarnold, Cyril, 71.

The Use of Scripture in Cyril of Jerusalem

245

exhausted by effecting a miraculous cure, but extends to his way of apprehending illness and, beyond that, the human condition in general. Jesus’s subtle psychology and the individually tailored treatment he bestows on his patients is compared to the activity of ordinary doctors. It is “the healer’s great skill to make the cure depend upon the desire” of the one who is affected, so that the desire might prepare the way for the miracle. No one but Jesus spoke in this way, not even the best of earthly doctors. For doctors who treat earthly diseases cannot say, ‘do you want to be healed?’ to all their patients; but Jesus gives even the desire. He accepts the faith and grants the favour without a fee. [4]

This remark is partly prompted by the paralytic’s passive attitude at the pool, where he awaits the waters to be stirred,13 as well as human help. Jesus, on the contrary, hardly stands back. His interventionism is set in parallel with his Incarnation, since he did not respond to a call, but “came down to us uninvited from heaven” [6]. In a protracted, imaginary dialogue between Jesus and the paralytic [6–9], where Cyril repeats the same sentences by way of emphasis, amplification, and clarification, Jesus mocks the paralytic’s waiting for the movement of the waters, exhorting him rather to move himself first [9]. In the doctor’s waiting for the patient to make the first move, therefore, passivity is discouraged, and the value of wishing oneself to be healed is emphasized as a precondition for the process of healing to even begin. The paralytic is at the pool waiting to be healed, but it is Jesus’s apt question, “Do you want to be cured?” [6, 7], that initiates the process. Cyril is particularly concerned to highlight the paralytic’s poverty. His remarks about the free gift that Jesus imparts through his healing is amplified by this statement: For while most of the sick had houses, and relations and perhaps other people too, he suffered complete and utter poverty; and when he had no help from outside to support him, and was left totally to his own resources, God’s Only-begotten Son came to his help. [7]

That this perspective is emphasized provides another hint that Cyril is aiming at sensitizing a privileged audience towards a more radical evangelical way of life.14 The theme resonates with his personal experience of exile for having embezzled church property to aid the poor after a famine in ca. 350.15 Another quality of Jesus the Healer is his modesty. Underplaying one’s abilities to heal is not the hallmark of ordinary doctors. Cyril further contemplates We may note there is no angel in Cyril’s homily, but only a word-play on the “shaking.” Contrast the appearance of the angel in Chrysostom’s sermon discussed in the conclusion to this article. 14 This topic has attracted considerable attention recently. See especially Preaching Poverty in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Realities, ed. P. Allen, B. Neil, and W. Mayer (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2009). 15 Drijvers, “Promoting Jerusalem,” 80 n5. 13

246

Barbara Crostini

charismatic healers, dream interpreters, and exorcists [16], counting himself among them. He draws the conclusion that, in refusing to receive credit for his activity, “Jesus teaches us by his own example not to speak about ourselves.” [16] Thus neither money nor fame should be the reward of those involved in healing activities. A third group singled out for criticism by Cyril within the context of healing is that of the learned Pharisees [5]. This is done by calling into the picture another healing miracle, where two blind men (Matt 9:27–31) are able to call out and see Christ passing by despite their condition. This episode is partly exploited in line with the dynamics of Jesus’s healing ministry, here too based on the blind men’s active search for a cure, which their faith ultimately earns them. Jesus is both active in concrete intervention and stands back to hear the person’s wishes. But the main point is made by relishing the paradox between blind men who see Christ and learned men who have lost their capacity of seeing through sclerotized habit and desensitized instruction. Even the ability to read the Torah does not provide the tools for acting correctly or recognizing the Christ. Criticism of the Pharisee lawyers builds on the evangelical stereotype, but pushes further to what could well be a contemporary take on (Jewish?) learned men advanced in years: For though the Pharisees had learnt the law and practised it from childhood to old age, they had become unteachable in their advanced years, and declared: ‘We don’t know where he comes from’ (Jn 9:29) … The One whom the learned lawyers did not recognize was recognized by those who had no eyes to read with. [5a]

These blind men can see salvation despite their incapacity to see the world; by contrast, Pharisees have eyes but have stopped being able to learn about and appreciate what surrounds them. Ultimately, it is they who are both blind, because they cannot recognize the Lord, and also lost, because they cannot recognize their need for being healed. The reversal of roles implies a metaphorical understanding of seeing as not only a physical, but also a mental faculty. In preserving such cognitive capacity, not only did the sick men receive a physical cure, but they could also point out Jesus by their cries to the blind Pharisees. Implicitly, then, Jesus’s encounters with the sick bear witness to his whole ministry. Cyril directs his polemic against the subtleties of learning against Jewish sages rather than pagan philosophical wisdom. Later in the sermon, he expands the issue of the Sabbath [14–15] by describing Jesus as the Lawgiver who can therefore act freely in giving new commands. The Pharisees’ polemic is here pitched against the man’s carrying his mattress on the forbidden day, and Cyril puts in the man’s mouth a pointed speech in his own defense: “They were at once answered by the man who had just been healed in soul and body. Wisdom lent him wise words; though unable to answer in legal terms, his reply was concise” [15]. The two sentences in the translation reflect only one clause in

The Use of Scripture in Cyril of Jerusalem

247

the Greek. This introduction is phrased so that the work of healing is presented as being completed by the achievement of wisdom. The legal defense expressed by the repetition of the verb ἀποκρίνω in its technical sense of “to answer charges” is qualified by two adverbs, νομικῶς and συντόμως, intended to contrast each other in this way: ὁ δὲ ἀρτίως καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ τὸ σῶμα ἰατρευθεὶς παρὰ τῆς σοφίας σοφὸν λαβὼν λόγον εὐθὺς ἀποκρίνεται, οὐ νομικῶς ἀποκριθῆναι ἔχον, ἀλλὰ συντόμως ποιούμενος τὴν ἀπόκρισιν. The paralytic’s answer, therefore, is not so much concise in the sense of short, but rather in that of being an effective summary of his situation before and after the miracle. It points at the network of failed action and inexistent relationship between himself in his dire condition and the sententious Pharisees, and at his amazing and transformative encounter with the Christ.

3. A Christological Paragraph Yarnold’s brief characterization of Cyril’s Christology perhaps surprisingly absolves him of any significant participation in contemporary controversy,16 while defining his orthodox position as expressed in his comments on the Creed as follows: [Cyril] is equally explicit about the distinction between Christ’s humanity and divinity, and about the unity between them. Cyril does not draw the conclusion that every event in Jesus’ life had both a divine and a human dimension, but like Tertullian he attributes some of Jesus’ experiences to the divinity and others to the humanity.17

In the extended speech that Jesus gives to the paralytic [6–8], a whole paragraph [6b] is devoted to explaining how the encounter with Jesus is meaningful only when he is considered together as fully God and fully man. The cue is given by the phrase “I have no man” that the paralytic utters, meaning that he had no one to take him down to the pool to bathe. Enlarging from this contingent significance, Cyril cites Jer 17:5 to show that the person who only hopes in man is cursed: To acknowledge his humanity without acknowledging his divinity is useless, or rather brings a curse, for ‘Cursed is he who places his hope in man’. So if we place our hope even in Jesus as a man without involving his divinity in our hope, we incur a curse. But as it is, we acknowledge him to be both God and man, and both in literal truth. As the one begotten of

16 For Cyril’s involvement in the Arian controversy (on both sides, it seems), see R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. The Arian Controversy 318-381 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 398–413. In 406 n107, Hanson cites the Paralytic homily to make the point that Cyril believes that Christ was omniscient. 17 Yarnold, Cyril, 62.

248

Barbara Crostini

a true Father, and as a man born in truth and not mere appearance, we adore him and look forward to a true salvation.

While countering the docetic background is clearly part of the aim of this statement, Cyril’s remark that “we must profess both truths (ἀμφότερα γὰρ ὁμολογητέον)” at the beginning of this passage may sound as if a specific necessity had arisen for pinpointing such Christology in the course of this homily. This consideration may be useful for a more precise dating of this homily, though Cyril was involved in controversy on several different occasions.

4. From the Bed of the Paralytic to the Litter of Solomon The central chapters of the homily are dedicated to an avowed digression [10– 13]. The digression is framed by the repetition of Jesus’s command at the beginning and end, “Stand up, pick up your mattress and walk!” (Ἔγειραι, ἆρόν σου τὸν κράββατον καὶ περιπάτει), used as a point of departure and of arrival. The object of the digression is the paralytic’s mattress: “I have digressed from the mattress to the litter” (Ταῦτα δέ μοι λέλεκται ἐν παρεκβάσει τῇ ἐπὶ τοῦ κραββάτου ἐπὶ τὸ φορεῖον ἐληλυθότι) [13], as Cyril half-jokingly explains. These terms are the keys to the transition between the paralytic’s predicament and the wedding procession celebrated in the Song of Songs as the litter of Solomon. Thus, the verses from Cant 3:9–10 are quoted [10],18 “adjusted” Yarnold says, from the Septuagint, in this way: Cyril’s homily φορεῖον ἑαυτῷ ἐποίησεν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἀπὸ ξύλων τοῦ Λιβάνου· στύλους αὐτοῦ ἐποίησεν ἀργύριον καὶ ἀνάκλιτον αὐτοῦ … πορφύραν, ἐντὸς αὐτοῦ λιθόστρωτον.

Cant 3:9–10, 11 (LXX) 9 φορεῖον ἐποίησεν ἑαυτῷ ὁ βασιλεὺς Σαλωμὼν ἀπὸ ξύλων τοῦ Λιβάνου· 10 στύλους αὐτοῦ ἐποίησεν ἀργύριον καὶ ἀνάκλιτον αὐτοῦ χρύσεον· ἐπίβασις αὐτοῦ πορφυρᾶ, ἐντὸς αὐτοῦ λιθόστρωτον, ἀγάπην ἀπὸ θυγατέρων ῾Ιερουσαλήμ. 11 θυγατέρες Σιών, ἐξέλθατε καὶ ἴδετε ἐν τῷ βασιλεῖ Σαλωμὼν ἐν τῷ στεφάνῳ, ᾧ

18 According to the records in the Biblia Patristica: Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la littérature patristique, 7 vols (Strasbourg: Centre d’analyse et de documentation patristique, 1975–2000), the main patristic author to comment on this pericope is Gregory of Nyssa, Cant 7 (BiPa 5 [1991], 240), Engl. transl. by Richard A. Norris Jr, Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies on the Song of Songs (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2012), 212–255. Few other quotations are recorded: Cant 3:9–10 in Didymus, Comm. Zach. 2, 98 (434,4+) (BiPa 7 [2000], 138); Cant 3:11 in Anon. Bruc. 352.29 (gnostic work) (BiPa 2 [1977], 194); and Eusebius, Fragm. G (= CPG 3469/8) (BiPa 4 [1987], 194). This passage is not extant in Origen.

The Use of Scripture in Cyril of Jerusalem

249

ἐστεφάνωσεν αὐτὸν ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ νυμφεύσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ εὐφροσύνης καρδίας αὐτοῦ.

The adaptation from the Septuagint involves two main changes: the omission of the name Solomon, so that the appellative “king” could be slipped more easily forward to designate Christ; and the collapsing together of two elements with the omission of one qualifier (χρύσεον) and one noun (ἐπίβασις). Looking at the reprise of these elements with their Christological correspondences [11– 12] determines the conclusion that this is probably a faulty reading caused by a saut-du-même-au-même in the course of the homily’s transmission. Since the noun ἐπίβασις returns with its original connection to purple [12], and, moreover, a golden element is found in Cyril’s expanded explanation with reference to some kind of superstructure supported by columns, it is probably correct to postulate that an integral version of Cant 3:9–11 was present not only to Cyril’s mind when he composed this part of his homily, but also in the original redaction of the homily. Moreover, while verse 11 is entirely omitted from this initial quotation, it is in fact the source of the later reference to a crown [12]. This dependence is conclusively demonstrated by the fact that Cyril quotes this verse in full and especially by the way he comments on it in another work.19 All these elements, and more added in the following chapter,20 contribute to act as witness to Jesus’s passion, as Cyril will proceed to illustrate in detail. However, it is interesting that at the outset he backtracks a little and advises on the proper interpretation of the Song of Songs as a whole. Cyril dismisses contemporary interpretations of this book as containing “passionate love songs” and insists that it should be seen as offering “bridal words, full of modesty”

19 Cyril quotes this verse at Catecheses ad illuminandos (CPG 3585/2) 13.17, ed. W. C. Reischl and J. Rupp, Cyrilli Hierosolymorum archiepiscopi opera quae supersunt omnia, vol. 2 (Munich: Lentner, 1860, repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1967), II, 74, 3 (BiPa 4 [1987], 194). In that context, he expresses the same concepts in nearly identical language: “And the soldiers before they crucify Him, put on Him a purple robe, and set a crown on His head; for what though it be of thorns? Every king is proclaimed by soldiers; and Jesus also must in a figure be crowned by soldiers; so that for this cause the Scripture says in the Canticles, Go forth, O you daughters of Jerusalem, and look upon King Solomon in the crown wherewith His mother crowned Him. (Cant 3:11) And the crown itself was a mystery, for it was a remission of sins, a release from the curse.” Eng. transl. by Leo P. McCauley and Anthony H. Stephenson, The Works of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, 2 vols (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1970), 2: 15–16. The similarity supports Cyril’s authorship for this homily. 20 The garden of Cant 5:1 is the place where Jesus was buried; the myrrh of Cant 5:5 is the sign of his mortality; the honey of Cant 5:1 (again) picks up a variant in Luke 24:42 where Jesus was given a piece of honeycomb to eat; the wine mixed with myrrh of Cant 8:2 was Christ’s passion drink and the nard at Cant 1:12 was the woman’s anointing of Jesus in the house of Simon (Mark 14:3) [11a].

250

Barbara Crostini

[10b]. Perhaps he had specific Jewish interpretations of the Song of Songs in mind, thereby continuing in the same vein as above his critique of his distinguished Jewish audience.21 But he also adds a pedagogical note for beginners who may not have been familiar with the Song of Songs, and invites them to turn to the book of Proverbs22 as an easier step towards understanding the love of Wisdom. Though represented as a woman, Wisdom’s love is not carnal, but rather “where wisdom is gained passion is banished” [10b]. These additional considerations separate the initial quotation of the litter of Solomon passage [10a] from the detailed allegory of each of its elements as the cross of Christ [11b–12], which remains the salient point of this digression: [11b] The litter refers to the wood of the cross on which he was carried … the beginning of the cross is of silver, namely the betrayal. Just as a luxurious house is crowned with a golden roof and has pillars to support the whole edifice, so too silver was the beginning of his crucifixion and resurrection; for if Judas had not betrayed him, he would not have been crucified. For this reason he made his pillars of silver as the beginning of his renowned Passion. [12] ‘Its seat of purple’. And so they dressed him in purple, partly in mockery, partly prophetically, for he was a king. Though they were acting mainly for their own amusement, still they did it, and it was a sign of his royal dignity. And though his crown was of thorns it was a crown, and one woven by soldiers, for kings are proclaimed by their soldiers. ‘Its seat of purple, its interior paved with stones’. Well instructed members of the Church know the Lithostrotos, also called Gabbatha, in Pilate’s house (cf. Jn 19:13).

5. A Philological Analysis of the Litter as Compared to the Cross Since Cyril takes every verse of the Song of Songs passage and matches them with an aspect of Christ’s passion, he provides by this glossing precise clues as to his understanding of the disputed appearance of Salomon’s litter. The difficulties with this passage in Hebrew have been meticulously analysed by

21 Among the Greek Fathers, Theodoret of Cyrrhus (ca. 423–457) expresses a similar criticism in the prologue to his Commentary on the Song of Songs, whose aim is also to restore a spiritual meaning to this biblical book; cf. Jean-Marie Auwers, “Lectures patristiques du Cantique des Cantiques,” in Les nouvelles voies de l’Exégèse en lisant le Cantique des Cantiques, ed. J. Nieuviarts and P. Debergé (Paris: Cerf, 2002), 131–132 (n2). Among the culprits of such worldly readings was probably Theodore of Mopsuestia (d. 428) (Auwers, “Lectures patristiques,” 132–136). My thanks to Reinhart Ceulemans for guidance in this matter. 22 Here Cyril provides quotations from Prov 9:1, 3, and 4:6. Prov 9:1 has a wider currency among patristic authors than the other two. Cyril seems to cite these verses only in this homily. For a similar interpretation in Gregory of Nyssa, see Martin Laird, “Under Solomon’s Tutelage: The Education of Desire in the Homilies on the Song of Songs,” in Re-thinking Gregory of Nyssa, ed. Sarah Coakley (Oxford: Blackwell, 2003), 81.

The Use of Scripture in Cyril of Jerusalem

251

Barbiero,23 on whom I entirely depend for the following discussion. I will take up the elements of the litter-cross one by one. 5.1 The Wood of Lebanon From the first quotation [10], Cyril plays with the concept of a wooden frame for the paralytic’s bed, which now becomes the frame of Christ’s cross via comparison to Solomon’s litter. Each of these items bears upon itself the person in question: this passive being carried takes precedence over the perhaps more expected carrying,24 with reference to one’s (real or metaphorical) cross. Indirectly, therefore, the paralytic is compared with Christ, the suffering of his illness to that of the passion and crucifixion. But the medium of the Song’s litter opens up another level of interpretation, namely, the glorious and triumphal aspect of being carried, as in a king’s bridal procession. Note also that the wood of the frame was of Lebanon, i.e., cedar, as traditionally indicated for Christ’s cross (together with pine and cypress).25 5.2 The Pillars of Silver In his commentary on the verses from the Song of Songs, Barbiero states (v. 10): “The description proceeds from the outside to within. First of all the ‘pillars’ are mentioned. It is not clear whether these are the little columns which support the baldacchino, or the feet of the litter. The first is more likely.”26 Perhaps the distinction is not necessary in the case of a portable litter, since the posts can extend both above and below the seating level and support in either position the essential function of the object. For Cyril, these pillars act as foundation, whether envisaged literally, as supports for a house, or metaphorically, as causes for the crucifixion. Cyril allows the semantic shift from silver as 23 See G. Barbiero, Song of Songs: A Close Reading, trans. M. Tait (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2011), 157 (table 20) for a summary of these elements and their correspondences. For a thorough discussion of the Hebrew passage, see J. Winandy, “La litière de Salomon (CT. III 9– 10),” VT 15 (1965), 103–110. See also the discussion of the passage in Karin Lerchner, Zu Bedeutung des Bettes in Literatur und Handschriftenillustration des Mittelalters (Köln/Weimar/Wien: Böhlau, 1993), esp. 191–220, with reference to the Latin translation and exegetical tradition. 24 The Latin translation of litter as “ferculum” generated a similar association with the verb “fero,” see e.g., Gregory the Great, In Hezechielem II, Hom. III, 14, CCSL 142, 246, ll. 286– 289: “[ecclesia] recte ferculum dicitur, quia ipse fert cotidie animas ad aeternum convivium Consistoris sui.” Cited in Lerchner, Lectulus, 206 n714. 25 Cf. Isa 60:13. For a similar comparison with the cross of Christ, see Apponius, In Cantica Canticorum Expositionem, V, 36, CCSL 19, 133, ll. 565–571, quoted in Lerchner, Lectulus, 197 n674. Apponius’s commentary is supposed to have been written in Rome in the first decade of the fifth century. However, Apponius’s allegory of the parts of the litter proceeds in a different direction to Cyril’s. 26 Barbiero, Song of Songs, 154.

252

Barbara Crostini

substance to silver as money to guide his interpretation.27 Here too, as before in the case of a doctor’s salary, money is a bad thing because it accomplishes Jesus’s betrayal. 5.3 A Golden Roof The insertion of this clause demonstrates that the third element, something at the top, is not omitted from Cyril’s object-correspondence. However, its consideration is only put forward indirectly through a comparison, acting like a gloss on the biblical text: ὥσπερ γὰρ οἶκος περικαλλὴς ἔχει χρύσεον ὄροφον ἄνωθεν ἐπικείμενον.28 Yarnold’s translation, “a luxurious house crowned with a golden roof,” [11b] is not very literal and its use of a crowning metaphor is confusing, since it is question of a literal crown later in the passage, but not here. More precisely, the gloss can be rendered: “a very beautiful house that has a golden thatch placed on it from above.” In the original Hebrew, according to Barbiero, a problem had arisen concerning the hapax noun used for this element: r(e)pida. He explains that “Generally, the term is made to derive from the verb rapad (‘to support’) and translated with ‘headboard’.” But he also notes that for some commentators the LXX noun, “anakliton,” and the Vulgate’s “reclinatorium” make one think of something horizontal, i.e., of the part of the litter where one lies down. Others still think rather of a “canopy” above the “throne.”29 The latter explanation corresponds more closely to Cyril’s gloss of anakliton with orophon, understood as something from above (ἄνωθεν) placed onto (ἐπι-κείμενον) a support. The support is clarified by the other member of the comparison as the silver pillars. Moreover, while orophos is appropriately a roof with reference to this “beautiful house,” deriving ultimately from the verb ἐρέφω, “to cover with a roof,” its original meaning is that of a “reed used for thatching houses,”30 while its extended meaning includes

A miniature in the sixth(?)-century Rossano Gospels presents the scene of Judas returning the money of the betrayal to the High Priest by figuring the Jewish high prelate seated on a silver throne under a canopy supported by four pillars, visually connecting the throne-like structure to this episode. A colour image can be found in Herbert L. Kessler, “The Word Made Flesh in Early Decorated Bibles,” in Picturing the Bible: The Earliest Christian Art, ed. Jeffrey Spier (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2007), 163 fig. 121. 28 W. C. Reischl and J. Rupp, Cyrilli Hierosolymorum archiepiscopi opera quae supersunt omnia, vol. 2 (Munich: Lentner, 1860, repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1967), 2:405–426, ch. 11, l. 20 (from Thesaurus Linguae Graecae online, work #2110.006). 29 Barbiero, Song of Songs, 154 n57. The latter exegesis is supported by A. Robert and R. Tournay, Le Cantique des Cantiques. Traduction et commentaire (Paris: Cerf, 1963), 151: a “canopy” above a “throne.” 30 This explanation is also given in J. F. Schleusner, Novus Thesaurus Philologico-criticus (Turnhout: Brepols, 1822), vol. 2, 594: “tectum, camera.” Sap. 17:2. Vox graeca notat proprie arundinis parvae genus, tegendis domibus adhibitum antiquis. 27

The Use of Scripture in Cyril of Jerusalem

253

the “cover of a wagon.”31 An important function of these coverings is, among others, to produce shade (“erebos” is darkness). Therefore, Cyril’s gloss would seem to tend towards meaning “canopy.” Moreover, the Hebrew word used here sounds remarkably like that designating the liturgical fans that shade the offering at the altar, called “rhipidia.” These ritual implements could be made of soft substances (such as reeds) or metal. They combine a practical and an honorific function in their use, just as the “golden thatch” on Solomon’s litter and in Cyril’s metaphorical reading of it.32 5.4 Its Seat of Purple According to Barbiero, this element (ἐπίβασις αὐτοῦ πορφύρα) poses the following dilemmas: The third element of the litter is also expressed with a very rare term (merkab, only again in Lev. 15:9 with the meaning of ‘saddle’). Since the verb rakab is equivalent to ‘to ride’, the most probable translation of the substantive seems to be ‘seat’, which makes one think more of a throne rather than a bed. If it is a seat, it is understandable that the material used is not a metal.33

However, Barbiero duly notes how purple is as, if not more, precious than gold, and its costly production makes it fit for higher-level representations yielding “the same royal and sacral symbolism which characterizes the rest of the passage.”34 Accordingly, Cyril’s transposition of this piece to Christ’s purple mantle marking out his royal status, though used by the soldiers as mockery, confirms its meaning as a soft furnishing, possibly even a blanket or spread (folded and used for riding or sitting on). The secondary meaning of the word in Greek, according to LSJ (consulted at Perseus online), with reference to Plutarch, is “of the male, covering,” but also with a sense of layering in the meaning “resting of one thing on another.” Both these senses converge into the appropriateness of seeing the “anabasis” of the litter compared to Christ’s purple covering, as opposed to its stemming from an item such as a footstool or step used to mount a raised structure.

In Paus. 1.19.1 according to LSJ, s.v. ἐρέφω. In the illustration to the Theodore Psalter (British Library Add. 19352, fol. 3r), the angel by the bed of David is holding one such liturgical fan: see Lerchner, Lectulus, fig. 15. The captions to the image say: ὑμνοῦντα τὸν Δα(υὶ)δ ῥηπίζων ὁ ἄγγ(ελος). The verb, ῥιπίζω, means “to fan.” The manuscript is available at http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Add_MS_19352 (last accessed 2019-09-27); see also C. Barber, The Theodore Psalter (London: British Library, 2000), CD-Rom publication with commentary. 33 Barbiero, Song of Songs, 154 n59. 34 Barbiero, Song of Songs, 155. 31 32

254

Barbara Crostini

5.5 Its Interior Is Paved with Stones The amputation of the figurative element in the original verse, that is, the enigmatic “love of the daughters of Jerusalem,” considerably simplifies this verse in Cyril’s exegesis. According to Barbiero, “This phrase constitutes a famous crux interpretum. In fact, after the list of materials from which the different parts of the litter are constructed (wood, silver, gold, purple), something of the same kind is expected here, another material. Instead, the text has an abstract substantive: ‘love’.”35 Several emendations have therefore been proposed, among which the one by Gerleman and Müller is “abanim,” precious stones. Cyril calls into play his learned audience once more. He appeals to the faithful frequenters of the church to recognize in the paved structure a proper name, the Greek form of the house of Pilate. The intertextual reference is to the Gospel of John (19:13): ὁ οὖν Πιλᾶτος ἀκούσας τοῦτον τὸν λόγον ἤγαγεν ἔξω τὸν Ἰησοῦν, καὶ ἐκάθισεν ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος εἰς τόπον λεγόμενον Λιθόστρωτον, ἑβραϊστὶ δὲ Γαββαθᾶ· When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgement seat in a place that is called the Pavement (or: the Stone Pavement) (Lithostroton), but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. (KJV)

Reference to this place at the center of Jesus’s passion narrative is perfectly coherent with the time and space Cyril has been recreating as the transposed semantic focus for this passage. While the meaning “paved with stones” is usually related to the floor, indicating tessellated or mosaic work, such ornamentation could also refer to the ambiance as a whole, including the decoration of the sides or the “bema” itself. In this sense, “ornate with precious stones” could more appropriately apply to the litter. It is somewhat disappointing that, after this tour-de-force, all that Cyril can say is that he digressed “from the mattress to the litter.” In fact, through both associations with the paralytic’s bed and with Jesus’s cross, Cyril exposes a very precise idea of his figuration of the litter of Solomon, whom he does not mention by name, that can be called upon to aid in the exegesis of this famous passage.

6. Conclusion Although Cyril’s eloquence does not extend in this homily to pointing out further details relating to his surroundings, the context of the Passion narrative in Jerusalem unmistakably brings to mind the places and liturgical actions performed in those spaces. For example, the reference to precious colored stones 35

Barbiero, Song of Songs, 155.

The Use of Scripture in Cyril of Jerusalem

255

evokes the tradition of the crux gemmata exhibited near Calvary.36 Moreover, according to the diary of the pilgrim Egeria, the ceremony of adoration of the cross in a chapel behind Golgotha included elements such as a silver casket containing the relic of the wood of the cross, as well as the ring of Solomon and the oil for anointing the kings of Israel placed on the altar besides the episcopal chair.37 If Cyril was composing or delivering his homily with this background in mind, and such knowledge was also shared with his audience, his Salomonic digression would have both come more naturally to him and appeared less far-fetched to his contemporaries than it might seem to us, twentyfirst century readers. Compared to the homily by John Chrysostom on the same pericope,38 Cyril’s text is lacking many obvious references. It does not speak of baptism, for example, as a classic Christian link between waters, pools, and purification. Rather unexpectedly, the water connection is handled through the episode of Jesus walking on water [8], and the dialogue with Peter emphasizes trust in God rather than repentance.39 Cyril’s homily is not spoken from the point of view of the paralytic as sinner, like Chrysostom’s. Therefore, it does not focus on exhorting the audience to repentance or to asking for God’s help in any obvious way. Rather, it takes a learned approach and a professional point of view, modelling Jesus’s behavior as healer as the main character worthy of imitation: his attention to human suffering, his solicitous help of the poor, his partaking of humanity’s suffering in the grander scheme of salvation to which the limited episode of the Bethesda pool is pointing at, vignette-like. Unlike Chrysostom’s nearly exclusive focus on the pericope at hand, Cyril’s web of scriptural references is cast wide. His intertextual exercises surely stretched the lateral thinking of his audience, presupposing both an excellent knowledge of the Old Testament and a readiness to read through it the reality 36 There is controversy concerning the presence of a crux gemmata on Calvary. See e.g., Ian Wood, “Constantinian Crosses in Northumbria,” in The Place of the Cross in Anglo-Saxon England, ed. C. E. Karkov, S. Larratt Keefer, and K. L. Jolly (Manchester: Boydell Press, 2006), 3–28, at 11–12; Christine Milner, “‘Lignum vitae’ or ‘Crux Gemmata’? The Cross of Golgotha in the Early Byzantine Period,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 12 (1996), 77– 99. Robin M. Jensen, The Cross: History, Art, and Controversy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2017), 101, concludes from her review of the evidence that “the existence of a monumental cross at Golgotha in the fourth to sixth century is uncertain but not inconceivable.” 37 Drijvers, Cyril, 81–83; Yarnold, Cyril, 46–48; among the growing literature on this topic, cf. Marie-Christine Sepière, L’image d’un Dieu souffrant (IXe-Xe siècle). Aux origines du crucifix (Paris: Cerf, 1994), 21 and 39–59, where she discusses examples of gemmed crosses from the early Carolingian period. 38 John Chrysostom, Hom. Jo. 36, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240136.htm (CPG 4425, last accessed 2019-09-27). 39 Although the dialogue is as usual reworked and partly imagined, Jesus’s answer, “It is I. Be not afraid,” is verbatim from Matt 14:27. This citation is not identified in Yarnold’s translation, where normally scriptural references are given in brackets.

256

Barbara Crostini

of the Incarnation. These high expectations go some way to explaining the homily’s lack of popular reception, which did not gain the status of a liturgical staple as Chrysostom’s did.40 Yet the strong connection this text establishes between this healing miracle and the experience of the cross, via Solomon’s litter, may have carried through more successfully than we can surmise from the extant manuscript transmission. For example, such connection can be visualized in a twelfth-century Byzantine manuscript of the Gospels (New York, Morgan Library & Museum, MS M.692, fol. 22v), where a four-lobed cruciform pool is drawn in one corner.41 Cyril’s text too is conceptually cross-like. In it, the grander scheme of Christian salvation is fully contemplated: “For the Savior is everything for everyone: bread for the hungry, water for the thirsty, resurrection for the dead, a physician for the sick, redemption for the sinner.” In conclusion, an apparently occasional juxtaposition between the healing of the paralytic and the Passion of Christ belies in fact a more fundamental comparison between the paralytic’s suffering and Christ’s cross. This serious point is mediated through a reference to Solomon’s litter in the Song of Songs, ostensibly prompted by a mere jeux de mots between krabbaton and phoreion, portable bed and royal litter, as Cyril himself admits tongue-in-cheek. Cyril is pointing at the deeper level at which the Bethesda miracle is functioning, namely, redemption from sin and the acquisition, through suffering, of Wisdom. Jesus’s action-packed healing is essentially an instantiation of the salvific function of the cross. This ontological relatedness is not theoretically elaborated, but rather it is sensuously expressed by recalling the devotional elements of the Passion of Christ – the myrrh, the spices for his anointment, the place of burial in the “garden,” the crown of thorns, the purple robe etc. Thus, the use of the Old Testament paradigms for Cyril is not implemented out of a need to establish a Christological interpretation for the Hebrew Scriptures but treated as a precious source to enrich our understanding of Jesus’s healing powers as described in the Gospels.

Bibliography Allen, P., B. Neil, and W. Mayer, eds. Preaching Poverty in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Realities. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2009.

40 Pinakes lists 346 manuscripts of his 88 Homilies on the Gospel of John. See Wendy Mayer, The Homilies of St John Chrysostom: Provenance, Reshaping the Foundations (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2005), 96–97, 178–179 (delivered at Antioch, ca. 391); no special mention is made of Homily 36. The number of manuscripts must be increased by its separate transmission in liturgical homiliaries. 41 See http://ica.themorgan.org/manuscript/page/8/115338 (last accessed 2019-09-27).

The Use of Scripture in Cyril of Jerusalem

257

Auwers, Jean-Marie. “Lectures patristiques du Cantique des Cantiques.” Pages 129–157 in Les nouvelles voies de l’Exégèse en lisant le Cantique des Cantiques. Edited by J. Nieuviarts and P. Debergé. Paris: Cerf, 2002. –. L’interprétation du Cantique des cantiques à travers les chaines exégétiques grecques. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011. Barber, C. The Theodore Psalter. London: British Library, 2000. Barbiero, Gianni. Song of Songs: A Close Reading. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2011. Crislip, Andrew. “Monastic Health Care and the Late Antique Hospital.” Pages 91–118 in Holistic Healing in Byzantium. Edited by John T. Chirban. Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2010. Drijvers, J. W. “Promoting Jerusalem: Cyril and the True Cross.” Pages 79–98 in Portraits of Spiritual Authority. Religious Power in Early Christianity, Byzantium and the Christian Orient. Edited by J. W. Drijvers and J. W. Watt. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 1999. –. Cyril of Jerusalem: Bishop and City. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill, 2004. Gregory of Nyssa, Homilies on the Song of Songs. Translated by Richard A. Norris Jr. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2012. Hanson, R.P.C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. The Arian Controversy 318– 381. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988. Jackson, Pamela. “Cyril of Jerusalem’s Use of Scripture in Catechesis.” TS 52 (1991): 431– 450. Jensen, Robin M. The Cross: History, Art, and Controversy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2017. Krueger, Derek. “Healing and the Scope of Religion in Byzantium: A Response to Miller and Crislip.” Pages 119–130 in Holistic Healing in Byzantium. Edited by John T. Chirban. Brookline: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2010. –. “Healing and Salvation in Byzantium.” Pages 15–30 in Life is Short, Art Long: The Art of Healing in Byzantium. New Perspectives. Edited by B. Pitarakis and G. Tanman. Istanbul: Istanbul Research Institute, 2017. Laird, Martin. “Under Solomon’s Tutelage: The Education of Desire in the Homilies on the Song of Songs.” Pages 77–97 in Re-thinking Gregory of Nyssa. Edited by Sarah Coakley. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. Lerchner, Karin. Zu Bedeutung des Bettes in Literatur und Handschriftenillustration des Mittelalters. Köln/Weimar/Wien: Böhlau, 1993. Mayer, Wendy. The Homilies of St John Chrysostom: Provenance, Reshaping the Foundations. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 2005. McCauley, Leo P. and Anthony H. Stephenson, The Works of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, 2 vols. Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1970. Miller, Thomas S. The Birth of the Hospital in the Byzantine Empire. Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997. Milner, Christine. “‘Lignum vitae’ or ‘Crux Gemmata’? The Cross of Golgotha in the Early Byzantine Period.” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 12 (1996), 77–99. Reischl, W. C. and J. Rupp. Cyrilli Hierosolymorum archiepiscopi opera quae supersunt omnia, 2 vols (Munich: Lentner, 1860, repr. Hildesheim: Olms, 1967). Robert, A. and R. Tournay. Le Cantique des Cantiques. Traduction et commentaire. Paris: Cerf, 1963. Schleusner, J. F. Novus Thesaurus Philologico-criticus, 2 vols. Turnhout: Brepols, 1822. Sepière, Marie-Christine. L’image d’un Dieu souffrant (IXe-Xe siècle). Aux origines du crucifix. Paris: Cerf, 1994.

258

Barbara Crostini

Slade, Darren M. “Patristic Exegesis: The Myth of the Alexandrian-Antiochene Schools of Interpretation,” Socio-Historical Examination of Religion and Ministry 1.2 (2019), 1–19. Yarnold, Edward. Cyril of Jerusalem. London: Routledge, 2000. Young, Frances M. “The Rhetorical Schools and Their Influence on Patristic Exegesis.” Pages 182–199 in The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick. Edited by Rowan Williams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Walker, P. W. L. Holy City, Holy Places? Christian Attitudes to Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the Fourth Century. New York: Clarendon Press of Oxford University Press, 1990. Winandy, Jacques. “La litière de Salomon (CT. III 9–10),” VT 15 (1965), 103–110. Wood, Ian. “Constantinian Crosses in Northumbria.” Pages 3–13 in The Place of the Cross in Anglo-Saxon England. Edited by C. E. Karkov, S. Larratt Keefer, and K. L. Jolly. Manchester: Boydell Press, 2006.

Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε: Demons and Their Temples in the Second Half of the Fourth Century Anthony John Lappin Whilst we struggle to grasp the magnitude of the environmental problems brought about through the disenchanting of the world,1 it might be as well to consider a particularly enchanted world, in which objects and places could be fused, or infused, with Spirit, and so discuss the potential for, and the limits to, exorcism not of people but of place, and the process or possibility of healing ritually-defiled spaces. The topic, from a modern perspective, may be classified as a simple political struggle over the concrete possession of actual realestate; nevertheless, I do wish to emphasize how the processes described here characterized an accommodation with the specific spirits of particular places. We will thus examine a topography of possession which eschews human bodies and minds and focuses upon the temple-cult: its sacrifices, and the various representations of gods – or demons – via objects. The theme – Christianity vs. Paganism, or even Good vs. Evil, or the good vs. the evil ones – is itself dramatic and has in turn attracted much dramatic narrative over time. The transformation of the Pagan Empire into a Christian Commonwealth has been imagined as a vast overturning, a vandalism of temples by arson and riot, an intolerant and uncomprehending iconoclasm against sophisticated and innocent artworks, a destruction of the laissez-faire openness and joie-de-vivre of pagan cults, crushed to powder beneath the monolithic, dirigiste monotheism of the cross and its countless pale christs.2 The prime exhibit on this charge-sheet has been the set-piece accounts by ecclesiastical historians and a handful of hagiographers of the at-times violent dismantling of public temple-worship and its immediate replacement by Christian rites 1

G. Harvey, Animism: Respecting the Living World (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005); Freja Mathews, Reinhabiting Reality: Towards a Recovery of Culture (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2005). 2 Ably summarized by J. N. Bremmer “Religious Violence between Greeks, Romans, Christians and Jews,” in Violence in Ancient Christianity: Victims and Perpetrators, ed. A. C. Geljon & R. Roukema (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 16–18. Typographic propriety forbids its adoption, but those with due sensibility should, of course, consistently read pagan as if it were coralled by “scare quotes”.

260

Anthony John Lappin

within a Christian church for Christian people. Such accounts have been taken as both emblematic and as tips-of-the-iceberg. Increasingly stringent imperial legislation, no matter its provocation, has also been read as supporting such necessary conflict in the life-or-death struggle between the Old and New religions.3 The exorcism of places, then, should fit within this semi-apocalyptic world-view, and show little quarter being offered to those instigators of, and profiteers from, sacrificial polytheism, the demonically fallen angels and their pagan servants. It is with a certain amount of either puzzlement or chagrin, then, that one notes that the archaeological record has failed to provide much evidence for the violent overthrow of temples (or even for any overthrow at all); indeed, almost no temples came to be re-purposed as churches during the period under consideration.4 Even what seemed to have been the obviously vandalic destruction of statuary – its casting down, its defacement, its smashing, and its dumping – has been subjected to a more sophisticated anthropological interrogation in recent years. I shall draw, then, upon this latter work to illuminate the degree and nature of how a discourse of demon-possession applied to rites, statues, and cultic sites which were understood as opposed to Christianity,5 and, in turn, what might be done about these demonic presences. My initial focus will be on the Christian attempts to disable the multiple capabilities of the Antiochene suburb-shrine of Daphne right at the middle of the fourth century.6 I will then consider the events that swirled around the fall of the Alexandrian Serapeum almost fifty years later, and conclude with an overview of the role of exorcism in the treatment of pagan temples and cultic objects over the period.

3

Garth Fowden “Bishops and Temples in the Eastern Roman Empire, A. D. 320–435,” JTS 29 (1978), 53–54; R. Delmaire “La législation sur les sacrifices au IVe siècle: un essai d’interpretation.” Revue d’Histoire du Droit Français et Étranger 32 (2004): 319–334. 4 R. P. C. Hanson, “The Transformation of Pagan Temples into Churches in the Early Christian Centuries.” JSS 23 (1978): 257–267; and below, pp. 267–269. 5 David Frankfurter, Christianizing Egypt: Syncretism and Local Worlds in Late Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018), 7–8; Maijastina Kahlos, “Artis heu magicis: The Label of Magic in the Fourth-century Conflicts and Disputes,” in Pagans and Christians in Late Antique Rome: Conflict, Competition and Coexistence in the Fourth Century, ed. M. R. Salzman, M. Sághy & R. L. Testa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 164–165; further, James J. O’Donnell, “Paganus: Evolution and Use,” CF 31 (1977): 163–169; Thomas Jürgash, “Christians and the Invention of Paganism in the Late Roman Empire,” in Pagans and Christians in Late Antique Rome: Conflict, Competition and Coexistence in the Fourth Century, ed. M. R. Salzman, M. Sághy & R. L. Testa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 115–138. 6 On which, see most recently Christine Shepardson, Controlling Contested Places: Late Antique Antioch and the Spatial Politics of Religious Controversy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014).

Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε: Demons and Their Temples

261

1. Daphne Some five kilometres to the south of Antioch, stood, roughly a hundred metres higher than the city, two square kilometres of plateau. It was a haunted place. It was where, according to the local legend, the pneumatic presences of Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite had been displayed to Paris to elicit his judgment, beginning a chain of events that ended in the rote learning of every schoolchild;7 and, although Paris’s apple was never seen again, a golden arrow-head was unearthed, fired by Apollo in frustration that Daphne had metamorphosed into a laurel before, or as, his desirous arms embraced her.8 The finding of the signed tip of Apollo’s shaft, buried in the holy ground next to the Daphne-tree, led to the construction of a magnificent temple in this spot, where cool breezes blew, on which throve orchards and olive-groves. In the temple, a giant statue of the god was raised by Bryaxis, rivalling that of Zeus at Olympia.9 Sozomen, in his account, evokes this locus amoenus, whose micro-climate contrasted starkly with hot and suffocating summer-time Antioch: Daphne is a suburb of Antioch, and is planted with cypresses and other trees, beneath which all kinds of flowers flourish in their season. The branches of these trees are so thick and interlaced that they may be said to form a roof rather than merely to afford shade, and the rays of the sun can never pierce through them to the soil beneath. The purity and softness of the air, and the great quantity of limpid streams which water the earth, render this spot one of the most delightful places. (Soz. Hist. eccl. 5.19)10

He intersperses his account here with the recollection of how the Greeks’ mythologized Daphne’s arborification, noting also that Apollo “often fixed his residence on this spot, as being dearer to him than any other place.”11 The attractiveness of the Daphne plateau to the more restrained denizens of its city was somewhat checked through its being occupied by an inter-regional cultic centre,12 and Sozomen gives the tension its due weight, remarking on how the mix of psychological suggestion, social pressure, and physical relaxation might disturb even the most virtuous of the Antiochene burghers: 7

Lib. Or. 11.94–99; Raffaella Cribiore, The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), 26. 8 Philostr., Vit. Apoll. 1.16.1; Lib. Or. 11.243; Alisa Hunt, Reviving Roman Religion: Sacred Trees in the Roman World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 290–291. 9 Lib. Or. 60.9–11. See also Andrea U. Di Giorgi, Ancient Antioch: From the Seleucid Era to the Islamic Conquest (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 154; Daniel Ogden, The Legend of Seleucus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 138–140; Glanville Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria: From Seleucus to the Arab Conquest (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), 82–85. 10 PG 67.1273AB. The cypresses were planted around the temple: Philostr., Vit. Apoll. 1.16.1, perhaps in connexion to another transformation legend. 11 Soz. Hist. eccl. 5.19, PG 67.1273B. 12 For the pilgrimage: Di Giorgi, Ancient Antioch, 152–153.

262

Anthony John Lappin

Men of grave temperament, however, considered it disgraceful to approach the suburb; for the position and nature of the place seemed to excite voluptuous feelings; and the substance of the fable, itself being erotic, afforded a measurable impulse and redoubled the passions among corrupt youths. They, who furnished this myth as an excuse, were greatly inflamed and gave way without constraint to profligate deeds, incapable of being continent themselves, or of enduring the presence of those who were continent. (Soz. Hist. eccl. 5.19)13

The irksomeness of a sink of perdition and a temple to licentiousness not only on the doorstep but monopolizing the desirable draughts of breezes during summer, without necessarily directing much of the pilgrim traffic into the city to its economic benefit, was bound to raise hackles.14 And, although Antioch was at this point majority Christian, there is no requirement to understand Sozomen’s gravely-tempered men as being limited in confessional outlook to the conflicting sects of Jesus-followers: philosophically-inclined Antiochenes would take to heart Plato’s own distaste for Dionysiac revelry.15 Sozomen’s account, then, is framed by a socio-political description that seeks to widen the importance of the struggle over the temple-complex: it was about Christianity, yes; but it was also about urbanity. Gallus, newly raised to the purple, transferred the body of the Antiochene martyr Babylas from his resting place in the main cemetery, outside the Daphne Gate, to occupy a position within the precincts of that temple to Apollo. Gallus no doubt had many motivations: his ambition to present himself both in moving bodies and closing down shrines as a real emperor (indeed, such nakedly expressed ambition would rapidly lead to his execution); a desire to shore up support in the garrison-town of Antioch, which was proving unhappy with his waywardness; and a particularly Arian enthusiasm for the radical transgression of traditional religious taboos.16 Babylas was moved, perhaps to a small oratory, and the temple cult proscribed.17 The results were the dampening of lovers’ ardour at the site, an

13

Trans. Chester D. Hartranft. PG 67.1273C. The hostility amongst the Antiochene elite is echoed in Julian’s Misopogon, 357d–358a, see J. M. Alonso-Núñez, “The Emperor Julian’s ‘Misopogon’ and the Conflict between Christianity and Paganism,” Ancient Society 10 (1979), 323. 14 Pilgrim traffic would have come mainly from the sea, along the Laodicea road (Di Georgi, Ancient Antioch, 154). For the wider economic aspects of the confrontation, Alonso-Núñez, “The Emperor,” 323–324. 15 Dirk Dunbar, Renewing the Balance (New York: Outskirts Press, 2017), 53–64; for an eirenic Neoplatonism at the period, Raffaella Cribiore, Libanius the Sophist: Rhetoric, Reality, and Religion in the Fourth Century (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2013), 218–219. 16 A. J. Lappin, “Disturbing Bones: From Grave-Violation to Exaltation of the Relic,” Mirator 19 (2018): 11–14. 17 Soz. Hist. eccl. 5.19/PG 67.1273D–1276A.

Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε: Demons and Their Temples

263

improvement in general morality,18 and, more importantly, the silencing of the “demons’ oracles”.19 Such silencing was by no means without precedent, even unimpeachably pagan precedent. Hadrian – once his prophecy had been fulfilled, in that he had become emperor – had the oracular spring at Daphne blocked up, to prevent others from reading their future greatness on an intincted laurel-leaf in the manner that he had.20 Gallus’s new closure of the oracle seems not to have excited protests, but rather divided the good folk of Antioch over the reason for its silence: the new presence of the martyr (as deemed by Gallus), or the recent dearth of sacrifices, which would, of course, produce an identical effect.21 One should not underestimate the symbolic importance of the “silence” of the oracle: the sacrality of Daphne was closely associated with quiet; the silent struggle of martyr with demon added another level of sacred power, and another level of supernatural involvement onto the conceptions of the place, as Ogden observes: It is noteworthy that it is for their gentleness above all that Philostratus praises the waters of Daphne: the ground there, he notes, gives forth springs that are both abundant and gentle, whilst Apollonius of Tyana, he reports, made a bon mot about the amazing calmness and silence of the waters: “The silence here permits not even the springs to give voice.”22

The subsequent events that befell both Babylas’s remains and the shrine of Apollo were taken as a divine experiment by key Christian authors, a proof designed by Heaven to identify, through a process of elimination, the true responsibility for this lack of oracular power.23 Thus Emperor Julian’s re-activation of the shrine, as part of his re-Hellenisation of the empire, returned the sacrifices. Yet still the oracle would not enounce. It did stretch itself to make a self-contradictory complaint, though, breaking its silence to complain that

18

Ps.-Chrysostom, Bab. Jul., §13/PG 50.553. Dayna Kalleres, City of Demons: Violence, Ritual, and Christian Power in Late Antiquity (Oakland: University of California Press, 2015), 65–66. 19 Soz. Hist. eccl. 5.19/PG 67.1276A. 20 Ammianus, Res gestae 22.12, retold by Sozomen in Hist. eccl. 5.19/PG 67.1274–1276; F. W. Norris, “Antioch-on-the-Orontes as a Religious Center. I: Paganism before Constantine,” ANRW 2.18.4 (1990): 2322–2379; Elizabeth Depalma Digeser, “An Oracle of Apollo at Daphne and the Great Persecution,” CP 99 (2004): 65–66. For Hadrian’s further contributions to Daphne, see Mary T. Boatwright, Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 139. 21 Soz. Hist. eccl. 5.19/PG 67.1276A; trans. Walford, 236: “It is said that from the time of this translation, the demon ceased to utter oracles. The silence was at first attributed to the neglect into which his service was allowed to fall, and to the omission of the usual sacrifices.” The same is explained at more length by Ps.-Chrysostom, Liber, §13/PG 50:533–534. 22 Ogden, The Legend, 146–147, referring to Philostr., Vit. Apoll. 1.16. 23 Shepardson, Controlling, 57.

264

Anthony John Lappin

the dead bodies prevented it from speaking.24 Babylas, it would appear, had already been joined by the bodies of three small children in a depositio ad sanctos,25 and perhaps even more.26 Despite Julian’s best intentions of following austere Hellenic models,27 the removal of the martyr’s sarcophagus was turned into a victory parade by Christians and a protest against the demonism of idolatry.28 Sacrifices had not reactivated the shrine on their own; translating the martyr’s relics, however, did. From the point of view of Julian’s Hellenism, of course, once the impurity of the corpses had been removed from the site, the injured sacrality had been healed, and the oracle should have begun to function normally.29 As it did. The oracle gave its advice, which seemingly encouraged Julian to seek glory in a Persian campaign, but which led only to his death; the contradiction was seized upon by the Chrysostomic author of the Liber in Sanctum Babylam as an indication of the natural untrustworthiness of the oracular genre.30 Chrysostom, in his own sermon, focused not on the oracle provided to the emperor – he passes over that in silence – but on the brevity of the oracle’s new-found freedom of speech: hardly had Babylas’s sarcophagus been laid down again, that a lightning-bolt descended upon the head of Apollo’s statue,

24

Chrysostom, Bab. §2/PG 50.531. Ps.-Chrysostom, Bab. Jul. §15/PG 50:555–556; Soz. Hist. eccl. 5.19/PG 67.1276B. 25 This would explain their burial beside him in the later church on the Campus Martius; for the children, see Wendy Mayer & Pauline Allen, The Churches of Syrian Antioch (300–638 CE) (Leuven: Peeters, 2012), 86–87, 191–196. 26 Sozomen observes simply that there had been a number of burials at Daphne: Hist. eccl. 5.19/PG 67.1276B. 27 Julian had in mind the Athenians’ repeated clearances of the oracle and island of Delos: Ammianus, Res gestae, 22.12.7; Philippe Bruneau, Recherches sur le cult de Délos à l’époque hellénistique et á l’époque impériale (Boccard: Paris, 1970), 48–51. 28 Soz. Hist. eccl. 5.19/PG 67.1276C; transl. Walford, 236: “It is said that old men and maidens, young men and children, took part in the task of translating the remains … The best singers sang first, and the multitude replied in chorus, and the following was the burden of their song: ‘Confounded are all they who worship graven images, who boast themselves in idols.’” The route they took had been used for a victory parade in the past: in 166 BC, Antiochus IV’s army had paraded along it (Di Giorgi, Ancient Antioch, 151). 29 Cf. Chrysostom’s wholly ingenuous complaints about the translation of the “impure” remains and the impiety of moving the dead: Bab. §2/PG 50.531. 30 Bab. Jul. §16/PG 50.537–538. For general problems regarding “degrees of attribution” to Chrysostom, see W. Mayer, “Les homélies de Jean Chrysostome: problèmes concernant la provenance, l’ordre et la datation.” Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 52 (2006): 329–353; and Sever Voicu, “Pseudo-Giovanni Crisostomo: i confini del corpus,” JAC 39 (1996): 105–115. The Liber is accepted as genuine by Schatkin et al. Jean Chrysostome. Discours su Babylas. Suivi de Homélie sur Babylas (Paris: Cerf, 1990), although the difference in tone and details between Liber and the sermon “De sancto hieromartyre Babyla” (PG 50.527– 54) do not reassure one that they are both the issue of a single paternity.

Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε: Demons and Their Temples

265

destroying both temple-roof and cult-image.31 With the cult gone, images and the sacrificial vessels consumed by the flames, the numinous presence of god/demon was deemed to have permanently departed – or to have been forced to withdraw from the site.32 Apollo would nevermore dwell upon Daphne for part of the year, and – as the legend told the story – nevermore bathe in its springs, those springs which fed the aqueducts which in turn fed the city with water.33 The roofless ruins, with columns now angled and resting against the exterior walls, were simply left abandoned, just as it had been relinquished by its spiritual inhabitant. There was no subsequent attempt to re-Christianize the site with further relic-transfers. Here we might see the creation of something as close to a secular, neutral space as is possible in late antiquity. The power of the martyr had put to flight the demon, leaving not colonizable territory for the Christians, but a terra nullius. The historical associations remained, of course, and Chrysostom’s restless (and reprehensible) rhetorical genius would soon attempt to characterise the synagogue on Daphne as the inheritor of the temple, “as profane as the sanctuary of Apollo and populated by demons”34 – not, then, a fitting place for Christians to frequent. Doubtless the absence of the temple of disrepute had made festal attendance at the synagogue attractive; and, furthermore, one of the synagogues in Antioch was built over the graves of the Maccabees, their mother and the priest Eleazar,35 martyrs who had as much claim on the faithful’s devotion as Babylas. Chrysostom’s oratory was feasible, though, because at Daphne, the rather long-drawn-out process of exorcism could be redeployed after it had come to a suitable conclusion: first the silence of the oracle, eventually the flight of the titulary spirit; overall, the provision of a symbol of the

31 On the significance of the fire, Shepardson, Controlling, 68–72. For the widespread acceptance that spirits resided in statues, Troels M. Kristensen, Making and Breaking the Gods: Christian Responses to Pagan Sculpture in Late Antiquity (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2013), 9–22; Robert Wisniewski, “Pagan Temples, Christians and Demons in the Late Antique East and West.” SacEr 54 (2016): 111–128. 32 Bab. Jul. §19/PG 50.562, citing Libanius as evidence in his cause. Chrysostom had been a student of the latter: Cribiore, Libanius, 10 n33; J. L. Maxwell, Christianization and Communication in Late Antiquity: John Chrysostom and his Congregation in Antioch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 60. 33 Philostr., Vit. Apoll. 1.16; Di Giorgi, Ancient Antioch, 151–153. 34 John Chrysostom, Adv. Jud. I.6. For the effects of this style of preaching, see Wendy Mayer, “Re-Theorizing Religious Conflict: Early Christianity to Late Antiquity and Beyond,” in Reconceiving Religious Conflict: New Views from the Formative Centuries of Christianity, ed. W. Mayer & C. L. De Wet (London: Routledge, 2018), 3–29. 35 On the synagogue at Daphne, see Isabella Sandwell, Religious Identity in Late Antiquity: Greeks, Jews, and Christians in Antioch (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007); Downey, A History, 109–110.

266

Anthony John Lappin

spiritual victory of Christianity over the untrustworthy religion of the demons.36

2. The Serapeum The events surrounding the seizure of the Serapeum in Alexandria were of a piece with that city’s sporadically violent history.37 The temple had been constructed on top of the acropolis, and devotion to Serapis, a heavily Greek-accented amalgam of Osiris and Apis, had become inseparable from a HellenoEgyptian urban identity.38 The years before the final confrontation in or about 391 were the culmination of a tension stretching back almost four decades: the cession by Constantius of part of the Caesarion to the bishop, together with funds for the building work,39 provoked a certain amount of inter-religious hostility, such that a gang of unchristian Alexandrians stormed the new church, stripped its furnishing, made a sacrificial bonfire of them, burnt incense, and attempted to sacrifice the church’s water-drawing heifer – in all probability to Serapis.40 Here violence is very much a ritual, religious act, responding to a clearly-understood grammar of social display.41 When the Arian George took over the see, he encouraged Artemios, dux of the city, to sack the Serapeum, perhaps in retaliation, perhaps simply due to his

36

For uncertainty, fear, and doubt as fundamental elements of traditional Greek religion, see Georgia Petridou, Divine Epiphany in Greek Literature and Culture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 26–27. 37 For a comparison of the sources, Elizabeth A. Clark, The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 53–55; A. Baldini, “Problemi della tradizione sulla ‘distruzione’ del Serapeo di Alessandria,” Rivista storica dell’antichità 15 (1985): 97–152. 38 Lilly Kahil, “Cults in Hellenistic Alexandria,” in Alexandria and Alexandrianism (Malibu: The J. Paul Getty Museum, 1996), 78; Stefan Pfeiffer, “The God Serapis, his Cult and the Beginnings of the Ruler Cult in Ptolomeic Egypt,” in Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his World, ed. Paul McKechnie & Phillipe Guillaume (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 387–408. 39 J. S. McKenzie, The Architecture of Alexandria and Egypt, 300BC–AD 700 (Yale: Yale University Press, 2007), 339–346; D. M. Gwynn, Athanasius of Alexandria: Bishop, Theologian, Ascetic, Father (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 40; the church was completed – without imperial permission – by Athanasius in 352: Annick Martin, Athanase d’Alexandrie et l’église d’Egypte au IVe siècle (328–373) (Rome: École Française de Rome, 1996), 148–149. 40 Chrisopher Haas, “The Alexandrian Riots of 356 and George of Cappadocia,” GRBS 32 (1991): 286. The Caesareon held an altar dedicated to Serapis before its desecration by the Arian master of the mint, companion of George in martyrdom: Haas, “The Alexandrian Riots,” 292. 41 For a discussion, see Bremmer, “Religious Violence.”

Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε: Demons and Their Temples

267

famed cupidity.42 Although Artemios was recorded in later hagiography as the destroyer of idols,43 the large cult-statue in the centre of the precinct remained untouched.44 George was eventually assailed by a mob, kidnapped and imprisoned, paraded round the streets, executed, his body burnt, and his ashes thrown into the sea; a final damnatio sparked when the news reached Alexandria that his imperial protector, Constantius, had died. With him perished two other Arian functionaries, who had also taken steps to outrage devotees of Serapis.45 The latter cult seems to have attracted worshippers from around the Mediterranean, possibly because, by the mid-fourth century, Alexandria was highly unusual in preserving a still-functioning cultic system.46 It was also an outpost of the Library of Alexandria, perhaps even open to the public.47 Consequently, that temple, and its sister-site at Canopus, hosted a number of philosophers and their schools, who specialized – amongst other things – in theurgy, to varying degrees of privacy, publicity, or aggression.48 The initial flashpoint was the granting, by the emperor, of a temple to the Christians under Bishop Theophilus. Rufinus, who wrote very shortly after the events in question, using eye-witness documents,49 described this donated temple as being ancient, but so totally neglected that its roof had collapsed; only the walls were standing.50 In clearing the site, though, Christians came upon a secret chamber which excited both prurience and ridicule: a den for robbers as well as a stash of phalli.51 Although the secret chamber was most probably a 42

Socrates, Hist. eccl. 3.3. Certainly other Arians thought George had gone too far: Haas, “The Alexandrian Riots,” 294–295. 43 Theodoret, Hist. eccl. 5.14. 44 On the statue, J. S. McKenzie, S. Gibson, and A. T. Reyes, “Reconstructing the Serapeum in Alexandria from Archaeological Evidence,” JRS 94 (2004): 79–81. 45 Haas, “The Alexandrian Riots,” 287–289, 291–294. Ammianus, Res gestae 22.11.10–11. 46 Johannes Hahn, “The Conversion of the Cult Statues: the destruction of the Serapeum 392 A.D. and the transformation of Alexandria into the ‘Christ-loving city’,” in From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity, ed. J. Hahn, S. Emmel, & U. Gotter (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 335. 47 Robert Barnes, “Cloistered Bookworms in the Chicken-Coop of the Muses: The Ancient Library of Alexandria,” in The Library of Alexandria: Centre of Learning in the Ancient World, ed. R. MacLeod (London: I. B. Tauris, 2000), 68. 48 H. S. Schibli, Hierocles of Alexandria (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 9–11; E. J. Watts, City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006), 188–192. 49 Tito Orlandi, “Uno scritto di Teofilo di Alessandria sulla distruzione del Serapeum?” La parola del passato 25 (1968): 301–303. For a summary and comparison of all the Christian variants, see Clark, The Origenist Controversy, 53–54. Further discussion in J. H. F. Dijkstra, “The Fate of the Temples in Late Antique Egypt,” in The Archaeology of Late Antique ‘Paganism’, ed. L. Lavan & M. Mulryan (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 394–395. 50 Rufinus, Hist. 11.22/PL 21.528A. 51 Sozomen, Hist. eccl. 7.15/PG 67, 1454A. For Shenute’s exposure of idols to the public gaze: Stephen Emmel, “Shenoute of Atripe and the Christian Destruction of Temples in Egypt:

268

Anthony John Lappin

Mithraeum (and is usually identified as such),52 it would have been abandoned as the temple was sealed and was very probably used as the storage-space for the shrine’s cultic images after they had been decommissioned.53 Following Rufinus, it would seem there was a semi-ritualized response to be expected from the pagans to this form of discovery; a shouty protest and a swift riot would clear the air. This time, however, matters span out of control, and weapons were brought to running battles in the streets. The small minority of pagans involved soon found it politic to take some Christian hostages, and to barricade themselves in the Serapeum, chosen for both cultic and defensive purposes. The Christians outside found its heights inexpugnable; negotiations for a peaceful settlement would seem to have broken down, so the Christians inside were tortured and killed. The defenders provisioned themselves by armed raids into the city, the military governors eventually intervened and decided they were too understaffed to cope; they thus sent for a resolution to the stand-off from the emperor. Before the inevitable, the leader of the Serapean faction, the neoplatonist Olympios “who was called, and dressed like, a philosopher” (Rufinus, Hist. 11.22),54 performed a rite to decommission the cult statue, to cause the god to abandon the idol and repair back to the heavens, leaving behind just the form to be destroyed.55 The imperial resolution sought to re-establish the ever-fragile peace, declaring that all the Christians who had died in the Serapeum were martyrs, instructing that the sources of discord should be eradicated. And so, the statues which had given rise to the turmoil were to be destroyed. Rufinus describes how the great statue of Serapis in the temple was pulled down and hacked to pieces. Some fragments were burnt in situ, but most were dragged around the city and set on fire; the major part was carted to the hippodrome and turned to ashes there.56 Other cult statues may have gone the same way, but there was hardly wanton destruction: nine standing statues still remained into the nineteenth century.57 The despatch of the statue, too, showed the traditional rituals of Rhetoric and Reality,” in From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity, ed. J. Hahn, S. Emmel, & U. Gotter (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 181. 52 Socrates, Hist. eccl. 3.2/PG 67, 382A. 53 See below, pp. 265–267. 54 PL 21.529A: “nomine et habitu philosophum”. 55 Watts, City and School, 191; the event is reflected also in Sozomen’s summation of Olympios’s teaching, Hist. eccl. 7.15/PG 67, 1455B. On the statue itself, McKenzie, Gibson, and Reyes, “Reconstructing the Serapeum,” 79–81. 56 Rufinus, Hist. 11.23/PL 21.531A–532A. According to Theodoret, the statue’s head was taken on procession (Hist. eccl. 5.22); Rufinus also mentions the statue’s decapitation. 57 A. Rowe and B. R. Rees, “A Contribution to the Archaeology of the Western Desert. IV: The Great Serapeum of Alexandria.” BJRL 39 (1957): 501–502. Possibly the nine goddesses of learning: Stuart Murray, The Library: An Illustrated History (New York: Skyhorse, 2006), 17.

Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε: Demons and Their Temples

269

Alexandrian (and late antique) society being observed: public enemies executed by being dragged through the streets, mutilated, murdered, and then burnt;58 the anti-idolatrous actions consciously invoked a familiar rite of “civic purgation”.59 A further resonance was provided by the statue’s having miraculously escaped a fire in the previous century.60 The classification of the Christian victims as martyrs in order to absolve pagan vigilantes was not an isolated event either. Bishop Marcellus of Apamea, whilst directing from afar an attack on a local temple, was rendered a sitting duck by his immobility (he suffered from gout); he was seized by the outraged local peasantry, who burnt him alive.61 His sons, when they requested the authorities punish their father’s killers, were sent away with a flea in their ear, since they should have been rejoicing that they were now the offspring of a martyr, not sought vengeance.62 Despite the Christians taking possession of the site of the Serapeum, a church was not built within its precincts. Rather, they went to the trouble of raising a further mound to one side, to build a church and martyrion, work that was completed some years later.63 The monks who were subsequently settled at the site probably moved into the Serapeum proper.64

3. From Silence to Acceptance There was an early – and sustained – attempt to close down oracular shrines, of which Daphne was one of the first. This may well have been both payback and self-preservation on the part of the Christians, since it was through the instructions of the oracles that the great persecution under Diocletian began.65 The silencing of the oracles was thus probably the first Christian move in opposition to the pagans, and violence visited particularly on the shrines of

58

Luke Lavan, “The End of the Temples: Towards a New Narrative?” in The Archaeology of Late Antique ‘Paganism’ (Leiden: Brill, 2011), xvi; Haas, “The Alexandrian Riots,” 87–90. 59 For the phrase, Haas, “The Alexandrian Riots,” 298. See, further, Lavan, “The End,” xvi. 60 McKenzie, Gibson, and Reyes, “Reconstructing the Serapeum,” 98. 61 Aude Busine, “From Stones to Myth: Temple Destruction and Civic Identity in the Late Antique Roman East.” Journal of Late Antiquity 6 (2013): 329; Fowden, “Bishops,” 66. 62 Sozomen, Hist. eccl. 7.15. 63 Françoise Thelamon, Paiens et chrétiens au IVe siècle: l’apport de l’Histoire ecclesiastique de Rufin d’Aquilée (Paris: Institut des Études Augustiniennes, 1981), 256. The martyrion was dedicated to John the Baptist – the “Serapeum martyrs” were simply forgotten. 64 Bringing of monks: Norman Russell, Theophilus of Alexandria (Abingdon: Routledge, 2007), 11; see below, p. 269. 65 Depalma Digeser, “An Oracle.”

270

Anthony John Lappin

Asklepios should probably be understood in an anti-oracular key;66 part of the tensions with Serapis can also be connected to that god’s granting of oracles, particularly via medium-possession.67 At about the same time as Gallus moved against Daphne, Christians seem to have attempted to neutralize Didyma by encircling it with martyria and chapels, without attempting any direct action against the fabric of the building.68 Thus the silencing of the oracle provided the desired result, rather than the expulsion of the oracular demon. In the much later Vita Theclae, the saint (with the neotestamental command, “Silence!”) shuts down an oracle, but leaves the resident spirit in place.69 In a similar vein, the forbidding of animal sacrifice was another means of hushing the demon through, essentially, starvation.70 Neo-platonists would have agreed that it was the “bad” daimones who fed from blood sacrifices,71 and a widespread distaste for the practice may well have lain behind the rapid decline in the popularity of urban temples and the sacrificial

66

For Asklepian shrines as oracular: Gil Renberg, Where Dreams may come: Incubation Sanctuaries in the Greco-Roman World (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 117; Petridou, Divine Epiphany, 55. Mithas was also to be numbered amongst the providers of persecutory oracles: F. V. M. Cumont, Textes et monuments figurés relatifs aux Mystères de Mithra, 2 vol. (Brussels: Lamertin, 1896–1899), 2:51; for careful destruction of Mithraea: Eberhard Sauer, The Archeology of Religious Hatred in the Roman and Early Medieval World (Stroud: Tempus, 2003), 135; P. Kiernan, “Germans, Christians, and Rituals of Closure: the agents of cult image destruction in Roman Germany,” in The Afterlife of Greek and Roman Sculpture: Late Antique Responses and Practices, ed. T. M. Kirstensen & L. Stirling (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2016), 209; Lavan, “The End,” xxx. 67 Renberg, Where Dreams, 383. Theodoret, Hist. eccl. 5.22, when narrating the fall of the Serapeum, describes an unrelated – but still fraudulent – oracular statue. 68 Joseph E. Fontenrose, Didyma: Apollo’s Oracle, Cult, and Companions (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 25–26; the temple of Apollo was still standing when Columbus sailed to America (see Fontenrose, Didyma, 26). 69 See H. Saradi-Mendelovici, “The Christianization of Pagan Temples in Greek Hagiographical Texts,” in From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity, ed. J. Hahn, S. Emmel, & U. Gotter (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 124. Classical gods might also indulge themselves: Apollo closed down the Lesbian Orphic cranial oracle, for which see William K. Freiert, “Orpheus: A Fugue on the Polis,” in Myth and the Polis, ed. D. C. Pozzi & J. M. Wickersham (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991), 42. 70 Caroline Michel d’Annoville, “Rome and Imagery in Late Antiquity: perception and use of statues.” in Pagans and Christians in Late Antique Rome: Conflict, Competition and Coexistence in the Fourth Century, ed. M. R. Salzman, M. Sághy, and R. L. Testa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 347 – regarding Firmicus Maternus. 71 Scott Bradbury, “Julian’s Pagan Revival and the Decline of Blood Sacrifice,” Phoenix 49 (1995): 332–334. For identical opinions amongst Christians, see Hazel Johannessen, The Demonic in the Political Thought of Eusebius (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 48– 51.

Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε: Demons and Their Temples

271

system.72 Alternatively, rather than suppression, key oracular shrines could be retained as healing-centres through permanent relic transfer,73 or thanks to their redesignation as angel-cults.74 The oracular daimon, because of the civil instability its consultation could cause, had also become a political persona non grata during the fourth century;75 and any attacks on temples were much more likely to come from the state than the church.76 It is perhaps in this context that we should understand the very common “vandalism” of figurative statues, whereby a careful blow removed nose and mouth, leaving other elements of coiffeur and face untouched; the statues might then remain in place as cult, but not oracular, objects.77 The demon/god/oracle was silenced, but not necessarily expelled. A subsequent expulsion of the god–daimon–demon from the statue could be brought about by ritual; a dedication rite would anyway have called down and

72

Lavan, “The End,” xlvii–xlix. For the serious financial crisis affecting temples from the beginning of the third century: Roger S. Bagnall “Models and Evidence in the Study of Religion in Late Roman Egypt,” in From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity, ed. J. Hahn, S. Emmel, & U. Gotter (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 23– 41. 73 David Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 187–191; C. Haas, Alexandria in Late Antiquity: Topography and Social Conflict (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997), 214. 74 P. Niewöhner, “Healing Springs of Anatolia: St Michael and the Problem of the Pagan Legacy,” in Life is Short, Art is Long. The Art of Healing in Antiquity: New Perspectives, ed. B. Pitarakis & G. Tanman (Istanbul: Pera Museum, 2018), 97–124. An exception may be the oracular sanctuary of Mên some 3.5 km east of Antioch in Pisidia: Margaret M. Hardie, “The Shrine of Men Askaenos at Pisidian Antioch,” JHS 32 (1912): 111–150; Aitor Blanco Pérez, “Mên Askaenos and the Native Cults of Antioch by Pisidia,” in Between Tarhuntas and Zeus Polieus: Cultural Crossroads in Temples and Cults of Graeco-Romano Anatolia, ed. M. P. de Hoz, J. P. Sánchez Hernández, & C. Molina Valero (Leuven: Peeters, 2016), 117–153; although it had closed for business well before any violence was wrought (and the destruction may, in any case, have been due to a later Muslim army’s iconoclasm). 75 Haas, “The Alexandrian Riots,” 395–396. 76 Helen Saradi-Mendelovici, “Christian Attitudes toward Pagan Monuments in Late Antiquity and their Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries,” DOP 44 (1990): 47; Robert Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians. (Harmondsworth: Viking, 1986), 671–672, for political crises as motive and opportunity. 77 P. Niewöhner, “An Ancient Cave Sanctuary underneath the Theatre of Miletus: Beauty, Mutilation and Burial of Ancient Sculpture in Late Antiquity, and the History of Seaward Defences,” in AA 1 (2016), 67–156. A simple act of aggression might put the demon to flight (Saradi-Mendelovici, “The Christianization,” 130: Nicholas of Sion’s putting of axe to sacred tree – which was then dragged to and installed or confined in the monastery). Demons, after all, were primarily wanderers: Chiara Crosignani, “The Influence of Demons on the Human Mind according to Athenagoras and Tatian,” in Demons and Illness from Antiquity to the EarlyModern Period, ed. Siam Bhayro & Catherine Rider (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 182.

272

Anthony John Lappin

enclosed the god–demon within the cultic object in the first place.78 The exorcism may have simply involved a ritual casting away (just as gods–demons were brought down into mediums, forced to communicate, and then sent on their way);79 or it may have entailed the actual destruction of the statue. Thus we see in one of the sections of the Vita Porphyrii a statue spontaneously and spectacularly self-disassemble (proclaiming the flight of the demon) when the saint approached it with a cross.80 Yet the de-forming of such statues was not necessarily, or even regularly, done by Christians.81 Careful and respectful burial of key parts of cult statues fragmented as a part of an interment, or immediately after damage, were common “rituals of termination”.82 In other cases, the carving of a cross on the statue and its re-display as an objet d’art was sufficient either as a means of exorcism,83 or as a guarantee that the physicality of the demon would not again mix with the marble.84 The spread and acceptance of Christianity may have had much to do with the diffused 78

B. Ward-Perkins “The End of the Statue Habit, AD 284–620.” in The Last Statues of Antiquity, ed. R. R. R. Smith and B. Ward-Perkins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 306; Petridou, Divine Epiphany, 61. 79 Renberg, Where Dreams, 383; Ilinca Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy in Late Antiquity: The Invention of a Ritual Tradition (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 67. 80 Saradi-Mendelovici, “The Christianization,” 118. On the dubious historicity of the Vita Porphyrii, T. D. Barnes, Early Christian Hagiography and Roman History (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 282–283; Alan Cameron, The Last Pagans of Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 799; Busine, “From Stones,” 332. On a possible Syriac original: Jeffrey W. Childers, “The Georgian Life of Porphyry of Gaza,” in StPatr XXXV, ed. M. F. Wiles and E. J. Yarnold (Leuven: Peeters, 2001). 81 “Instances of desctruction appear to have been the exception rather than the rule in Asia Minor,” according to P. Talloen and L. Vercauteren, “The Fate of Temples in Late Antique Anatolia,” in The Archaeology of Late Antique Paganism, ed. L. Lavan & M. Mulryan (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 354. Cf. Kristensen, Making and Breaking, 89–90. 82 Silviu Anghel, “Hiding and Protecting Statuary: A Late Antique Practice,” in The Lower Danube in Antiquity, ed. L. F. Vagalinski (Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2007), 353– 360; B. Aydın, L. Buccino, and L. Summerer, “Honoured, Beheaded and Buried: A New Deposit of Statues from Amastris,” in Landscape Dynamics and Settlement Patterns in Northern Anatolia during the Roman and Byzantine Period, ed. K. Winther-Jacobsen & L. Summerer (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2015), 234; Kiernan, “Germans,” 211–215; Amelia Brown “Corinth,” in The Last Statues of Antiquity, ed. R. R. R. Smith and B. Ward-Perkins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 174–189. 83 Niewöhner, “An Ancient,” 131–132; Saradi-Mendelovici, “Christian Attitudes,” 50–52, 54, 58. The adoption of urban temples as “statue museums” may have fulfilled the same function: Lavan, “The End,” xxxviii. “Unguarded” viewing of a statue could break a taboo (Petridou, Divine Epiphany, 62); the encouragement of such gawping was already a strong form of desacralization. For reliance on visual effects in temples, Verity Platt, Facing the Gods: Epiphany and Representation in Graeco-Roman Art, Literature and Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 165. 84 Saradi-Mendelovici, “The Christianization,” 118. For demons as embodied: G. A. Smith, “How Thin is a Demon?” JECS 16 (2008): 479–412.

Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε: Demons and Their Temples

273

efficaciousness, amongst purveyors of magic, of the Judaeo-Christian god in dealing with demons.85 Thus even crosses carved on deposited statue-parts do not necessarily argue for any official Christian involvement at all.86 The casting-out of statuary demons may have occurred, as much of late antique religion did, by individuals acting in a private capacity, and more often from devotion than through antagonism.87 The positive avoidance of the temple precincts (as at both Daphne and the Serapeum) for the establishment of churches is repeatedly demonstrated in the archeological record:88 alternative structures were consistently preferred,89 and ex-temples were more likely to be made to serve other, more secular purposes.90 Where the purification of these pagan structures is narrated, however, they could be exorcised by erecting a cross, a simple process which eventually became the legally-accepted method.91 Indeed, the simplicity of the exorcism 85

Tanaseanu-Döbler, Theurgy, 270. Crosses carved on the eyes of decapitated statue-heads before deposition: Saradi-Mendelovici, “Christian Attitudes,” 54. Christian inscriptions are perhaps to be taken somewhat more restrictively: Julia Lenaghan, “Asia Minor,” in The Last Statues of Antiquity, ed. R. R. R. Smith and B. Ward-Perkins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 100; Brown, “Corinth,” 184. 87 For privatization, see Denis Sami, “The Fate of Classical Statues in Late Antique and Byzantine Sicily: The Cases of Catania and Agrigento,” in The Afterlife of Greek and Roman Sculpture: Late Antique Responses and Practices, ed. T. M. Kirstensen & L. Stirling (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2016), 237–238; Silviu Anghel, “What to do with Sacra Antiqua? A Reinterpretation of the Sculptures from S. Martino ai Monti in Rome,” in Pagans and Christians in Late Antique Rome: Conflict, Competition and Coexistence in the Fourth Century, ed. M. R. Salzman, M. Sagny, & R. Lizzi Testa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 363; for widespread decline in public cult, see e.g., Talloen & Vercauteren, “The Fate,” 348–351. See above, n73. 88 Wisniewski, “Pagan Temples,” 111; Richard Bayliss, Provincial Cilicia and the Archaeology of Temple Conversion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 50–57, 121–129; F. Deichmann, “Frühchristlichen Kirchen in antiken Heiligtümern,” Jahrbuch des (kaiserlich) Deutschen archäologischen Instituts 54 (1939): 105–139. 89 J. Vaes “‘Nova constuere sed amplius vetusta servare’: la réutilisation chrétienne d’édifices antiques (en Italie).” in Actes du XIe Congrès international d’archeologie chrétienne, ed. N. Duval (Rome, 1989), 299–319; J. Vaes, “Christliche Wiederverwendung antiker Bauten: ein Forschungsbericht,” Ancient Society 15–17 (1984–1986): 305–443; J. H. F. Dijkstra, Philae and the End of Ancient Egyptian Religion: A Regional Study of Religious Transformation (298– 642 CE) (Leuven: Peeters, 2008), 315–338; J.-M. Spieser, “La christianisation des sanctuaires païens en Grèce,” in Neue Forschungen in griechischen Heiligtümern, Symposion in Olympia 10.–12. Oktober 1974, ed. U. Jantzen (Tübingen, 1976), 309–320. 90 Bayliss, Provincial Cilecia, 58–64; Dijkstra, “The Fate,” 390–391, 405–406. Such a pattern is pre- and non-Christian as well. 91 Cod. theod. 16.10.25; Saradi-Mendelovici, “The Christianization,” 115; Sami, “The Fate,” 235. For the cross as the sign (perhaps even sacrament) of the demons’ final defeat: Morwenna Ludlow, “Demons, Evil, and Liminality in Cappadocian Theology,” JECS 20 (2012): 184. For overflow of crosses into the cityscape: Ine Jacobs, “Cross Graffiti as Physical Means to Christianize the Classical City,” in Graphic Signs of Identity, Faith, and Power in 86

274

Anthony John Lappin

of places should be contrasted with the length, the elaboration and the spiritual significance of pre-baptismal exorcisms.92 Early literary narratives are, in fact, quite sparing with their evocations of violence, or, in Frankfurter’s judicious reformulation, “purposeful behavior that responded destructively to things and places in the landscape.”93 The burning of sanctuaries is limited to direct action by the deity (the thunderbolt aimed at Daphne, for example), miraculous contiguity (a temple self-combusts when Alexander the Akoimetes walks through),94 or direct divine instruction (the burning of Marneion in Gaza).95 Fire, it is averred, purified from demons;96 yet very few temples were actually set ablaze.97 Only Shenoute, in the backwoods of Egypt, takes temple-arson upon himself, and only once, and only at the beginning of his career.98 The temple of Zeus Belos in Apamea could not be demolished because a demon prevented the technical fix of fire being set to undermine the temple’s pillars, and it had to be dismissed with copious sprinklings of holy water by the soon-to-be martyred, gout-ridden Bishop Marcellus.99 Small fires were then set under a line of pillars, which brought the roof down as they crumbled. It was the simple rite which performed the exorcism, not any purification by fire. For conversion of a temple to a church, however, exorcism – at least in the fourth and early fifth century – was simply not enough. In Gaza, the stones on which the sacrifices took place were re-laid, out on the square in front of the

Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, ed. I. H. Garipzanov, C. Goodson, and H. Maguire (Turhout: Brepols, 2017), 175-221. 92 Kalleres, City of Demons, 78–80; Francis Young, A History of Exorcism in Catholic Christianity (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 32; Toon Bastiaensen, “Exorcism: tackling the devil by word of mouth,” in Demons and the Devil in Ancient and Medieval Christianity, ed. Nienke Vos & Willemien Otten (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 129–144. 93 Frankfurter, Christianizaing Egypt, 235. 94 Busine, “From Stones,” 334; Saradi-Mendelovici, “The Christianization,” 122. 95 Saradi-Mendelovici, “The Christianization,” 119–121. Occasionally (as at the Marneion), a destructive response was motivated in later accounts by an appeal to public safety, such as accusations of human, particularly child, sacrifice, as in the Coptic Panegyric on Macarius (Dijkstra, “The Fate,” 397, 400); or because a shrine’s demons would attack men and cattle if sacrifices were not offered (Theodoret, Hist. eccl. 28.1–2). 96 Busine, “From Stones,” 334. 97 Lavan, “The End,” xxv (even here, fires following earthquakes and arson are difficult to separate). 98 Emmel, “Shenoute,” 164. For the temple, and its re-use at the White Monastery, see David Klotz “Triphis in the White Monastery: Reused Temple Blocks from Sohag.” Ancient Society 40 (2010): 197–213. 99 Saradi-Mendelovici, “The Christianization,” 117; Busine, “From Stones,” 329. On the archeological remains: Jeanine Balty, “Le sanctuaire oraculaire de Zeus Bêlos à Apamée,” Topoi 7 (1997): 791–799.

Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε: Demons and Their Temples

275

new church, as a form of public desecration;100 the Christians attempted to remove the pavement of the Serapeum, but failed.101 The place of sacrifice, it would seem, could not be maintained as the floor of the church. There was here, perhaps, a deeper taboo than just the presence or absence of demons. Exorcisms could be performed, but surgery was deemed necessary to remove an intrinsically corrupted element and so allow a new dedication for the space. At the same time, demons, particularly temple-dwelling demons, seem to have entered into a symbiotic relationship with the growing numbers of monks, offering them a testing spiritual environment, or the chance for a solitary to show his superior power.102 Their close relationship became increasingly important within monasticism, and, although holy conduct and the power of virtue became the major means of removing demons from shrines, real interest moved from exorcising the locale to exercising repeated victories over their shady residents.103 The monastery formed at the Serapeum was originally peopled with Jerusalem monks, who were ill-equipped to deal with the local demons, and so it was they, rather than the spirits, who were evicted, and autochtonous brethren brought in to fight the good fight.104 Similarly, we might suspect that the belief in demon-haunted temples was also kept for its social convenience, in that it maintained their viability as public space, providing some form of lowcost protection, guaranteeing their consequent preservation as an eventual quarry for public building materials,105 and granting them some minimal upkeep as a means of aesthetic conservation.106 100

Busine, “From Stones,” 331. McKenzie, Gibson, and Reyes, “Reconstructing,” 108. The model may have been the shrine of Aphrodite at the site of the Holy Sepulchre: Eusebius, Vit. Const. 3.26–27. For churches built in, but avoiding the central elements of, Egyptian temples, see Dijkstra, “The Fate,” 407–498. 102 David Brakke, “The Making of Monastic Demonology: Three Ascetic Teachers on Withdrawal and Resistance,” CH 70 (2001): 19–48, and his “From Temple to Cell, from Gods to Demons: Pagan Temples in the Monastic Topography of Fourth-Century Egypt,” in From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity, ed. J. Hahn, S. Emmel, & U. Gotter (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 95–96; Richard Valantasis, “Demons and the Perfecting of the Monk’s Body: Monastic Anthropology, Daemonology, and Ascetism,” Semeia 58 (1992): 47–79; Saradi-Mendelovici, “The Christianization,” 115–116. 103 Saradi-Mendelovici, “Christian Attitutudes,” 56. 104 Saradi-Mendelovici, “Christian Attitutudes,” 56. It was probably Egyptian monks’ involvement in Bishop Theophilus’s grandiose scheme that caused criticism to be raised by their confrères, rather than their having been involved in the stand-off at the Serapeum: Brakke, “From Temple to Cell,” 103–104. 105 Cod. theod. 16.10.16 and 16.1.36 (AD 397–399); 16.10.19.1–2 (AD 407). Sagalossos, for example, shows temple spolia only in public buildings and major churches, with no private re-use at all: Lavan, “The End,” xxxiv. 106 Lavan, “The End,” xxxiii; for urban propriety amongst eastern late antiquitans, B. WardPerkins “Reconfiguring Sacred Space: From Pagan Shrines to Christian Churches,” in Die 101

276

Anthony John Lappin

In this rather tolerant attitude to the spirits, we might observe that not everyone had signed up completely to the new-fangled theological view which saw every daimon as necessarily an unredeemably-fallen, unfailingly-evil demon; the old views, which saw the demons as just another inevitable feature of the natural – rather than spiritual – world, prevailed.107 As the immediate threat of pagan persecution withered, conflicts with the god-demons became less dramatic, and the neutralization of temple spaces became a matter of routine. The Serapeum stands out, but only because it was completely fortuitous, a case of overreach on the part of the Serapeans in response to a slow, cautious, and fundamentally bureaucratic process of reclaiming unused and decaying urban real estate. And even there, the process of exorcism, decommissioning, and closure remained to a large extent in non-Christian hands.

Bibliography Ancient Authors Ammianus. Res gestae. Edited and translated by John C. Rolfe. 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1935–1940. John Chrysostom. De sancto hieromartyre Babyla. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series. Vol. 9. Edited by P. Schaff. New York: Charles Scribner & Sons, 1889. Julian. Misopogon. Translated by Wilmer C. Wright. LCL 29. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1913. Libanius. Orationes. Edited and translated by R. Foerster in Opera, vols. 1–4. Leipzig: Teubner, 1903–1908. Philostratus. Vita Apollonii. Edited and translated by Christopher P. Jones. LCL 16. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005. Pseudo-Chrysostom. Liber in Sanctum Babylam, contra Julianum et contra gentiles. PG 50 (1862): 533–572. Rufinus. Eusebii Historia ecclesiastica a Rufino translate et continuata. Translated by P. Schaff in Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, and Rufinus: Historical Writings. New York: Christian Literature Publishing, 1892. Sozomen. Historia ecclesiastica. Translated by Edward Walford in The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, containing a History of the Church from A. D. 324 to A. D. 410, translated from the Greek with a Memoir of the Author. Also the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, as epitomised by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1855. –. Historia ecclesiastica. Translated by Chester D. Hartranft in The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Comprising a History of the Church from A. D. 323 to A. D. 425. Translated from the Greek. New York: Christian Literature Publishing, 1890. Theodoret. Historia ecclesiastica. Translated by P. Schaff in Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, and Rufinus: Historical Writings. New York: Christian Literature Publishing, 1892.

späntantiken Stadt und ihre Christianisierung, ed. G. Brands & H.-G. Severin (Wiesbaden, 2003), 285–290. 107 D. B. Martin, “When did Angels Become Demons?” JBL 129 (2010): 657–677.

Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε: Demons and Their Temples

277

Modern Authors Alonso-Núñez, J. M. “The Emperor Julian’s ‘Misopogon’ and the Conflict between Christianity and Paganism.” Ancient Society 10 (1979): 311–324. Anghel, Silviu. “Hiding and Protecting Statuary: A Late Antique Practice.” Pages 353–360 in The Lower Danube in Antiquity. Edited by L. F. Vagalinski. Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 2007. –. “What to do with Sacra Antiqua? A Reinterpretation of the Sculptures from S. Martino ai Monti in Rome.” Pages 360–378 in Pagans and Christians in Late Antique Rome: Conflict, Competition and Coexistence in the Fourth Century. Edited by M. R. Salzman, M. Sagny, & R. Lizzi Testa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Aydın, Baran, Laura Buccino & Lâtif Summerer. “Honoured, Beheaded and Buried: A New Deposit of Statues from Amastris.” Pages 219–238 in Landscape Dynamics and Settlement Patterns in Northern Anatolia during the Roman and Byzantine Period. Edited by K. Winther-Jacobsen & L. Summerer. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2015. Bagnall, Roger S. “Models and Evidence in the Study of Religion in Late Roman Egypt.” Pages 23–41 in From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity. Edited by J. Hahn, S. Emmel, & U. Gotter. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Baldini, Antonio. “Problemi della tradizione sulla ‘distruzione’ del Serapeo di Alessandria.” Rivista storica dell’antichità 15 (1985): 97–152. Balty, Jeanine. “Le sanctuaire oraculaire de Zeus Bêlos à Apamée.” Topoi 7 (1997): 791–799. Barnes, Robert. “Cloistered Bookworms in the Chicken-Coop of the Muses: the Ancient Library of Alexandria.” Pages 61–78 in The Library of Alexandria: Centre of Learning in the Ancient World. Edited by R. MacLeod. London: I. B. Tauris, 2000. Barnes, Timothy D. Early Christian Hagiography and Roman History. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Bastiaensen, Toon. “Exorcism: Tackling the Devil by Word of Mouth.” Pages 129–144 in Demons and the Devil in Ancient and Medieval Christianity. Edited by Nienke Vos & Willemien Otten. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Bayliss, Richard. Provincial Cilicia and the Archaeology of Temple Conversion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Blanco Pérez, Aitor. “Mên Askaenos and the Native Cults of Antioch by Pisidia.” Pages 117– 153 in Between Tarhuntas and Zeus Polieus: Cultural Crossroads in Temples and Cults of Graeco-Romano Anatolia. Edited by M. P. de Hoz, J. P. Sánchez Hernández, & C. Molina Valero. Leuven: Peeters, 2016. Boatwright, Mary T. Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. Bradbury, Scott. “Julian’s Pagan Revival and the Decline of Blood Sacrifice.” Phoenix 49 (1995): 331–356. Brakke, David. “From Temple to Cell, from Gods to Demons: Pagan Temples in the Monastic Topography of Fourth-Century Egypt.” Pages 91–112 in From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity. Edited by J. Hahn, S. Emmel, & U. Gotter. Leiden: Brill, 2008. –. 2001. “The Making of Monastic Demonology: Three Ascetic Teachers on Withdrawal and Resistance.” CH 70 (2001): 19–48. Bremmer, Jan N., “Religious Violence between Greeks, Romans, Christians and Jews.” Pages 8–30 in Violence in Ancient Christianity: Victims and Perpetrators Edited by A. C. Geljon & R. Roukema. Leiden: Brill, 2014.

278

Anthony John Lappin

Brown, Amelia. “Corinth.” Pages 174–189 in The Last Statues of Antiquity. Edited by R. R. R. Smith and B. Ward-Perkins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Bruneau, Philippe. Recherches sur le cult de Délos à l’époque hellénistique et á l’époque impériale. Paris: Broccard, 1970. Busine, Aude. “From Stones to Myth: Temple Destruction and Civic Identity in the Late Antique Roman East.” Journal of Late Antiquity 6 (2013): 325–346. Cameron, Alan. The Last Pagans of Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Childers, Jeffrey W. “The Georgian Life of Porphyry of Gaza.” Pages 374–384 in StPatr XXXV. Edited by M. F. Wiles and E. J. Yarnold. Leuven: Peeters, 2001. Clark, Elizabeth A. The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. Cribiore, Raffaella. The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. –. Libanius the Sophist: Rhetoric, Reality, and Religion in the Fourth Century. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2013. Crosignani, Chiara. “The Influence of Demons on the Human Mind according to Athenagoras and Tatian.” Pages 175–191 in Demons and Illness from Antiquity to the Early-Modern Period. Edited by Siam Bhayro & Catherine Rider. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Cumont, Franz Valéry Marie. Textes et monuments figurés relatifs aux Mystères de Mithra, 2 vols. Brussels: Lamertin, 1896–1899. Deichmann, Friedrich. “Frühchristlichen Kirchen in antiken Heiligtümern.” Jahrbuch des (kaiserlich) Deutschen archäologischen Instituts 54 (1939): 105–139. Delmaire, R. “La législation sur les sacrifices au IVe siècle: un essai d’interpretation.” Revue d’Histoire du Droit Français et Étranger 32 (2004): 319–334. Depalma Digeser, Elizabeth. “An Oracle of Apollo at Daphne and the Great Persecution.” CP 99 (2004): 57–77. Dijkstra, Jitse H. F. Philae and the End of Ancient Egyptian Religion: A Regional Study of Religious Transformation (298–642 CE). Leuven: Peeters, 2008. –. 2011. “The Fate of the Temples in Late Antique Egypt.” Pages 389–436 in The Archaeology of Late Antique ‘Paganism’. Edited by L. Lavan & M. Mulryan. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Di Giorgi, Andrea U. Ancient Antioch: From the Seleucid Era to the Islamic Conquest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Downey, Glanville. A History of Antioch in Syria: From Seleucus to the Arab Conquest. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961. Dunbar, Dirk. Renewing the Balance. New York: Outskirts Press, 2017. Emmel, Stephen. “Shenoute of Atripe and the Christian Destruction of Temples in Egypt: Rhetoric and Reality.” Pages 161–201 in From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity. Edited by J. Hahn, S. Emmel, & U. Gotter. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Fontenrose, Joseph E. Didyma: Apollo’s Oracle, Cult, and Companions. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. Fowden, Garth. “Bishops and Temples in the Eastern Roman Empire A. D. 320–435.” JTS 29 (1978): 53–78. Fox, Robert Lane. Pagans and Christians. Harmondsworth: Viking, 1986. Frankfurter, David. Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998. –. Christianizing Egypt: Syncretism and Local Worlds in Late Antiquity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018.

Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε: Demons and Their Temples

279

Freiert, William K. “Orpheus: A Fugue on the Polis.” Pages 32–48 in Myth and the Polis. Edited by D. C. Pozzi & J. M. Wickersham. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991. Gwynn, David M. Athanasius of Alexandria: Bishop, Theologian, Ascetic, Father. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Haas, Christopher. Alexandria in Late Antiquity: Topography and Social Conflict. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997. –. “The Alexandrian Riots of 356 and George of Cappadocia.” GRBS 32 (1991): 281–301. Hahn, Johannes. “The Conversion of the Cult Statues: The Destruction of the Serapeum 392 A.D. and the Transformation of Alexandria into the ‘Christ-loving city’.” Pages 335–364 in From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity. Edited by J. Hahn, S. Emmel, & U. Gotter. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Hanson, R. P. C. “The Transformation of Pagan Temples into Churches in the Early Christian Centuries.” JSS 23 (1978): 257–267. Hardie, Margaret M. “The Shrine of Men Askaenos at Pisidian Antioch.” JHS 32 (1912): 111– 150 Harvey, Graham, Animism: Respecting the Living World. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Hunt, Alisa. Reviving Roman Religion: Sacred Trees in the Roman World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Jacobs, Ine. “Cross Graffiti as Physical Means to Christianize the Classical City.” Pages 175– 221 in Graphic Signs of Identity, Faith, and Power in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Edited by I. H. Garipzanov, C. Goodson, and H. Maguire. Turhout: Brepols, 2017. Johannessen, Hazel. The Demonic in the Political Thought of Eusebius. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Jürgash, Thomas. “Christians and the Invention of Paganism in the Late Roman Empire.” Pages 115–138 in Pagans and Christians in Late Antique Rome: Conflict, Competition and Coexistence in the Fourth Century. Edited by M. R. Salzman, M. Sághy & R. L. Testa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Kahil, Lilly. “Cults in Hellenistic Alexandria.” Pages 74–84 in Alexandria and Alexandrianism. Edited by Kenneth Hamma. Malibu: The J. Paul Getty Museum, 1996. Kahlos, Maijastina. “Artis heu magicis: The Label of Magic in the Fourth-century Conflicts and Disputes.” Pages 162–177 in Pagans and Christians in Late Antique Rome: Conflict, Competition and Coexistence in the Fourth Century. Edited by M. R. Salzman, M. Sághy & R. L. Testa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Kalleres, Dayna S. City of Demons: Violence, Ritual, and Christian Power in Late Antiquity. Oakland: University of California Press, 2015. Kiernan, Philip. “Germans, Christians, and Rituals of Closure: The Agents of Cult Image Destruction in Roman Germany.” Pages 197–222 in The Afterlife of Greek and Roman Sculpture: Late Antique Responses and Practices. Edited by T. M. Kirstensen & L. Stirling. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2016. Klotz, David. “Triphis in the White Monastery: Reused Temple Blocks from Sohag.” Ancient Society 40 (2010): 197–213. Kristensen, Troels M. Making and Breaking the Gods: Christian Responses to Pagan Sculpture in Late Antiquity. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2013. Lappin, Anthony John. 2018. “Disturbing Bones: From Grave-Violation to Exaltation of the Relic.” Mirator 19 (2018): 4–29. Lavan, Luke. “The End of the Temples: Towards a New Narrative?” Pages xv–lxv in The Archaeology of Late Antique ‘Paganism’. Leiden: Brill, 2011.

280

Anthony John Lappin

Lenaghan, Julia. “Asia Minor.” Pages 98–108 in The Last Statues of Antiquity. Edited by R. R. R. Smith and B. Ward-Perkins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Ludlow, Morwenna. “Demons, Evil, and Liminality in Cappadocian Theology.” JECS 20 (2012): 179–211. Martin, Annick. Athanase d’Alexandrie et l’église d’Egypte au IVe siècle (328–373). Rome: École Française de Rome, 1996. Martin, Dale B. “When did Angels Become Demons?” JBL 129 (2010): 657–677. Mathews, Freja. Reinhabiting Reality: Towards a Recovery of Culture. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press, 2005. Maxwell, Jaclyn L. Christianization and Communication in Late Antiquity: John Chrysostom and his Congregation in Antioch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Mayer, Wendy. “Les homélies de Jean Chrysostome: problèmes concernant la provenance, l’ordre et la datation.” Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 52 (2006): 329–353. –. “Re-Theorizing Religious Conflict: Early Christianity to Late Antiquity and Beyond.” Pages 3–29 in Reconceiving Religious Conflict: New Views from the Formative Centuries of Christianity. Edited by W. Mayer & C. L. De Wet. London: Routledge, 2018. Mayer, Wendy & Pauline Allen. The Churches of Syrian Antioch (300–638 CE). Leuven: Peeters, 2012. McKenzie, Judith. S. The Architecture of Alexandria and Egypt, 300BC–AD 700. Yale: Yale University Press, 2007. McKenzie, Judith S., Sheila Gibson, and A. T. Reyes. “Reconstructing the Serapeum in Alexandria from Archaeological Evidence.” JRS 94 (2004): 73–121. Michel d’Annoville, Caroline. “Rome and Imagery in Late Antiquity: Perception and Use of Statues.” Pages 345–359 in Pagans and Christians in Late Antique Rome: Conflict, Competition and Coexistence in the Fourth Century. Edited by M. R. Salzman, M. Sághy, and R. L. Testa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Murray, Stuart. The Library: An Illustrated History. New York: Skyhorse, 2006. Niewöhner, Philipp “An Ancient Cave Sanctuary underneath the Theatre of Miletus: Beauty, Mutilation and Burial of Ancient Sculpture in Late Antiquity, and the History of Seaward Defences.” Pages 67–156 in AA 1, 2016. –. “Healing Springs of Anatolia: St Michael and the Problem of the Pagan Legacy.” Pages 97– 124 in Life is Short, Art is Long. The Art of Healing in Antiquity: New Perspectives. Edited by B. Pitarakis & G. Tanman. Istanbul: Pera Museum, 2018. Norris, F. W. “Antioch-on-the-Orontes as a Religious Center. I: Paganism before Constantine.” ANRW 2.18.4 (1990): 2322–2379. O’Donnell, James J. “Paganus: Evolution and Use.” CF 31 (1977): 163–169. Ogden, Daniel. The Legend of Seleucus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Orlandi, Tito. “Uno scritto di Teofilo di Alessandria sulla distruzione del Serapeum?” La parola del passato 25 (1968): 295–304. Petridou, Georgia. Divine Epiphany in Greek Literature and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Pfeiffer, Stefan. “The God Serapis, his Cult and the Beginnings of the Ruler Cult in Ptolomeic Egypt.” Pages 387–408 in Ptolemy II Philadelphus and his World. Edited by Paul McKechnie & Phillipe Guillaume. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Platt, Verity. Facing the Gods: Epiphany and Representation in Graeco-Roman Art, Literature and Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Renberg, Gil. Where Dreams May Come: Incubation Sanctuaries in the Greco-Roman World. Leiden: Brill, 2016.

Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε: Demons and Their Temples

281

Rowe, Alan, & B. R. Rees. “A Contribution to the Archaeology of the Western Desert. IV: The Great Serapeum of Alexandria.” BJRL 39 (1957): 485–520. Russell, Norman. Theophilus of Alexandria. Abingdon: Routledge, 2007. Sami, Denis. “The Fate of Classical Statues in Late Antique and Byzantine Sicily: The Cases of Catania and Agrigento.” Pages 223–242 in The Afterlife of Greek and Roman Sculpture: Late Antique Responses and Practices. Edited by T. M. Kirstensen & L. Stirling. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2016. Sandwell, Isabella. Religious Identity in Late Antiquity: Greeks, Jews, and Christians in Antioch. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Saradi-Mendelovici, Helen. “Christian Attitudes toward Pagan Monuments in Late Antiquity and their Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries.” DOP 44 (1990): 47–61. -. “The Christianization of Pagan Temples in Greek Hagiographical Texts.” Pages 113–135 in From Temple to Church: Destruction and Renewal of Local Cultic Topography in Late Antiquity. Edited by J. Hahn, S. Emmel, & U. Gotter. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Sauer, Eberhard. The Archeology of Religious Hatred in the Roman and Early Medieval World. Stroud: Tempus, 2003. Schaff, Philip. Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, and Rufinus: Historical Writings. New York: Christian Literature Publishing, 1892. Schatkin, Margaret A., Bernard Grillet & Jean-Noël Guinot. Jean Chrysostome. Discours su Babylas. Suivi de Homélie sur Babylas. Paris: Cerf, 1990. Schibli, Herman S. Hierocles of Alexandria. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Shepardson, Christine. Controlling Contested Places: Late Antique Antioch and the Spatial Politics of Religious Controversy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014. Smith, Gregory A. “How Thin is a Demon?” JECS 16 (2008): 479–512. Spieser, J.-M. 1976. “La christianisation des sanctuaires païens en Grèce.” Neue Forschungen in griechischen Heiligtümern, Symposion in Olympia 10.–12. Oktober 1974. Edited by U. Jantzen. Tübingen. Pages 309–320. Talloen, Peter, & Lies Vercauteren. “The Fate of Temples in Late Antique Anatolia.” Pages 347–387 in The Archaeology of Late Antique Paganism. Edited by L. Lavan & M. Mulryan. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Tanaseanu-Döbler, Ilinca. Theurgy in Late Antiquity: The Invention of a Ritual Tradition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. Thelamon, Françoise. Paiens et chrétiens au IVe siècle: l’apport de l’Histoire ecclesiastique de Rufin d’Aquilée. Paris: Institut des Études Augustiniennes, 1981. Vaes, J. “Christliche Wiederverwendung antiker Bauten: ein Forschungsbericht.” Ancient Society 15–17 (1984–1986): 305–443. –. “‘Nova constuere sed amplius vetusta servare’: la réutilisation chrétienne d’édifices antiques (en Italie).” Pages 299–319 in Actes du XIe Congrès international d’archeologie chrétienne. Edited by N. Duval. Rome, 1989. Valantasis, Richard. “Demons and the Perfecting of the Monk’s Body: Monastic Anthropology, Daemonology, and Ascetism.” Semeia 58 (1992): 47–79. Voicu, Sever. “Pseudo-Giovanni Crisostomo: i confini del corpus.” JAC 39 (1996): 105–115. Ward-Perkins, Bryan. “Reconfiguring Sacred Space: from Pagan Shrines to Christian Churches.” Pages 285–290 in Die spätantiken Stadt und ihre Christianisierung. Edited by G. Brands & H.-G. Severin. Wiesbaden, 2003. –. “The End of the Statue Habit, AD 284–620.” Pages 295–334 in The Last Statues of Antiquity. Edited by R. R. R. Smith and B. Ward-Perkins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. Watts, Edward J. City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006.

282

Anthony John Lappin

Wisniewski, Robert. “Pagan Temples, Christians and Demons in the Late Antique East and West.” SacEr 54 (2016): 111–128. Young, Francis. A History of Exorcism in Catholic Christianity. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.

List of Contributors Carl Johan Berglund is Director of Studies at Stockholm School of Theology, Sweden. Barbara Crostini is Associate Professor of Byzantine Greek, Uppsala University, and Convenor of the Patristic Seminar, Newman Institute, Uppsala, Sweden. Susan R. Garrett is Professor of New Testament at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, USA. Sigurd Grindheim is Associate Professor at Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Stord, Norway. Larry W. Hurtado is Professor Emeritus of New Testament Language, Literature & Theology at the University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Jennifer W. Knust is Professor of Religious Studies at Duke University, Durham, USA. Anthony John Lappin is an independent scholar, Uppsala, Sweden. Karl Olav Sandnes is Professor of New Testament, MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society, Oslo, Norway. Mikael Tellbe is Associate Professor of New Testament Exegesis, Örebro School of Theology, Sweden. Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer is Reader in Hebrew Bible at the University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom. Graham H. Twelftree is Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity, and Acting Principal and Academic Dean of London School of Theology, United Kingdom. Steve Walton is Professor of New Testament, Trinity College, Bristol, United Kingdom.

284

List of Contributors

Cecilia Wassén is Associate Professor of New Testament Exegesis, Uppsala University, Sweden. Tommy Wasserman is Professor of Biblical Studies at Ansgar Teologiske Høgskole, Kristiansand, Norway.

Index of References Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Genesis 3 3:4–5 4:7 6 9:3–4 11:2 32:23–33 37:10 50:17

86, 232 86 15 40 49 28 16 62 68

Exodus 2:12 4:24–26 4:24b 7–9 10:17 11–12 11:4–6 12:7a 12:13a 12:23 12:23b 15:26 16 23:28–30 23:30 33:2 34:7 34:11 34:24

27 16 16 201 68 15, 16, 17, 26 15 15 15 16 15 46 121 64 122 64 68 64 64

Leviticus 4:20 4:26 4:31 4:35 5:1–6 5:10 5:13

70, 71 70 70 70 19 70 70

5:16 5:18 5:26 11:7 11:19 12–15 13–15 13:1–59 15:9 15:25–28 15:28 16 16:8 16:8–10 16:9 16:10 16:26 17:10–14 18:22–30 18:24–30 18:28 18:29 19:22 19:31 20:1–3 20:13

70 70 70 21 21, 22 37 48 126 253 126 70 3, 19, 24 19 24 24 19, 24 19 50 42 37 37 37 70 37 37 42

Numbers 11 12:1–15 15:25 15:26 19 19:11 22:22 22:32 24:26 27:17 35:33–34

121 46, 48 70 70 37 66 44 44 107 121 37

286

Index of References

Deuteronomy 7:14–15 9:29 (LXX) 11:23 14:8 14:18 25:4 (LXX) 26:8 26:8 (LXX) 28:20 28:21–22 28:28 28:35 29:27 33:27 33:27–28 34:1–6 34:6

46 118 64 21 21 106 131 118 62 46 46 46 64 64 122 27 27

Joshua 6:8 (LXX) 24:12 24:18

130 64 64

Judges 6:9 64 13:7 103 16:17 (LXX, Codex B) 103 Ruth 2:16

62

1 Samuel 11:6 15:25 16 16:14 16:14–23 16:16–18 16:23 18:10 25:28

115 68 101 54 54, 102 54 54 54 68

2 Samuel 7:23 19:16–23 22:16 24:16–17

64 95 62 16

1 Kings 3 4:29–30 5:18

101 101 44

17:18 22:17

95, 103, 105 121

2 Kings 4:9 19:35

103 16

1 Chronicles 16:8 17:21 21:1

151 64 44

2 Chronicles 21:11–18 26:15–21

46 46, 48

Job 2:1–10 26:11

44 62

Psalms 7:18 107 9:6 62 15:8 (MT 16:8) 108 16 148 18:16 62 43:3 64 56:3 (MT 57:3) 107 67:31 (MT 68:31) 104 68:31 62 76:7 62 77:55 64 79:9 64 80:17 62 91 15, 17, 43, 45, 56 91:5–6 15 91:10 15 91:11–12 16 103:3 68 104:7 62 105:9 (MT 106:9) 104 106:9 62 106:16 (LXX 105:16) 103 109:1 (LXX) 148 116:13 151 116:17 151 117:25–26 (MT 118:25–26) 107 119:21 62 130:4 68 Proverbs 4:6 9:1

250 250

287

Index of References 9:3 13:1 13:8 17:10

250 62 62 62

Ecclesiastes 7:5

62

Song of Songs/Canticles 1:12 249 3:11 248, 249 3:11 (LXX) 248 3:9–10 7, 248 3:9–10 (LXX) 248 3:9–11 249 5:1 249 5:5 249 7 248 8:2 249 Isaiah 6:9–10 6:10a 14:13–14 17:13 24:17 24:21–22 30:17 33:24 35:5–6 43:25 44:22 49:24–25 50:2 51:20 54:9 54:10 55:7 60:13 66:15

78 83 25 62 41 98 62 46, 68 203, 206 68 68 60 62 62 62 24 68 251 62

Jeremiah 2:23 5:21 9:20 17:5 29:27 32:20–21

37 83 15 247 62 131

Ezekiel 8–11 9 9:1–2

28 16, 17 16

9:1–11 9:1b 9:7 12:2 34:5 34:23

26 16 16 83 121 121

Daniel 3:17–18 10:20

87 80

Hos 4:12 5:4

39 39

Joel 2:28–29 (LXX 3:1–2) 193 2:30–31 117 2:32 (LXX 3:5) 151 Mic 3:8 Zechariah 1–6 1:7–6:15 3 3:1 3:1–2 3:1–5 3:1–10 3:2 3:2 (LXX) 3:3 3:4 3:4–5 3:9 5 5:1–4 5:1b 5:2 5:3 5:3–4 5:4 5:4a 5:5–11 5:6 5:8

115 22 11 11, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 89 22 44 27 3 23, 25, 26, 28, 62, 104 27 23 23 23 19, 23, 24 11, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 23, 26 17 23 14, 15 15, 21, 23 15, 16 17 3, 11, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26 18 18

288 5:9–11 5:11 12:1–9 12:10 13:2

Index of References 18, 19, 21, 22, 23 21 39 39 35, 38, 39

Malachi 2:3 3:11

62 62

New Testament Matthew 2 2:13–15 4:24 6:13 7:21–22 7:21–23 7:22 8:5–13 8:8 8:8–9 8:9 8:16 8:28–34 9:1–8 9:2 9:18–26 9:20 9:27–31 9:32 9:32–34 10:28 11:2–6 11:20 11:21 11:23 12:22 12:22–27 12:22–30 12:28 12:43–45 12:44 12:45 12:45a 13:54 13:58 14:2 14:12–22 14:14

201, 202 201 54, 60 44 117 145 116 226, 234, 236 235, 236 226 226 59 21 166 166 166, 185 165 245 34, 54 34, 117 229 117 116 116 116 34, 54 132 117 64 16, 22, 36, 47 16 47 16 116 116 116 185 127

14:27 17:15 17:17 21:14 23:13–36 24:24 24:29 25:1–13 26:54 26:63 27:52–53 28:19 Mark 1:7 1:10–11 1:12–15 1:14–15 1:15 1:21 1:21–28 1:22 1:23 1:24 1:25 1:25–26 1:26 1:27 1:29 1:31 1:32 1:32–34 1:34 1:39 1:40–45 1:41

255 54 123 185 226 118, 200 116 226 88 155 165 151 66 78 122 121 129 121 91, 92, 121, 129, 155 67, 122, 125 92 64, 65, 78, 92, 103, 132 61, 92, 104, 122, 155, 156 60 105, 122 60, 67, 122, 155 123 126 54, 60 121 64, 122, 127 64, 122 121 126

Index of References 1:41–42 2:1 2:1–12 2:3 2:5 2:5b 2:6b–7 2:7 2:9 2:10 2:10–12 2:11 2:11–12 2:12 2:15 3:1–6 3:2 3:5 3:7–12 3:7–30 3:10 3:12 3:14 3:14–15 3:15 3:19–20 3:20 3:21–30 3:22 3:22–27 3:23 3:27 3:29–30 3:30 4:10–12 4:11 4:11–12 4:12 4:13 4:14–20 4:34 4:39 4:40 4:41 5 5:1–5 5:1–20 5:3–4 5:5–13 5:7 5:8 5:9

156 123 68, 121, 166 166 46, 47, 71, 126, 129 46 71 121 126 67, 70 68 126 156 121 123 121 121, 127 126 121, 165 121 126, 127 61, 122 127, 128 122, 126 67, 122, 146 122 123 122 34, 60, 66, 122, 197 117, 132, 197 122 60 61 60, 66 124 79, 89 4, 77, 78, 82 83 79, 83 80 124 63, 104, 122, 156 83 121 21 54 21, 22, 50, 66, 121, 155 66 105 65, 107, 155 122, 156 64, 122, 155

5:10 5:10–12 5:11 5:12 5:12–13 5:13 5:17 5:18 5:21–43 5:23 5:25 5:30 5:34 5:34–43 5:41 6:2 6:2–3 6:5 6:5–6 6:7 6:7–12 6:7–13 6:8 6:12 6:13 6:14 6:30 6:30–44 6:34 6:43 6:47–52 6:52 6:53–56 7:17 7:17–18 7:20 7:24 7:24–29 7:24–30 7:25 7:26 7:29 7:29–30 7:30 7:31–37 7:32–35 7:33 8:4 8:11 8:14–21 8:15 8:15–21

289 21, 22, 66 66 66 21, 22 123, 155 21, 66, 122 21 128 121, 166 126, 129 126, 165 115 129 185 126, 156 116 121 47, 115, 126, 127 124, 126 60, 67, 122, 126, 127 126 121 118 122 122, 126, 125 116, 121 127 185 121 121 80 80, 83 121 123 124 60 123 123 121 54 122 59, 122 156 122 121, 156 35 60, 126 83 79 83 81 80

290 8:18 8:22 8:22–26 8:22–38 8:23 8:24 8:25 8:27–33 8:31 8:31–33 8:32 8:32–33 8:33 8:34–35 8:48 9:1 9:3 9:9 9:9–10 9:14 9:14–29 9:18 9:19 9:23 9:23–24 9:24 9:25 9:25–26 9:25–27 9:26 9:28 9:28–29 9:29 9:30 9:31 9:32 9:33–34 9:38 9:38–39 9:39 10:2 10:10 10:20 10:33–34 10:35–37 10:35–40 10:42 10:46–52 10:48 10:52 12:15

Index of References 83 126 4, 77, 81, 84, 105, 121, 185 77 60, 126 88 126 77 88 77 81 83 4, 83, 122 88 60 117 123 82 89 123, 125 121, 123 34, 54, 122, 123 123, 124, 129 123 129 123 54, 61, 122, 124, 155 60 155 122 122, 123 122, 123, 124 60, 122, 124 128 88 83 88 122, 135, 129 121, 125, 145 115, 146 79 123, 124 60 88 88 83 80 81, 121 81 126, 129 79

12:36 13 13:2 13:3–4 13:13 13:14 13:22 13:32 13:32–37 13:33–36 13:37 14:3 14:3–9 14:28 14:32–42 14:38 14:41 14:50 16:7 16:8 16:9 16:9–20 16:10 16:11 16:11–14 16:12 16:13 16:14 16:15, 17–18 16:16 16:17 16:17–18 16:18 16:20

4 89 121 124 88 122 118, 200 122 86 86 122 248 79 82 86 86 4 89 128 128 34, 128, 129 127, 128 128 128 128 128 128 128 129 128, 129 128, 129 203 127 129, 130

Luke 1:17 1:31–35 1:32 1:33–35 1:35 1:76 2:14 3:21–22 4 4:10–11 4:14 4:31–37 4:32 4:33–35 4:33–37 4:34

115 105 107 117 103, 107, 115 107 107 105 105 16 115 4, 91, 92, 105 92 92, 109 94, 96 92, 96, 102, 105

291

Index of References 4:35 4:36–37 4:39 4:41 5:17 5:18 5:18–25 5:26 6:19 6:19–20 6:35 7:1–10 7:7 7:7–8 7:18–23 7:21 8:2 8:24 8:26–39 8:28 8:30–33 8:40–56 8:43 8:46 8:49–56 9:1 9:1–2 9:10–17 9:21 9:41 9:42 9:49–50 9:55 10:1–24 10:11–13 10:13 10:17 10:17–20 10:19 11:14 11:14–15 11:14–23 11:20 11:24–26 11:26 13:1–5 13:10 13:11 13:12 13:16 17:3 17:11–19

92, 97, 103, 104, 106 92 106 94, 96, 106, 109 115 166 166 184 115 117 107 226, 234, 236 235 226 117 54, 60 34, 129 106 21 107, 109 105 166 165 115 185 115 115 185 106 123 106 145 106 82 117 116 145 15, 60 129, 203 35, 54 34 117, 132 64 36, 47 16 47 35 54 72 72 106 185

18:15 18:31–33 18:39 19:37 19:38 19:39 19:40 22:51 23:40 24:42 John 1:1–18 1:12 1:14 1:17 2 2:1 2:1–11 2:11 2:23 2:23–25 3:1–12 3:2 3:19 3:20 3:21 4:1–3 4:1–42 4:23 4:34 4:35 4:46–54 4:46b 4:47 4:48 4:48–50 4:49 4:50 4:50a 4:50b 4:51 4:53 4:54 5 5:1–9 5:1–18 5:3 5:5 5:14 5:16 5:18

106 105 106 116 107 106 106 165 106 248 131 153 131, 133, 135 133, 135 189 177 131 183, 184 131 132 132 131 134 134 134 132 133 133 134 176, 177 7, 131, 223, 224, 236 176 229 131, 230, 231 230 230 131 233 233, 235, 236 131 131 131 240 131 7 130 176 46 132 132, 134

292 5:20 5:21 5:36 6:1–15 6:2 6:5 6:15–21 6:19 6:28 6:29 6:60 6:69 7:1 7:2 7:3 7:7 7:13 7:20 7:21 7:31 8:12 8:21 8:32 8:39 8:40 8:41 8:42–44 8:44 8:45 8:46 8:48 8:48–52 8:49 8:52 9:1 9:1–7 9:1–12 9:1–41 9:3 9:4 9:4–5 9:5 9:6–7 9:16 9:22 9:29 10:20 10:25 10:31 10:32 10:33 10:37 10:38

Index of References 134 131, 134 134 131 131 176 131 176 134 134 176, 177 103, 132 132 176, 177 134 134 132 132 134 131 134 228 133 134 133 134 132 133 133 133 132 133 132, 133 132 177 131 185 133 134 131, 133, 134 133 133 134 131 132 245 132, 133 134 132 134 132, 134 134 134

10:41 11:1 11:1–57 11:2 11:3 11:4 11:6 11:8 11:16 11:24–26 11:27 11:33 11:35 11:37 11:38 11:38–44 11:44 11:46–53 11:47 11:54 12:1–8 12:3 12:4 12:14 12:18 12:20 12:30 12:31 12:37 13 13–21 13:2 13:27 13:31–17:26 14:6 14:8 14:10 14:11 14:12 14:12–14 14:13 14:14 14:17 14:26 15:16 15:24 15:26 16:13 16:23 16:24 16:26 17:4 17:15–19

131 131, 177 131 131 131 131 131 132 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 185 131 131 131 132 189 177 177 177 131 177 90 98, 132 131 25 177 25, 177 25 134 133, 135 134 134 134 134 134 153 153 135 153 135, 153 134 133, 135, 177 135 153 153 153 134 133, 135

Index of References 17:17 17:22 19:7 19:12 19:13 19:34–35 19:38 20:19 20:30 20:30–31 20:31 21:4–14

135 134 132 132 250, 254 203 132, 174, 177 132 131 131 153 131

Acts 1:8 2 2:4 2:17 2:18 2:21 2:22 2:28 2:38 3:1–16 3:6 3:12 3:16 4:2 4:7 4:10 4:12 4:13 4:17–18 4:27 4:29–30 5:15 5:16 5:28 5:40 5:41 6:8 6:14 7:48 7:55–56 7:56 8:6–7 8:7 8:9–24 8:11 8:13 8:16 9:2 9:8–19

115 152 129 93 93, 97, 109 152 103, 116, 118 108 145, 150 144 103, 126, 144, 157 115 144 108 115, 144 103, 144 144, 148 213 145 103 145 158 35 145 145 145 115 103 107 153 89 108 35 109, 221 108 116 145, 150 194, 108 81

9:14 9:15 9:16 9:18 9:27–28 9:32–35 9:40 10 10:38 10:43 10:44–46 10:48 11:18 12:6–9 12:15 13 13:4–12 13:6–12 14:3 14:8–10 14:10 15:12 15:26 16:14 16:16 16:16–18 16:17 16:18 16:19 16:19–23 16:19–24 16:20–21 18:15 18:25 19:5 19:11 19:11–12 19:11–16 19:11–20 19:13 19:13–17 19:15 19:17 19:19 19:20 19:23 19:23–27 20:7–12 20:10 21:9

293 151 145 145 114 145 157 157 209 103, 115 145 120 145, 150 109 200 133 209 113 109 113 113, 114 157 113, 114 145 109 91, 92, 93, 107, 109 4, 91, 92, 97, 106, 113, 120 4, 91, 93, 94, 107, 108 92, 93, 108, 120, 126, 145, 157 92 93 92, 109 93 94 108 145, 150 116 113, 114, 158 157 109, 143 60, 113, 155 108 109 157 157 157 108 109 113, 120 120 93

294

Index of References

21:11 22:4 22:8 22:13 22:14 22:16 22:22 25:11 26:9 26:18 26:24 26:25 27:39–28:11 28:3–6 28:7–8 28:9

109 108 103 114 108 151 108 151 103 81 133 133 114 113, 203 113 113

Romans 1:4 1:8 1:24 5–8 5:12–15 6:3 6:20–23 7:1–6 7:5 7:25 8:34 8:38–39 10:9 10:13 14:17 15:4–5 15:17 15:18 15:18–19a 15:19

115 153 37 232 232 151 232 232 232 153 89, 153 114 152 152 117 118 119 119, 129 119 115, 118

1 Corinthians 1–2 1:2 1:13–15 1:18–25 1:22 2:3 2:3–5 2:4 2:6 2:7–8 2:8 4:19 4:20

213 151 150 117 117 118 116 116, 204 224 78 224 117 115, 117

5:1–5 5:4 5:5 6:9 6:10 6:11 7:5 10:20 10:21 11:20 11:23–26 11:30 12:3 12:9–10 12:10 12:28 12:28–30 12:29 14:23 15:20–28 15:21–22 15:24 15:44–49 15:45–49 15:50 15:53–54 15:56

152 152 114, 152 117 117 151 114 109, 114 153 153 153 127 152 129 116 116, 129 129 116 133 149 232 117 232 232 117 229, 232, 236 232, 236

2 Corinthians 2:10–11 4:4 4:7–18 10:10 11:3 11:12 11:14 11:14–15 11:22–33 12:6–10 12:7 12:7–10 12:10 12:11–13 12:11b–12 12:12 12:21

114 79, 87 87 118 86 119 86 114 108 153 114 87 88 118 118 118 37

Galatians 1:7 2:3–5 3:1–5 3:4 3:4–5

115 115 115 115 115, 129

295

Index of References 3:5 3:27 5:2–12 5:21 6:12–13

116, 119 151 115 117 115

Ephesians 2:2 4:27 5:5

224 25 37, 117

Philippians 2:9–11

148, 149, 152

Colossians 1:11 1:13 2:2 4:11

118 117 115 117

1 Thessalonians 1:5 2:12 2:18 3:4–5 3:11–13 5:1–10 5:27

114, 115, 119, 130 117 114 86 153 86 155

2 Thessalonians 1:5 2:1–12 2:9 2:16–17 3:5 3:16

117 200 114, 115, 118 153 153 153

1 Timothy 5:10

130

2 Timothy 4:1 4:18

117 117

Hebrews 1:1–4 1:1–14 1:3

149 148 148

1:4 2:4 6:11 7:1 10:22

148 116, 118, 129 115 107 115

James 2:7 4:7 5:11 5:13–15 5:14

146, 151 84 84 146 146

1 John 1:2–3 2:1 2:14 2:14–16 3:23 3:24 4:1–6

133 153 133 133 153 133 133

Jude 9 22–23

25, 26, 27, 28, 62 27

Revelation 9:20 12:9 12:10 13:1 13:11–15 14:8 15:6 16:13 17:3 17:4 17:6 17:14 18:2 18:3–24 18:24 19:2 19:8 20 20:1–3 20:10 20:14 21:8

133 133 90 40 40 40 16 39 40 40 40 37 40 40 40 40 40 98 98 98 98 40

296

Index of References

Deuterocanonical Works and Septuagint Tobit 3:7–9 3:8 6:1–9 6:3–6a 6:8 6:10–18 8:1–3 8:2–3

101 33 154 101 55, 154 101 101 55

Judith 8:16–17

87

Wisdom of Solomon 2:12–24 2:18 2:19 2:20 2:21 2:24

79 87 87 87 87 87

3:10 7:15–16:20 7:20 7:27

63 46 57 208

Sirach/Ecclesiasticus 37:27–38:15 46 38:1–15 46 38:10 46 38:15 46 50:26 132 Baruch 2:11

118

Susanna 60–62

106

4 Maccabees 1:35

106

Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Apocalypse of Abraham 14:5–8 55 Assumption of Moses 10:1 98 1 Enoch 7:1–2 7:3–6 8:1 8:1–3 9:1 9:2–3 9:6 9:9 9:9–10 9:10 10:4–22 10:8 10:16–22

46 40 99 55 40 40 99 41 40 40 55 99 99

14:3 15:3–4 15:8 15:8–9 15:12–16:1 37–71 55:4 69:2 69:27–29

55 41 40 41 41 98 99 99 99

Joseph and Aseneth 17:5 107 Jubilees 1:11 7:27 10:1 10:3 10:3–6a 10:6b–9

41 41 41, 55 41 55 55

297

Index of References 10:7–14 10:9–13 10:10–13 10:12 10:12–14 11:4–5 17:17–18:19 18:12 22:16–19 23 23:29 50:5

41 100 46 41 55 41 87 89 41 43 98 98

Liber antiquitatum biblicarum 3:10 58 4:1 58 7:4 58 9:3 58 9:4 58 9:7 58 13:10 58 19:12 58 21:10 58 22:9 57 23:12 58 23:13 58 30:7 58, 68 32:17 58 39:6–7 58 49:3 58 51:5 58 51:6 58 60:2 64 60:3 57 Life of Adam and Eve 9–10 86 Psalms of Solomon 2:23 63 Sibylline Oracles 4:4–6

106

Testament of Asher 3:2 55 Testament of Benjamin 5:2 43, 55 Testament of Dan 5:1 5:10–11

55 55

5:11

100

Testament of Gad 1:9

55

Testament of Issachar 7:7 55 Testament of Levi 7:2 14:15–15:1 18:12–13

132 42 100

Testament of Naphtali 8:4 55 Testament of Reuben 3:2–7 55 Testament of Simeon 2:7 55 6:2.6 55 6:6 100 Testament of Zebulun 9:8 55 9:8–9 100 Testament of Job 1:5 5:1 20:7–8 20:9 25:10 26:6 27:1–7 27:2–5 27:4–7 27:6

84 84 84 87 85 84, 85 84 89 84 89

Testament of Solomon 1:6–7 59 1:7 65 1:9 59 2:1 65 2:7 59 3:5 59 3:6 65 4:3–4 65 4:12 65 5:7 59 6:8 59 7:5 59

298 7:8 7:10 8:5 8:6 8:9 13:3–4 16:2

Index of References 59 59 59 59 59 59 59

18:15 18:16 18:22 18:38 20:13 25:3–4 26:1–8

59 59 59 59 59 59 59

Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Texts 1QapGen (Genesis Apocryphon) XX 104 XX, 16–17 56 XX, 16–18 46 XX, 28–29 46, 56, 63, 104 1QHa (Thanksgiving Hymnsa) IV, 28–29 115 IV, 34–38 115 VII, 25–26 115 XIII, 38 115 XV, 9–10 115 XXII, 6 63 1QHf IV, 6 1QM (War Scroll) I, 9b–16 XIII, 11–12 XIV XIV, 8b–10 XIV, 9–15 XIV, 10

III, 22 III, 23 III, 24 III, 24–25 IV, 2–6 IV, 9 IV, 10 IV, 15–26 IV, 18b–21 IV, 20 IV, 20–22 IV, 22 IV, 26 VI, 24–25 VI, 24–VII, 25

42 43 56 43 66 42 42 56 99 42 43 38 66 37 37

1Q16 IX–X, 2

63

4Q169 I–II, 3

63

26 102 66 104 102 104 26, 63

1QS (Role of the Community) II, 4–9 45 II, 13–26 133 III–IV 48 III, 3–4 38 III, 13–IV, 14 56 III, 13–IV, 26 42, 44, 55, 56 III, 15–24 66 III, 17–19 55 III, 19 50 III, 21 42 III, 21–22 56

4Q242 (Prayer of Nabonidus) 46 frags. I–III, line 4 69 4Q265 (Serek Damascus) 37 4Q266/D (Damascus Documenta) 4.12–5.15 41 6 i 5–8 49 6i 35 frg. 10 i–ii 37 4Q270 2 ii 17–18

49

299

Index of References 4Q544 II, 2–6 III, 1–2

4Q274 1–4

48 48

55 55

4Q560 (Exorcism ar) 49 1 I 3–5 33, 49 1,1–2,8 102 I ii 5 56, 65

4Q444 48 frgs. 1–4 i + 5 i 8 44 frgs. 1–4 i + 5 [Col. I] 45 4Q463 II, 3

63

4Q491 VIII–X, i 7

63

11Q5 (Psalms Scrolla) XIX 43 XIX, 14–16 44 XIX, 14–17 44 XIX, 15 38

45 48 45 56

11Q11/11QApPsa (Apocryphal Psalmsa) II, 2–3 57 IV, 4 56, 125 IV, 4–8 45 V, 4 56

4Q510 4Q510–4Q511 frg. 1 4–7 I, 4–5 4Q511

CD (Cairo Genizah copy of the Damascus Document) IV, 12–19a 42 IV, 18 42 V, 6–7 42 V, 6–11 42 XVI, 4–5 45 XVI, 45 43

45 4Q512 29–32 vii 34 v

49 49 49

Philo De Deo 138

95

Legatio ad Gaium 278

107

Legum allegoriae 3.82

107

De vita Mosis 1.210

131

300

Index of References

Josephus Jewish Antiquitues 2.284–287 3.24 6.166–169 6.209–211 6.211 6.92 6.93 7.153 8.42–44 8.42–49 8.44–49 8.45 8.46 8.46–47

199, 201 68 102 102 102 68 69 68 101 101 154 58, 101 58 125

8.46–48 8.47 8.48 8.49 9.182 14.22 14.274–280 18.63–64 20.168

101 58, 65 67 154 199 60 131 199 118

Jewish War 1.28 6.288–309 7.178–185 7.185

118 118 58 97

Mishnah and Talmud b. Berakot 34b

60

b. Taʿanit 24b

60

b. Pesaḥim 112b

21, 22

m. Berakot 5.5

60

b. Sanhedrin 39a

27

m. Sanhedrin 7:7

106

b. SotÊah 14a

27

m. Taʿanit 3:8

60

301

Index of References

Other Rabbinic Works Sipra Qedošim pq. 9.207.3.3 106

Sipre Deuteronomy 172.1.2–4 106

Apostolic Fathers 1 Clement 54.1

115

Shepherd of Hermas Visions 14.2 133

To the Philadelphians 1.1 115 To the Smyrnaeans 1.1 115

Ignatius To the Magnesians 11.1 115

New Testament Apocrypha Acts of Timothy 8

186

9 10

186 186

Other Ancient Writings Ammianus Res gestae 22.11.10–11 22.12 22.12.7

267 263 264

Anonymous of Bruce 352.29 248

Apponius In Cantica Canticorum Expositionem V.36 251 Aristotle Ethica nicomachea 1.3 117

302

Index of References

Athanasius De decretis 1.3

185

De incarnatione 30.6 32.4

66 66

Athenagoras Legatio pro Christianis 27.2 133 Clement of Alexandria Eclogae propheticae 25.1 219 Protrepticus 1.1 11.117.3–4. Stromateis 1.1.1.14.2 4.9.71 5.8 7.17

133 133 178 219 100 220

Codex theodosianus 16.1.36 275 16.10.16 275 16.10.19.1–2 275 16.10.25 273 Cosmas Indicopleustes Topographia christiana 5.202 188 Cyril of Alexandria Contra Julianum 6.192 210 6.215 210 Cyril of Jerusalem Catecheses ad illuminandos 13.17 249 Homily on the Paralytic by the Pool 1 243, 244 4 245 5 246 5a 246 6 245 6–8 247

6–9 6b 7 8 9 10 10–13 10a 10b 11–12 11a 11b 11b–12 12 13 14–15 15 16

245 247 245 255 245 248, 251 248 250 249, 250 249 249 252 250 249 248 246 246 245

Didymus Commentarii in Ecclesiasten f. 361 l. 12 182 Commentarii in Job f. 118 l. 20 182 Commentarii in Zachariam 2, 98 248 Dio Chrysostom Orationes 38 (Ad Nicomedienses) 38.2 209 38.8–9 209 38.15 209 38.48 209 Diogenes Laertius Lives 7.45

117

Epiphanius Panarion (Adversus haereses) 31.2.2–3 220 31.7.1–2 220 33.3.1–33.7.10 222 Eusebius Fragment G 248 Contra Hieroclem 2 2.1 2.2

211 212 211, 212, 213

303

Index of References 4.1 4.4 8.1–2 8.2 9 12.1–3 20 27.2 30.2 35.1 36 42.1–2 48.2

213 214 214 214 214 213 214 214 214 214 214 214 214

Historia ecclesiastica 3.24.3 182 3.24.5 183 3.24.5–8a 183 3.24.11 193 3.39.15 184 4.3.2 216 4.17 222 5.7.1 220 6.14.7 190 Vita Constantini 3.26–27

275

Galen of Pergamon Ars medica 321.3 228 355.6–7 228 358.7–8 228 Gregory the Great In Hezechielem II Hom. III.14

251

Hippolytus Refutatio omnium haeresium 6.0 219 6.24/29 219 6.30/35 219 7.23 116 Iamblichus De Mysteriis I.21.66.6–16 168 V.18.223.10–224.2 181

Irenaeus Epistle to Florian 116 Adversus haereses 1.7.4 1.21.3 2.p.1 2.4.1 2.31.2–3 2.32.5 4.p.1 4.41.4 5.p

226 198 220 219 133 147 220 220 220

John Chrysostom Adversus Judaeos I.6

265

De sancto hieromartyre Babyla 2 263 Homiliae in Acta apostolorum 35 92 Homiliae in Joannen 36 255 58 169 Julian Contra Galilaeos 191E 200A 200A–B 206B 213 213B–C 218A–B 221E 222A 224C–D 230A

208 210 210 209 209 209 209 209 209 209 209

Orationes 4.144B 7.219D–220A

210 210

Justin Apologia i 26.2 26.2–5 56

116 221 133

304 Apologia ii 2.1–6 5.5–6

Index of References

222 146

Dialogus cum Tryphone 11.4 116 30 66 30.3 147 35.8 116 85 66 85.2–3 147 115.4 116 132.1 116 Lactantius Divinarum institutionum libri VII 5.3.9 212 Libanius Orationes 11.94–99 11.243 60.9–11

261 261 261

Lucian Alexander 1 5 7–8 15–19 20 23–31

201 202 202 202 202 202

Philopseudes 16

65

Origen Contra Celsum 1.1–2 1.2 1.6 1.8 1.9 1.9–10 1.26 1.27 1.28 1.38 1.46 1.67 1.68 2.34

204 204 66, 198, 199 201 203 204 208 198 201 198, 201, 202 116, 198, 204 198 168, 198, 200, 202, 206 200

2.36 2.46 2.48 2.48–54 2.49–50 2.51 3.24 3.26–33 3.27 3.28 3.44 3.49 3.50 3.54 3.70 4.7 4.9 4.80 4.87 5.14 6.38–39 6.39 7.10 8.37

203 208 203, 206 198, 202 200 200, 206 147, 205 207 207 207 198 202 198, 202 206 205 207 205 207 207 205 200 198 206 198

Commentarii in evangelium Joannis 1.3/18 165, 183 2.14/100 229 13.32/200–202 226 13.58/394–59/415 225 13.59/405 183 13.60/416 225 13.60/417–418 229 13.60/419–420 230 13.60/420 235 13.60/421–422 233 13.60/423–426 235 19.14/89 228 20.24/215 226 De principiis 3.2.1 4.2.1 4.2.3

27 205 170

Philostratus Vita Apollonii 1.16 1.16.1 3.38 4.20 4.44 4.45.1–2

263, 265 261 101 67 102 214

305

Index of References Photius Bibliotheca cod. 254

185

Epistle 134

220

Plato Phaedo 77c

117

Timaeus 40e

117

Plutarch Alexander 75.1

118

De tuenda salute 2.134c 18.132a

228 228

Moralia 2.149c

118

Polybius Histories 3.112.8 30.9.10

118 130

Pseudo-Chrysostom De Babyla contra Julianum et gentiles 13 263 15 264 16 264 19 265 Pseudo-Plutarch De vita Homeri 2.4

172

Quintilian Institutio oratoria 5.10.7

117

Rufinus Historia 11.22 11.23

267, 268 268

Slavonic Life of Moses 16 27 Socrates Historia ecclesiastica 3.2 268 3.3 267 Sozomen Historia ecclesiastica 5.19 261, 262, 263, 264 7.15 267, 268, 269 Tertullian Apologeticus 23.15

66

Adversus Valentinianos 4 219 4.1 220 Theodoret Commentary on John Preface 184 Haereticarum fabularum compendium 1.8 220 Historia ecclesiastica 5.14 267 5.22 268, 270 28.1–2 274

306

Index of References

Manuscripts P.Giss. 1.87.25–26

115

P.Lond. 121 121.396 121.567

105 105 105

P.Oslo 161–162

104

P.Oxy. VII.1024 XXXIV.2684

130 25, 28

P.Petr II.40(b)

130

Papyri Graeca Magicae I.1–42 154 IV.1231–1239 102 IV.1233 65 IV.1243 104 IV.1243–1245 122 IV.2694–2704 100 IV.3007–3086 65, 143 IV.3019 125 IV.3020 65 IV.3037–3044 124 VI.3020–3021 102 VIII.6–7, 13 95 VIII.8–21 103 XIII.618–640 100 XXXVI.164 104 XXXVI.315 156 LXX.1–4 100 LXXXVI.1–2 100

Index of Modern Authors Abbot, Ezra 171 Abegg, Martin G. 99, 102 Ábel, František 232 Alexander, Philip S. 34, 45 Allan, Keith 223 Allen, Pauline 245, 264 Allison Jr., Dale C. 70 Alonso-Núñez, J. M. 262 Amphoux, Christian-Bernard 171, 173 Andresen, Carl 205 Anghel, Silviu 272, 273 Annen, Franz 61, 65, 142 Arnold, Clinton E. 114 Aune, Davie E. 141, 159 Austin, J. L. 12 Auwers, Jean-Marie 250 Avemarie, Friedrich 118 Aydın, Baran 272 Bagnall, R. S. 271 Bainton, Roland H. 167 Baldini, Antonio 266 Balty, Jeanine 274 Barber, C. 253 Barbiero, Gianni 251, 252, 253, 254 Barnes, Robert 267 Barnes, Timothy D. 185, 272 Barnett, Paul W. 118 Barrett, C. K. 118, 120, 226 Barton, John 36 Barton, Stephen C. 121 Bastiaensen, Toon 274 Bauckham, Richard J. 27, 28, 132, 183 Bauer, Walter 135 Bauernfeind, Otto 67, 95 Baumgarten, Joseph 48, 49 Bayliss, Richard 273 Beasley-Murray, George R. 134, 226 Beavis, Mary Ann 83 Becker, Adam H. 188 Becker, Joachim 134 Becker, Michael 1, 143 Begg, Christopher 102

Bell, Richard H. 1 Bendemann, Reinhard von 121 Berglund, Carl Johan 7, 219, 223, 226, 230 Best, Ernest 61, 65, 122 Betz, Hans Dieter 142, 143, 154 Birdsall, J. Neville 171 Blackburn, Barry 156 Blackwell, Christopher W. 172 Blanco Pérez, Aitor 271 Blomkvist, Vemund 176 Blumell, Lincoln H. 170 Boatwright, Mary T. 263 Böcher, Otto 129, 142, 150 Bock, Darrell L. 95 Bodi, Daniel 16 Bohak, Gideon 1, 143, 144, 149, 154 Bolt, Peter G. 97 Bonner, Campbell 64, 66, 142, 155 Bonwetsch, N. 28 Borger, Rykle 14 Bovon, François 94, 96, 97, 98, 103, 173 Bowman, John 132 Bradbury, Scott 270 Brakke, David 275 Bremmer, Jan N. 259, 266 Broadhead, Edwin K. 70, 132 Broida, Marian 12 Brooke, Alan E. 221, 224, 225, 229, 230, 233 Brown, Amelia 272, 273 Brown, Raymond E. 134 Brubaker, Leslie 188 Bruce, F. F. 127 Bruneau, Philippe 264 Brunt, Peter A. 223 Buccino, Laura 272 Budé, A. W. A. M. 181 Bultmann, Rudolf 67, 69, 93, 94, 118, 134 Burgon, John W. 172 Burns, Yvonne 171, 173 Burrow, Andrew 64, 66, 67

308

Index of Modern Authors

Burton, Ernest de Witt 116 Busine, Aude 269, 272, 274, 275 Caird, George B. 95, 96, 114 Cameron, Alan 272 Caner, Daniel 190 Carson, D. A. 226 Carter, Warren 67 Casey, Maurice 69 Cathcart, K. J. 13, 15, 16 Charlesworth, James H. 37, 83 Childers, J. W. 272 Chin, Catherine M. 170 Ciraolo, Leda Jean 142, 143 Clark, Elizabeth A. 266, 267 Clarke, Emma 168, 181 Cohn, Yehudah 34 Collins, John J. 27 Coogan, Jeremiah 173 Cook, Edward M. 99, 102 Cook, John Granger 197, 207, 208, 209, 211, 212 Coulmas, Florian 223, 234 Coutts, Joshua J. 153 Cox Miller, Patricia 169 Craghan, John F. 21 Cranz, Isabel 19, 20 Crawford, Matthew R. 172 Creed, J. M. 94, 247 Crehan, J. H. 187 Cremer, J. 126 Cribiore, Raffaella 261, 262, 265 Crislip, Andrew 243 Crosignani, Chiara 271 Crossan, John Dominic 70 Croteau, D. A. 130 Culpeper, Jonathan 12 Culpepper, R. Alan 134 Cumont, Franz Valéry Marie 270 Daniell, David 167 Danove, Paul L. 128 Dauton-Fear, Andrew 1, 198 Davies, W. D. 70 Davis, Carl Judson 152 Dawson, Audrey 1, 94 Dawson, David 220 de Bruyn, Theodore 1, 147 Deichmann, Friedrich 273 Deissmann, Adolf 107, 157 Delcor, Mathias 56 Delmaire, R. 260 Depalma Digeser, Elizabeth 263, 269

Derrett, J. D. M. 64, 66 d’Esneval, Amaury 166 Di Giorgi, Andrea U. 261, 264, 265 Dibelius, Martin 146, 151 Diels, Hermann 178 Dijkstra, Jitse H. F. 267, 273, 274, 275 Dillon, Richard J. 82 Dimant, Devorah 48 Dochhorn, Jan 1 Dodd, C. H. 130, 131 Donahue, John R. 64, 67 Downey, Glanville 261, 265 Drijvers, J. W. 244, 245, 255 Dué, Casey 172 Duhaime, Jean 16, 56 Dunbar, Dirk 262 Dunderberg, Ismo 224, 230 Dunn, Geoffrey 1, 147 Dunn, James D. G. 34, 116, 120, 135 Dvořáček, Jiři 57 Edelman, Diana 11 Edwards, James R. 95, 165, 166, 171 Ehrhard, Albert 179 Elliott, J. K. 123, 127, 128 Ellis, E. Earle 94 Emmel, Stephen 267, 268, 270, 271, 274, 275 Ermakov, Arseny 60 Eshel, Esther 44 Evans, Craig A. 16, 22, 61, 94, 128 Eve, Eric 1, 61 Farmer, William R. 128 Fee, Gordon D. 114, 116, 117, 119 Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 69, 95, 97, 103, 104 Flint, James 43 Flusser, David 44 Fontenrose, J. E. 270 Fowden, Garth 260, 269 Fowler, Robert M. 80 Fox, Robert Lane 271 France, R. T. 125 Frank, Georgia 169 Frankfurter, David 260, 271, 274 Fredriksen, Paula 167 Freiert, William K. 270 Frenschkowski, Marco 215, 216 Frey-Anthes, Henrike 1, 12 Furnish, Victor Paul 114 Gallagher, Edmond L. 184

Index of Modern Authors García Martínez, Florentino 56, 57, 63, 69 Garland, David 94 Garrett, Susan R. 4, 72, 77, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 156 Gaston, Lloyd 123 Gaventa, Beverly R. 110 Géhin, Paul 180 Geldenhuys, Norval 94 Geller, M. J. 19 Gibson, Sheila 267, 268, 269, 275 Gieschen, Charles A. 150 Gnilka, Joachim 70, 124 Gomez, Alfredo Delgado 156 Goodspeed, Edgar J. 147 Görgemanns, Herwig 170, 205 Goswell, Greg 165, 166, 174, 176 Goulder, Michael D. 120 Grant, Robert M. 205, 206, 215 Green, Joel B. 95, 96, 100 Green, Tamara M. 16 Greeven, Heinrich 146, 151 Grenz, Jesse R. 171 Grindheim, Sigurd 3, 4, 53, 60, 67 Guelich, Robert A. 65 Gundry, Robert H. 66 Gutzwiller, Kathryn 181 Gwynn, David M. 266 Haas, Christopher 266, 267, 269, 271 Haenchen, Ernst 93, 94 Hägerland, Tobias 26, 46, 47, 53, 68, 69 Hägg, Tomas 211 Hahn, J. 267, 268, 270, 271, 275 Hall, Basil 167 Hampel, Volker 70 Hanson, R. P. C. 247, 260 Hardie, Margaret M. 271 Harrington, Daniel J. 57, 64, 67 Harris, J. Rendel 176 Harris, Murray J. 118 Hartman, Lars 150 Harvey, Graham 259 Haufe, Günter 114 Head, Peter 173 Heger, Paul 42 Heitmüller, Wilhelm 150 Hemer, Colin J. 94 Henderson, Suzanne W. 62, 128 Henriksen, Jan-Olav 1, 197 Henze, Matthias 15, 16 Higbie, Carolyn 177 Hill, Charles E. 171, 183, 184

309

Hill, Robert C. 22, 182 Hofius, Otfried 70 Holladay, Carl R 93 Hollander, Harm W. 27, 232 Holleman, J. 232 Hopfner, Theodor 142 Horn, Friedrich Wilhelm 199, 232 Hull, John M. 142, 154, 156 Hunt, Alisa 261 Hurtado, Larry W. 5, 6, 124, 125, 141, 149, 150, 153, 156 Incigneri, Brian J. 121 Inowlocki, Sabrina 223 Irvine, Martin 190, 191 Jackson, Pamela 242, 243 Jacobs, Ine 273 James, M. R. 28 Janowski, Bernd 11, 19, 99 Jensen, Robin M. 255 Jeremias, Joachim 132 Jervell, Jacob 119 Jewett, Robert 118 Johannessen, Hazel 270 Johansson, Daniel 69 Johnson, Earl S. 84, 155 Johnson, Luke Timothy 94, 106, 109 Joosten, Jan 23, 26, 62 Jöris, Steffen 35, 36 Jürgash, Thomas 260 Kahil, Lilly 266 Kahlos, Maijastina 260 Kalleres, Dayna S. 263, 274 Kalvesmaki, Joel 178 Karpp, Heinrich 170, 205 Käsemann, Ernst 131 Kauppi, Lynn Allan 93 Kazen, Thomas 33, 36, 37, 48, 49 Kee, Howard Clark 23, 26, 62, 63, 64, 97, 103, 104 Keefer, Kyle 221, 224 Keener, Craig S. 1, 93, 106, 108, 109 Keil, Joseph 187 Kelhoffer, James A. 1, 128, 203 Kennedy, James M. 62, 63 Kiernan, Philip 270, 272 Kitz, Anne Marie 13, 19 Klauck, Hans-Josef 70, 187 Klawans, Jonathan 36, 37, 42 Kloppenborg, John S. 121 Klotz, David 274

310

Index of Modern Authors

Klutz, Todd E. 1, 94, 104, 108, 109, 155 Knust, Jennifer W. 6, 165, 174, 176 Koch, Dietrich-Alex 65 Kominko, Maja 188 Körting, Corinna 19, 22 Koskenniemi, Erkki 211 Kotansky, Roy 142, 143 Kreplin, Matthias 71 Krevans, Nita 181 Kristensen, T. M. 265, 272 Krueger, Derek 243 Kvanvig, Helge 14 Laird, Martin 250 Lampe, G. W. H. 120 Lange, Armin 2, 39, 41, 44, 118 Lappin, John Anthony 259, 262 Larsen, Matthew 186 Lategan, B. C. 133 Lavan, Luke 267, 269, 270, 271, 272, 274, 275 Layton, Bentley 220 Le Boulluec, Alain 230 Leich, Reimund 2 Lemos, T. M. 36 Lenaghan, Julia 273 Lenfant, Dominique 223 Lerchner, Karin 251, 253 Lesses, Rebecca Macy 142, 143 Li, Charles N. 223 Liefeld, Walter L. 96 Lieu, Judith 94 Light, Laura 166, 167, 170 Lim, Timothy H. 117 Lincoln, Andrew T. 130, 131, 132 Lindars, Barnabas 132 Lipsius, R. A. 187 Löhr, Winrich Alfried 221 Lomholt, Carl 68 Lona, Horacio E. 198, 199, 201 Longenecker, Richard N. 96, 116 Ludlow, Morwenna 273 Luz, Ulrich 71 Lyall, Francis 107 Maier, Emar 223, 234 Maisch, Ingrid 69 Manor, T. Scott 183, 184 Mansfeld, Jaap 178, 180, 221 Marcus, Joel 61, 63, 67, 69, 79, 80, 81, 84 Markschies, Christoph 220, 222, 230 Marshall, I. Howard 94, 95

Marshall, John W. 39 Martens, Peter W. 206, 222 Martin, Annick 266 Martin, Dale B. 276 Massaux, Édouard 226 Matera, Frank J.118 Mathews, Freja 259 Matthews, Shelly 93, 97 Maxwell, Jaclyn L. 265 Mayer, Wendy 1, 147, 245, 256, 264, 265 McArthur, Henry K. 165, 166, 171, 175, 177, 178 McCauley, Leo P. 249 McKendrick, Scot 182, 187 McKenzie, Judith S. 266, 267, 268, 269, 275 Meade, John D. 184 Méhat, André 178 Meier, John P. 34, 168 Meredith, Anthony 209, 210 Metso, Sarianna 56 Metzger, Bruce M. 127, 134, 145, 146 Meyer, Marvin 142, 143, 147 Michel d’Annoville, Caroline 270 Milgrom, Jacob 48, 68, 70 Miller, Thomas S. 243 Milner, Christine 255 Minns, Denis 146 Miquel, Esther 2, 60, 61 Montanari, Franco 200 Montgomery, James Alan 19 Moxnes, Halvor 168 Murphy-O’Connor, Jérôme 56 Murray, S. A. 268 Neil, B. 245 Nestle, Eberhard 172 Neuschäfer, Bernhard 222, 227 New, Silva 144 Nickelsburg, George W. 99 Nicklas, Tobias 28, 180, 223 Niewöhner, Philipp 271, 272 Nolland, John 96, 103 Nordenfalk, Carl 173 Norris, F. W. 263 North, Wendy E. Sproston 132 Nünlist, René 172, 173 Nyström, Jennifer 26 O’Donnell, James J. 260 Obijole, Bayo 114 Ogden, Daniel 201, 261, 263

Index of Modern Authors Oliver, Harold H. 172 Orlandi, Tito 267 Osten-Sacken, P. von der 56 Pagels, Elaine H. 221, 224, 225, 226, 228 Parker, David C. 171 Parkinson,William Q. 125, 141, 142, 144, 148, 149 Parry, Donald W. 33, 44, 45, 49 Parvis, Paul 146 Pascut, Benjamin 69, 70, 71 Pearson, Birger A. 220 Perrone, Lorenzo 207 Pervo, Richard I. 120 Pesch, Rudolf 69, 71 Petridou, Georgia 266, 270, 272 Pfann, Stephen J. 49 Pfeiffer, Stefan 266 Pilch, John J. 2 Pimental, Peter 66 Platt, V. 272 Powell, Mark Allan 80 Preuschen, Erwin 130 Pryke, E. J. 123, 124 Quasten, Johannes 220 Rackham, Richard B. 120 Ramelli, Ilaria 184, 185, 187 Reemts, Christiana 204, 205, 206 Rees, B. R. 268 Reimer, Ivoni Richter 92, 107, 109 Reischl, W. C. 249, 252 Reitzenstein, Richard 125 Remus, Harold 215 Renberg, Gil 270, 272 Reploh, Karl-Georg 124 Reyes, A. T. 267, 268, 269, 275 Robert, A. 252 Rogland, Max 24 Rohmann, Dirk 157 Roitto, Rikard 71 Rothschild, Clare 184 Rowe, Alan 268 Royé, Stefan 173 Ruck-Schröder, Adelheid 150 Rudnig-Zelt, Susanne 1 Runesson, Anna 82 Rupp, J. 249, 252 Russell, Norman 269 Saenger, Paul 167 Sami, Denis 273

311

Sanders, E. P. 70 Sandnes, Karl Olav 1, 6, 7, 153, 169, 183, 197, 199, 202, 207, 208, 209, 213, 214 Sandwell, Isabella 265 Saradi-Mendelovici, Helen 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275 Sauer, E. 270 Schatkin, Margaret A. 264 Schibli, Herman S. 267 Schiffman, Lawrence H. 48 Schleusner, J. F. 252 Schnackenburg, Rudolf 134, 135 Schnelle, Udo 168 Scholtissek, Klaus 64 Schott, Jeremy M. 181 Schreiber, Stefan 114, 116 Scurlock, JoAnn 20 Searle, John R. 12 Segal, Alan F. 141 Semino, Elena 12 Sepière, Marie-Christine 255 Shepardson, Christine 260, 263, 265 Shiner, Whitney T. 80 Simmons, Michael Bland 211 Skapte Jensen, Minna 172 Slade, Darren M. 242 Smith, D. Moody 130 Smith, David R. 152 Smith, Geoffrey Stephen 220, 221 Smith, Gregory A. 272 Smith, Morton 168 Smith, Richard 147 Smith, W. Andrew 166, 174, 175, 176 Soden, Hermann von 165, 166, 172, 175 Sorensen, Eric 2, 55, 59, 60, 61, 142 South, J. T. 152 Spencer, F. Scott 93, 97, 98, 109 Spieser, J.-M. 273 Spittler, R. P. 83, 84 Stanley, Christopher D. 223 Stead, Michael R. 15 Stefaniw, Blossom 170 Stein, Robert H. 123 Stephenson, Anthony H. 249 Stonehouse, Ned B. 127 Straatman, Jan Willem 232 Strutwolf, Holger 233 Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 2, 36, 41, 43, 46, 54 Summerer, Lâtif 272 Sung, Chong-Syon 68 Talbert, Charles H. 94

312

Index of Modern Authors

Talloen, Peter 272, 273 Tanaseanu-Döbler, Ilinca 272, 273 Tannehill, Robert C. 64, 94 Theissen, Gerd 70, 95, 156 Thelamon, Françoise 269 Thiele, Walter 173 Thiselton, Anthony C. 152 Thomassen, Einar 220, 221, 228, 230, 231 Tiemeyer, Lena-Sofia 3, 11, 12, 13, 18, 23, 67 Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. 13, 14, 56, 69 Torijano, Pablo A. 57, 64 Tournay, R. 252 Tov, Emanuel 33, 44, 45, 49 Trebilco, Paul R. 17, 18, 107, 108 Turner, C. H. 123 Twelftree, 2, 5, 21, 34, 55, 64, 94, 95, 97, 100, 104, 105, 113, 114, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 128, 132, 142, 146, 154, 155, 156, 157, 206 Untergassmair, Franz Georg 153 Vaes, J. 273 Valantasis, Richard 275 van Bladel, Kevin 188, 190 van den Hoek, Annewies 223 van Rossum-Steenbeek, Monique 181 VanderKam, James C. 41, 43 Vercauteren, Lies 272, 273 Vermes, Geza 69 Vlachos, Chris A. 232 Voicu, Sever 264 Wahlen, Clinton 2, 35, 36, 41, 44, 61 Walker, P. W. L. 243, 244 Walton, J. Harvey 2 Walton, John H. 2 Walton, Steve 4, 5, 91

Ward-Perkins, Bryan 272, 273, 275 Warrington, Keith 2 Wassén, Cecilia 45 Wasserman, Tommy 6, 28, 165, 174, 176, 180 Watts, Edward J. 267, 268 Watts, Rikki E. 63, 66, 67 Wefald, Eric K. 121 Whitaker, Molly 118 Wiggermann, F. A. M. 14 Wiles, Maurice F. 169, 272 Wilken, Robert L. 209, 210 Willard, Louis Charles 179, 180 Wilson, Walter T. 2 Winandy, Jacques 251 Windisch, Hans 118 Winston, David 57 Wise, Michael O. 99, 102 Wisniewski, Robert 265, 273 Witmer, Amanda 2, 61, 89 Wold, Benjamin 1 Wolska, Wanda 188 Wood, Daniel 205 Wood, Ian 255 Wright, Archie T. 40, 41, 54 Wright, David P. 19 Wucherpfennig, Ansgar 222, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 233, 234, 236 Yarbro Collins, Adela 57, 65, 146, 156 Yardeni, Ada 49 Yarnold, Edward 242, 243, 244, 247, 248, 252, 255, 272 Young, Frances M. 222, 227, 242 Young, Francis 274 Zahn, Theodor 172 Zuntz, Günther 179, 180

Subject Index Accuser, the 19, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 Adjure/adjuration(s) 64, 66, 67, 68, 73, 110, 150, 151, 152, 157, 163 Afflict/affliction(s) 15, 51, 54, 57, 62, 63, 64, 67, 68, 77, 80, 87, 90, 94, 95, 96, 112, 162, 163, 183, 185, 227, 244 Alexandria 190, 249, 266, 272, 273 Ammonian sections 179, 180, 195 Amulet(s) 34, 36, 42, 108, 151, 155, 189 Angel(s) 13, 20, 36, 48, 49, 53, 65, 67, 73, 88, 96, 106, 108, 149, 155, 156, 157, 166, 252, 259, 277 – fallen/evil 62, 63, 64, 107, 266 – Michael 35, 36, 63, 157 – Gabriel 88 – of Darkness 50, 51, 63, 64 – of light 94 – of Truth 51, 64 – of YHWH 30, 31 – Ouriel 67 – Raphael 63, 109 162 Antichrist 30, 208 Antioch 262, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 277 Apotropaic – hymn(s) 53 – incantation(s) 103 – prayer(s) 41, 51, 52 – ritual(s) 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 37 – vestiges 56 Asclepius 210, 213, 218 Authority(ies) 12, 61, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 92, 97, 98, 108, 130, 131, 133, 144, 156, 163, 165, 275 Azazel 27, 32 Babylon/Babylonian/Assyro-Babylonian 24, 27, 28, 47, 48, 69 Baptism 86, 90, 153, 158, 159, 160, 212, 227, 262 Beelzebul 42, 67, 68, 69, 74, 97, 130, 205

Belial 49, 50, 71, 112 Bethesda 15, 54, 248, 250, 251, 262, 263 Bind/binding 19, 49, 63, 67, 73, 95, 109, 113, 149, 150 Blind/blinding/blindness 12, 42, 49, 62, 68, 85, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 113, 121, 122, 134, 138, 139, 141, 176, 177, 182, 183, 185, 189, 190, 191, 193, 196, 211, 216, 220, 253 Burial 16, 28, 35, 87, 263, 270, 278, Catenae 179, 181 Centurion 211, 234, 235, 242, 243, 244 Chapter division(s) 173, 174, 175 Christology 158, 173, 211, 220, 254 Church(es) 1, 10, 42, 48, 102, 121, 124, 125, 141, 154, 160, 163, 228, 250, 252, 257, 260, 270, 272, 275, 277, 279, 280, 28 Codex Alexandrinus (A 02) 182, 183, 184, 185, 190, 195, 197 Codex Bezae (D 05) 184, 185, 190 Codex Coislinianus (H 015) 187 Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C 04) 182, 184, 185, 197 Codex Sinaiticus (‫ א‬01) 135, 181 Codex Vaticanus (B 03) 135, 179 Codex Zacynthius (Ξ 040) 179, 184 Confess/confession 85, 92, 159, 160, 163, 211, 213 Cross(es) 85, 91, 97, 140, 157, 248, 257, 258, 261, 262, 263, 265, 278, 279 Cult(s)/cultic 16, 114, 115, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 209, 210, 265, 266, 267, 268, 271, 273, 274, 277, 278, 279, 281 Curse(s) 11, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 34, 53, 54, 57, 94, 160, 254, 256 Cyril of Jerusalem 15, 16, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263

314

Subject Index

Daphne 16, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 275, 276, 279, 280 Dead Sea Scrolls 11, 41, 45, 46, 49, 52, 63 Deaf/deafness 43, 62, 68, 132, 134, 138, 164 Deliver/deliverance 12, 51, 80, 95, 98, 99, 100, 102, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 112, 116, 117, 130 Demiurge/δημιουργός 233 Demon(s)/daimon(es)/demonic/demonise d/demonisation 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 80, 86, 89, 90, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105,106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 117, 118, 122, 130, 132, 133, 134, 137, 140, 141, 149, 153, 154, 155, 157, 160, 162, 163, 164, 166, 175, 176, 177, 205, 206, 212, 214, 216, 217, 222, 265, 266, 269, 271, 272, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282 Destroyer, the 23 Devil 30, 33, 35, 36, 87, 92, 93, 95, 96, 106, 107, 140, 205, 280 Devotional practice(s) 14, 156, 157, 158, 161, 166 Disciple(s)/discipleship 12, 13, 23, 42, 68, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, 113, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 142, 144, 153, 174, 176, 188, 189, 194, 198, 209, 211, 229 Divine passive 78, 79 Divine warrior 69, 71, 74 Emic and etic perspectives 14, 20, 177, 205 Enochic traditions 41, 48, 49, 53, 63 Epistemology/epistemological 86, 88, 98, 178, 188, 239, 251 Eusebian – apparatus 181, 182, 183, 199 – canon 179, 180, 181, 203 Euthalian apparatus 187, 188 Exorcism(s)/exorcise/exorcist(s)/exorcistic 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 34, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 63, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 72, 74, 75, 80, 90, 96, 97, 101, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 110,

111, 112, 116, 121, 124, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 138, 140, 141, 143, 144, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 173, 176, 205, 206, 216, 232, 252, 280, 281 Expulsion 11, 16, 19, 28, 30, 32, 34, 37, 97, 98, 160, 276, 277 Flesh/fleshly 49, 51, 52, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 107, 110, 160, 189, 192 Forgive/forgiveness 11, 12, 52, 54, 55, 61, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 90, 134, 153, 241, 242, 244 Greek Magical Papyri 73, 150, 151, 162, 167 Heal/healer(s)/healing(s) 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 26, 29, 31, 32, 42, 43, 49, 54, 55, 61, 63, 66, 68, 75, 76, 77, 78, 85, 89, 90, 92, 93, 96, 97, 102, 106, 108, 109, 113, 116, 117,121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134,135, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 149, 150, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 173, 175, 176, 177, 183, 189, 190, 193, 198, 205, 206, 207, 209, 211, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 220, 223, 224, 227, 231, 232, 234, 241, 242, 243, 244, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 262, 263, 265, 270, 277 Heracleon 15, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244 Idolatry 26, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 270 Illness(es) 41, 42, 43, 49, 52, 54, 55, 62, 63, 66, 109, 110, 114, 139, 175, 243, 251, 258 Impurity 11, 27, 32, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 270 – moral 44, 45, 46, 50, 54, 55, 58 – ritual 45, 46, 50, 56 Incantation(s) 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 41, 43, 52, 53, 64, 66, 73, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 110, 113, 128, 130, 132, 149, 155, 162, 164, 165, 166

Subject Index Incarnation/incarnate 13, 14, 16, 139, 144, 176, 177, 194, 197, 199, 210, 237, 242, 243, 248, 252, 262 Invoke/invocation(s) 13, 14, 65, 73, 74, 108, 110, 111, 149, 150, 151, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 165, 166, 275 Jerusalem 31, 32, 46, 47, 56, 70, 74, 89, 108, 140, 250, 251, 260, 261, 281 Jesus – as healer/exorcist 13, 15, 16, 29, 30, 41, 42, 43, 44, 54, 58, 61, 65, 67, 68, 69, 72, 73, 80, 85, 89, 90, 97, 100, 111, 113, 125, 126, 129, 130, 131, 132, 134, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 162, 163, 164, 173, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 216, 217, 220, 223, 224, 232, 234, 242, 243, 244, 250, 251, 252, 253, 262, 263 – authority of 12, 61, 69, 75, 78, 80 – deliverance by 12 – exaltation of, 14, 104, 152, 156, 157, 166, 220, 268 – historical 11, 41, 58, 61, 69, 176 – identity of 13, 55, 86, 88, 90, 96, 97, 111, 118, 129, 139, 140, 199 – invocation of 14, 149 157, 159, 166 – resurrection of, 66, 87, 88, 89, 90, 97, 98, 104, 116, 139, 143, 156, 157, 175, 213, 240, 257, 263 – risen/exalted 14, 97, 116, 136, 137, 142, 156, 157, 161, 166 – name of 13, 14, 68, 73, 110, 116, 128, 133, 134, 144, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166 – silencing by 12, 99, 102, 103, 104, 105, 111, 112, 114 – traditions of 11, 61, 65, 125 – work/acts/miracles of 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 29, 30, 41, 42, 43, 44, 54, 58, 61, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 80, 85, 88, 89, 97, 100, 104, 111, 113, 121, 125, 126, 129, 130, 134, 135, 139, 140, 141, 143, 144, 153, 154, 155, 156, 162, 163, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 180, 185, 189, 191, 194, 195, 198, 205, 209, 210, 211, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 222, 223, 224, 253

315

Kephalaion (kephalaia) 14, 173, 174, 175, 177, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199 King/βασιλεύς/kingdom/βασιλεία 11, 12, 54, 56, 58, 65, 66, 85, 87, 90, 95, 96, 97, 103, 106, 125, 153, 190, 233, 235, 255, 256, 257, 258 Kingdom of God 11, 12, 58, 85, 87, 90, 96, 97, 125 Legion(s) 73, 74, 75, 96, 113, 163 Litter of Solomon 15, 248, 255, 257, 261 Magic/magical/magician(s) 10, 13, 14, 20, 33, 34, 42, 52, 56, 70, 121, 149, 150, 151, 152, 155, 156, 157, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 176, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 215, 219, 220, 222, 223, 229, 279 Mamzerim 49, 53, 56, 58 Mastema 49, 51, 53 Medicine(s)/medical 41, 54, 108, 109, 214, 236, 251 Miracle(s)/miraculous/miracle-worker(s) 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 29, 68, 85, 88, 89, 97, 98, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 153, 154, 155, 156, 162, 163, 164, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 183, 185, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 199, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 232, 248, 251, 252, 253, 254, 262, 263, 275, 280 Monk(s) 275, 281 Moral transformation 15, 177, 215, 224 Mute/muteness 62, 79, 132, 138, 164 Oath(s) 19, 22, 51, 53 Old Greek Chapters 14, 175, 182, 190, 197, 198, 199 Origen 14, 15, 35, 37, 74, 124, 155, 176, 177, 178, 189, 191, 192, 193, 198, 199, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 222, 223, 224, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 255 Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, the 33, 36, 138

316

Subject Index

Paralytic 15, 54, 76, 77, 78, 79, 134, 174, 183, 184, 185, 190, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 254, 255, 258, 261, 262, 263 Paratextual 14, 177, 179, 180, 184, 187, 199 Paul/Pauline 10, 12, 13, 15, 45, 86, 87, 89, 94, 95, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 105, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 137, 138, 143, 144, 151, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 165, 166, 175, 188, 192, 200, 203, 221, 228, 229, 231, 237, 238, 240, 241, 244, 245, 272 Pericopai 181, 183, 186 Peter 85, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96, 101, 116, 128, 129, 134, 152, 153, 160, 164, 165, 166, 181, 188, 189, 208, 221, 262 Pinax (pinakes) 173, 174, 182, 186, 188, 190, 195, 197, 199, 248, 262 Pray/prayer(s) 10, 42, 49, 51, 52, 54, 64, 67, 68, 71, 77, 98, 131, 132, 133, 134, 154, 155, 161 – of Nabonidus (4Q242), 54, 77 Prophet(s)/prophetic 11, 12, 28, 47, 50, 55, 69, 70, 76, 78, 80, 86, 101, 103, 128, 144, 155, 208, 209, 216, 257 Pure/purity 41, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 56, 74, 107, 267 Rebuke/ἐπιτιμάω/ ‫ גער‬19, 31, 33, 34, 35, 70, 71, 85, 89, 91, 92, 97, 100, 105, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 130, 131, 164, 183, 197 Ritual practices 149, 150, 155, 158, 166 Ritual(s) 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34, 37, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51, 56, 134, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 166, 259, 265, 272, 274, 277, 278 Rome/Roman 9, 13, 15, 41, 47, 115, 116, 119, 129, 136, 138, 149, 150, 155, 156, 162, 163, 166, 167, 178, 192, 201, 203, 205, 209, 214, 216, 218, 219, 225, 226, 228, 230, 235, 238, 240, 242, 244, 258, 262, 264, 275, 277 Royal official/βασιλικός 15, 227, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 242, 243, 244

Satan 11, 12, 13, 33, 49, 52, 58, 62, 63, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 104, 106, 107, 108, 112, 122, 130, 141, 143, 144, 160 Scale disease(s) 11, 43, 45, 54, 56, 57, 58 Serapeum, the 16, 266, 272, 274, 275, 276, 279, 281, 282 Sick/sickness 10, 54, 62, 67, 68, 78, 89, 121, 130, 132, 134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 176, 251, 252, 253, 263 Sign(s)/σημεῖον (σημεῖα) 11, 47, 58, 121, 122, 125, 126, 127, 137, 138, 139, 144, 152, 153, 164, 174, 176, 181, 185, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 198, 199, 211, 238, 239, 248, 256, 257, 279 Silence/silencing 12, 13, 16, 89, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 116, 118, 269, 270, 271, 275, 276, 277 Solomon(ic) 15, 34, 65, 66, 67, 73, 109, 157, 162, 248, 249, 255, 257, 258, 259, 261, 262, 263 Sorcerer/sorcery 14, 48, 154, 176, 208, 210, 213, 214, 221, 223 Spirit(s) – evil 11, 34, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 64, 65, 71, 74, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 122, 151 – impure 11, 46, 47, 48, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58 – of Deceit 50, 51, 63 – python 12, 99, 100, 101, 106, 114 – unclean 30, 43, 44, 46, 47, 51, 52, 55, 59, 62, 74, 75, 82, 100, 114, 117 Statue(s) 16, 266, 267, 270, 271, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279 Suffer/suffering 10, 16, 43, 57, 62, 67, 85, 87, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 104, 113, 116, 134, 153, 232, 241, 242, 244, 248, 252, 258, 262, 263, 275 Synoptic Gospels/tradition(s)/account(s) 11, 12, 15, 41, 42, 43, 61, 62, 65, 73, 77, 137, 138, 140, 143, 209, 227, 234, 235, 238, 242, 243, 244 Tefillin 42 Temple(s) 16, 45, 50, 65, 73, 78, 79, 90, 115, 116, 129, 164, 182, 210, 265, 266, 267, 268, 271, 272, 273, 274,

Subject Index 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282 Theurgy 189, 273 Titlos (titloi) 14, 173, 174, 177, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 193, 195, 196, 197, 199 Unclean/uncleanness 29, 30, 34, 43, 44, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 62, 74, 75, 99, 100, 101, 106, 114, 117, 134

317

Valentinian(s)/Valentinianism 15, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 233, 234, 235, 238, 242, 243, 244 Vision(s)/Vision account(s) 11, 19, 20, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37 Watchers, the 48, 53, 54, 63 Wonder(s)/wonder-working 14, 102, 121, 122, 126, 127, 153, 174, 175, 176, 177, 189, 190, 191, 195, 199, 211, 219, 220, 238, 239