I. BY THE PRINCE OF DEMONS: BINDING, MAGICAL EXORCISM
‘So Ornias went and said to
Beelzeboul, "Come, Solomon calleth thee."
And Beelzeboul said, "Tell
me, who is this Solomon of whom you speak."
And Ornias cast the ring upon the
breast of Beelzeboul, saying, "Solomon
the King calleth thee." And
Beelzeboul cried out with a loud voice, and
cast forth a great flame of fire,
and rose up and followed Ornias.’
~ The Testament of Solomon, XIII ~
Having directly witnessed Jesus’ miraculous cures
and his authoritative command over demons, the Pharisees grow increasingly
suspicious of his activities and eventually charge him with being in collusion
with demonic beings and using Beelzebul as the authority by which he performs
his miracles (Mk. 3:22//Mt. 12:24//Lk. 11:15). The presence of this allegation
in all three Synoptic Gospels suggests that this confrontation between Jesus and
the Pharisees was a well-documented event that can be traced back to the
authentic Jesus tradition and/or that the Gospel writers considered this story
to be a valuable literary vehicle through which to reveal that Jesus was acting
in the power of the Holy Spirit (Mt. 12:31//Mk. 3:29//Lk. 12:10). It is
unlikely that the evangelists would deliberately invent an accusation in which
an alternative power source for Jesus’ miracles is proposed since this could
potentially tarnish the divine nature and messianic authority of Jesus.
Equally, if the ultimate purpose of the accusation is to reveal the presence of
the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ ministry, then surely it would have been far simpler
and less harmful to have Jesus make an instantaneous revelation of his divine
power source without the need for hostile provocation. Whether the allegation
made by the Pharisees is to be understood as Beelzebul’s possession of Jesus,
or Jesus’ possession of Beelzebul, is of central importance for the value of
this passage to our present study. The former reading suggests that Jesus was
possessed, however the latter clearly warrants a charge of magic.
There are two charges made against Jesus in Mark’s
account; that he has Beelzebul (Βεελζεβοὺλ ἔχει, 3:22) and that he is using Beelzebul to carry out his exorcisms (‘by
the prince of demons he casts out demons’, 3:22). [1] Whether ἔχει (‘to have’) in Mk. 3:22 signifies possession by a demon or the
possession of a demon is subject to much debate. Certainly, situating
the Pharisees’ claim that Jesus has Beelzebul (Mk. 3:22) immediately following
the observation that ‘he is beside himself’ (Mk. 3:21) and linking the two
verses via the conjunctive , the author
of Mark suggests that Jesus is possessed by Beelzebul and therefore he ‘is
beside himself’, ie. exhibiting possession behaviour.[2]
Although the location of the passage in Mark
supports a reading of demonic possession, I would suggest that the Pharisees’
accusation is not concerned with Jesus’ possession by Beelzebul, but his
control of Beelzebul. Since Matthew and Luke make no mention of
possession in their parallel accounts and simply retain the accusation of using
Beelzebul to cast out demons (Mt. 12:24//Lk. 11:15), we may safely assume that
they do not intend to address any theories of possession. Furthermore, the
accusation is pre-emptively reinforced without reference to possession traits
by the author of Matthew in 9:34: ‘he casts out demons by the prince of
demons’. If the allegation made by the Pharisees is not one of possession but
of spirit control, then this is clearly a charge of magic.
The implicit charge of the magical manipulation of
Beelzebul in this passage is drawn out in the parallel allegation found in the Acts
of Pilate 1.1 (‘they say unto him: He is a sorcerer, and by Beelzebub the
prince of the devils he casteth out devils’) and I would suggest a similar
reading of magical spirit manipulation in Mk. 3:22//Mt. 12:24//Lk. 11:15. Why
the Pharisees would raise a charge of magic when their own exorcists were
engaging in the very same activities is puzzling, especially since the Jewish
exorcists were often suspected of practising magic themselves. [3] Noticing this weakness in the Pharisees’ argument, Jesus defends his
actions by questioning the spiritual authority used by the Jewish exorcists to
carry out their exorcisms (Mt. 12:27//Lk. 11:19). The answer to which the
Pharisees are silently compelled is that both Jesus and the Jewish exorcists
act in the same, legitimate power. Morton Smith observes this discrepancy and
suggests that since the other exorcists were admired while Jesus was accused of
magic there must have been ‘some difference, between him and them, which led to
his being charged with magic.’[4] Either the Pharisees were
secretly hoping that a comparison would not be drawn to their own exorcists, or
Jesus exhibited behaviour and/or used specific techniques that were genuinely
considered to be magical and that differed noticeably from the methods employed
by the Jewish exorcists. Since the Gospel authors do not portray Jesus using
traditional exorcistic techniques such as the use of prayer, herbs and amulets
when exorcising demons, the enemies of Jesus may well have assumed, in the
absence of these methods, that his miracles were achieved through the magical
manipulation of a demonic power. Exorcists regularly encountered an allegation
of magic in the ancient world as the procedures used to control demons in order
to exorcise them were often identical to the techniques used to employ demons
in the service of a magician. This suspicion was exacerbated by rumours that were rife in the early
centuries concerning magicians such as Simon Magus, who was accused of
performing his miracles using a demon (hence the activities of Simon may have
influenced the accusation in Jn. 8:48 ‘Are we not right in saying that you are
a Samaritan and have a demon?’).[5] As a result,
demons, or even Satan himself, were often considered to be the powers behind
the operations of enemies and the indictment that an opponent performed magic
with the aid of demons was a common polemical tool in the ancient world.[6]
If the accusation made against Jesus in Mk. 3:22
has its source in the authentic Jesus tradition, then in view of the close
association between exorcism and magical practice in the ancient world it is
understandable that questions arose concerning Jesus’ power source and
accusations of magical demon control were made against him, particularly as
Jesus is presented by the Gospel authors as being far from naïve in the
operations of evil spirits (eg Lk. 11:24-26). Alternatively, if the presence of
the Pharisees’ charge simply functions as an opportunity for the Gospel authors
to combat claims of magical spirit manipulation, then we would naturally expect
Jesus to respond with evidence to the contrary. This effect is partly achieved
by Jesus’ assertion that the Pharisees blaspheme against the Holy Spirit (Mk.
3:29//Mt. 12:31//Lk. 12:10), however certain elements in the convoluted
crescendo which concludes with this statement reveal that Jesus has a keen
awareness of the terminology and methods used to control demons and his
demonstration of this knowledge has far reaching implications for magical
practice.
II. THE MAGICAL
BINDING OF SPIRITS IN THE ANCIENT WORLD
Even to those entirely unfamiliar with the vocabulary of ancient magic, the principles of ‘binding’ are self-explanatory; by binding something you are either restraining it from operating or forcefully uniting it with something else. Methods of ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ are largely based on the theory of ‘sympathetic’ magic which functions on the premise that the spiritual world is tied to the corporeal world by a series of invisible threads that can be manipulated by the magician on earth to achieve similar effects in the heavenly realm. Therefore, whatever is bound or loosed by the magician on the earth is bound or loosed in heaven. Unsurprisingly, ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ are terms that were closely linked in antiquity with exorcism and the control of demons. The apocalyptic writings in particular refer to ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ as a means of restraining (binding) and releasing (loosing) demons. For example, the angel Raphael binds the demon Asmodeus in Tobit 8:3, Raphael binds Azaz’el in 1 Enoch 10:4-6 and the new priest is able to bind Beliar in the Testament of Levi. 18:12. Similarly, Satan is bound (ἔδησεν) for a thousand years in Rev. 20:2 (although Rev. 20:3 says that he will be loosed (λυθηναι) after serving this time).
However, the use of binding techniques was not
restricted to the harm or manipulation of others. Since the world-view that was
active in the first centuries associated sickness with demonic influence, many
healers considered it necessary to bind the demon responsible for an illness in
order to bring about the cure. Therefore binding and loosing are both terms
that were closely related to healing in the ancient world.
III. BINDING AS A METHOD OF HEALING
Evidence of a correlation between demons and sickness
can be found in a variety of biblical and literary sources dating from the
second century BC to the first century AD. For instance, the Book of Tobit
links sickness with demons and the appearance of a disease as a demonic figure
is described by Philostratus who writes that Apollonius halted the spread of
the plague in Ephesus by recognising that the demon responsible was disguised
as a beggar and having him stoned.[11] With demonic spirits considered
to be the source of most illnesses, exorcism was understandably a popular form
of healing in the ancient world, for example the Egyptians considered diseases
to be caused by demons which must be exorcised in order to bring about a cure.
Demons are typically the source of illness in
Luke’s Gospel. For example, the exorcism of the mute demon in Lk. 11:14 results
in the man’s ability to speak. Similarly, Jesus rebukes a fever in order to cure
Simon’s mother-in-law in Lk. 4:38 and since the address is directed to the
fever rather the woman and the term ἐπιτιμάω has previously been used as a command to control
demons (Lk. 4:35), we can safely assume that the author of Luke intended this
healing to be understood as an exorcism. Furthermore, the link between being
‘bound’ by Satan and a resulting illness is made explicit in Luke’s account of
the healing of a woman with a spirit of infirmity in which Jesus asks ‘ought
not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound for eighteen years,
be loosed from this bond (λυθηναι ἀπο του δεσμου) on the Sabbath day?’ (Lk. 13:16). In addition to these accounts, the
loosing of the bound tongue in the story of the healing of the deaf man in Mk. 7:31-35
is considered to be a typical example of ancient binding magic. Loosing, as a
method of healing, was often considered to be equally as important as binding
the demons causing the illness, as Morton Smith comments:
‘a cure may be described as ‘the bond’ of a disease
being ‘loosed’. A helpful
magician like Jesus will not only ‘loose’ spells,
afflicted persons…but will also
Some commentators have suggested that this healing
resembles an exorcism due to its inclusion of ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’
terminology. Although not referring directly to this passage in Mark’s Gospel,
some consider the actions of ‘looking upwards, sighing or groaning, making hand
gestures…spitting, invoking the deity and speaking ‘nonsense’ words or letter
strings’) to be typical of exorcistic behaviour, thereby suggesting that we
should understand this healing as an exorcism.
While binding demons in order to cast them out from
the sick was a common practice in the ancient world and the Gospel writers
present Jesus engaging in exorcistic cures, the Pharisees’ charge in Mk.
3:22//Mt. 12:24//Lk. 11:15 is not simply one of binding Beelzebul but of
possessing Beelzebul. As we have previously considered, the close
association between exorcism and magic in antiquity almost guarantees that some
shrewd observers of Jesus’ exorcisms would have assumed that if Jesus was able
to effectively command demons and exorcise them, then he could also be in
possession of a demon through which he could perform magic. If Jesus’
subsequent response to the Pharisees’ charge of magic had been simply to refute
this suggestion, then the allegation could be dismissed as a malicious attack
from Jesus’ opponents. However, by using terminology which reveals Jesus’
knowledge of magical methods used to bind spirits, including demonic powers,
the Gospel authors situate evidence of magical demonic manipulation in the words
of Jesus himself.
IV. ‘HOW CAN SATAN CAST OUT SATAN?’ THE MAGICAL USE OF
BOUND DEMONS IN EXORCISM
I would suggest that it is within this tradition of
‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ demonic beings that we are to interpret Jesus’ binding
of the ‘strong man’ in Mk. 3:27//Mt. 12:29. By asking ‘how can Satan cast out
Satan?’ (Mk. 3:23) and using the imagery of the divided kingdom (Mt.
12:25-26//Mk. 3:24-26//Lk. 11:17-18), Jesus ridicules the Pharisees’ claim that
he is using Beelzebul to perform his exorcisms and suggests that their
allegation is nonsensical. However, in accordance with the theories of ancient
magic, this possibility would be entirely plausible.
Both sacred and secular accounts of demonic binding
in antiquity reveal that a bound demon is considered to be at the mercy of the
one controlling it and it can therefore be expelled from the body of the
possessed or compelled to carry out the wishes of the exorcist, even driving
out demons on the exorcist’s behalf.[16] The extensive tradition surrounding the exorcistic prowess of Solomon in
the Testament of Solomon testifies to this conviction, since he was
commonly thought to have had control over a demon that in turn had control over
many others.[17] Consequently, binding formulas
were also associated with magicians who used them as a method of gaining the
compliance of larger demonic figures, such as Satan himself, who would command
the lesser demons to assist the magician with his incantations and magical
rituals.
In order to
silence all speculative accusations and shift the focus away from the figure of
Beelzebul, Jesus ultimately identifies the power though which he accomplishes
his ‘bindings’ as the Holy Spirit (Mk. 3:29//Mt. 12:31//Lk. 12:10). Although
the full implications of Jesus’ words regarding the Holy Spirit in this passage
will be addressed later, the presence of a divine spirit here does not
automatically exclude the possibility that it is a demonic spirit that is the
principal executor of the exorcism. Indeed, the presence of the Holy Spirit
when binding demons may well be indicative of magic in itself. Since demons
were often bound using the influence of a higher, divine power, the Holy Spirit
may be identified in this passage as the power through which Jesus gains the
authority to bind Beelzebul (we must also bear in mind that the employment of a
higher, benevolent power when binding demons was often emphasised by magicians
in the ancient world in an attempt to acquit themselves from a charge of
demonic magic).
If we can concede that the power source behind
Jesus’ exorcisms is not Beelzebul but the Holy Spirit on the strength of Mk.
3:29//Mt. 12:31//Lk. 12:10 alone, then suspicions remain concerning other
passages in the Gospel of Matthew (specifically Mt. 16:19 and 18:18) in which
the terminology used by the evangelist carries strong implications of magical
spirit-binding.
V. ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN: BINDING AND SYMPATHETIC
MAGIC
In Mt 16:19 and 18:18, the disciples are told
‘whatever you bind (δήσης) on earth
shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose (λύσης) on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ The author of Matthew is not
clear on the meaning of these terms and this has led to some considerable
scholarly confusion regarding the purpose of this passage. Some have suggested
that the authority to ‘bind’ and ‘loose’ that is granted to the disciples is
the power is to make important doctrinal judgments, to determine which actions
are forbidden or permitted, or even to absolve or punish sins.
I would suggest that the binding and loosing
terminology in this passage is to be understood in the same context as the
binding of the strong man in Mk. 3:27//Mt. 12:29. Therefore the phrasing of Mt.
16:19 and 18:18 is not purely that of apocalyptic symbolism but it constitutes
an appeal to the theory of sympathetic magic and is thereby a further
indication of Jesus’ extensive knowledge of binding techniques. That the
ability to ‘bind’ and ‘loose’ in Mt. 16:19 and 18:18 refers explicitly to
magical spirit manipulation is confirmed by the observation that the ἐξουσία given to the disciples includes the ability to control demons, hence
Jesus’ warning to the seventy (two) in Lk. 10:20: ‘do not rejoice in this that
the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in
heaven’ (my emphasis). Some scholars are keen to dismiss the theory that Jesus teaches Peter
and the disciples the magical technique of binding or loosing, however with its
appeal to the theory of sympathetic magic and explicit use of binding
terminology, I would suggest that these two passages are to be understood as an
instruction to the disciples regarding the manipulation of spirits in the
ancient world.
Although evidence of Jesus’ knowledge of binding
techniques alone does not sufficiently warrant a charge of magic, reports of
the application of these techniques would be unquestionably
incriminating. I would suggest that the Gospel writers provide the reader with
evidence that Jesus was actively using magical binding techniques in their
descriptions of his exorcism of the Demoniac in the Capernaum Synagogue (Mk.
1:21-28//Lk. 4:31-37) and the Gerasene Demoniac (Mk. 5:1-20//Mt. 8:28-34//Lk.
8:26-39).
VI.
BINDING ‘IN ACTION’: MAGICAL EXORCISM AND THE STRUGGLE FOR PRETERNATURAL
CONTROL BETWEEN JESUS AND DEMONIAC IN MK. 1:21-28 AND 5:1-20
When defending against the possibility that magical
procedures were used by Jesus in his exorcisms, some scholars point to an
absence of Solomonic techniques such as roots, rings and lengthy invocations
and prefer instead to emphasise Jesus’ messianic authority as the effective
element when casting out demons. However, as we have previously established
when considering the techniques of natural magic, ancient magic did not
necessarily rely on physical rituals alone but often simply employed words or spoken
formulae. With this in mind, although physical techniques are largely absent in
the exorcism accounts, Jesus’ spoken exorcistic commands could be considered to
be magical formulas. Examples of this type of magical exorcism can be found in
Mk. 1:21-28 and 5:1-20. In both of these exorcism accounts, Jesus and the
possessing spirits are engaged in an intense struggle in which each opponent is
attempting to gain the upper hand by using a series of spoken magical
apotropaic formulas to overpower the other. The author’s attention to detail
regarding the techniques employed by Jesus in order to defend himself and gain
authority over the attacking demon within these passages reveals parallels
relating not only to magical exorcism, but also to binding methods frequently
used by magicians when controlling spirits.
VII.
THE DEMONIAC IN THE CAPERNAUM SYNAGOGUE (MK. 1:21-28//LK. 4:31-37)
In response to the demoniac’s attempt to overpower
him in Mk. 1:24, Jesus rebukes the demon (ἐπετίμησεν αὐτω) and cries out to it: φιμωθητι και ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτου (Mk. 1:25). The Greek term ἐπιτιμάω, commonly
translated as ‘rebuke’, often appears in Mark’s Gospel when someone or
something is being silenced (cf. Mk. 1:25, 3:11, 4:39, 8:30, 10:13 and 10:48).
Although the presence of ἐπιτιμάω in this
passage does not carry any obvious magical connotations, the evangelist’s
choice of φιμώθητι (‘be silent’) rather than σιώπα (‘be quiet’, cf. Mk. 10:48) is particularly significant since this word
has a strong magical resonance. The term φιμώθητι appears frequently throughout the magical papyri
and carries the sense of binding or restricting. The use of a silencing command
as a binding formula to restrict the activities of a spirit is common in the
Greek magical papyri. For example, in the Mithras Liturgy (PGM IV. 475-829) the
magician is instructed as follows:
‘And you will see the gods staring intently at you
and rushing at you.
So at once put your right finger on your mouth and
say: ‘Silence!
Silence! Silence! (cιγη, cιγη, cιγη,) Symbol of the living,
incorruptible
god! Guard me,
Silence (cιγη), NECHTHEIR THANMELOU!”
In view of the widespread use of the silencing
formula as a magical binding technique, it is highly probable that the command φιμώθητι και ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτου in Mk. 1:25 is not simply intended to quieten the
demon in order to prevent it from making a public declaration of Jesus’
messianic identity, but it is also a defensive binding technique employed by
Jesus to restrain the demon from continuing its attempts to manipulate him.
However, the presence of a silencing formula in this passage is not the only instance
of a binding technique in Jesus’ exorcisms. The short and apparently innocuous
question ‘what is your name?’ in Mk. 5:9//Lk. 8:30 demonstrates Jesus’
knowledge of another well-documented magical binding device; the use of the
name.
VIII.
THE GERASENE DEMONIAC (MK. 5:1-20//MT. 8:28-34//LK. 8:26-39)
We have previously observed that the knowledge of
the name of a god or person was essential when seeking to gain control over a
spiritual or human foe in order to restrain them and force them to comply with
the magician’s own bidding. The technique of finding out the secret identity of
a demon in order to achieve its expulsion has been extensively documented
throughout history. For example, in The Testament of Solomon, Solomon
asks a demon ‘by what name are you and your demons thwarted?’ to which the
demon answers: ‘If I tell you his name, I place not only myself in chains, but
also the legion of demons under me’ (11:6). Although the inclusion of ‘legion’
in this instance suggests a dependence on Mk. 5:9, this passage underlines the
ancient belief that the possession of the demon’s name was essential when
controlling demonic powers. In addition, the magical use of the name appears
throughout the Greek magical papyri. In PGMI. 160-161 the magician demands
‘what is your divine name? Reveal it to me ungrudgingly, so that I may call
upon it’ and in PGM IV. 3038 the magician commands: ‘I conjure you, every
daimonic spirit, to tell whatever sort you may be.’
Since any magician involved in the manipulation of
the spirits of the demonic or the dead would be well practiced at this
particular binding procedure, its appearance in Mk. 5:9//Lk. 8:30 is highly
suspect. The question τί ὄνομά σοι; (‘what is
your name?’) has even forced many scholars who are reluctant to concede that
magical techniques are present in Jesus’ behaviour. It is difficult to
understand why Jesus’ question to the demoniac has been preserved by the
evangelists as it not only suggests that Jesus’ knowledge of the demon is
limited but the early reader may well have been aware of the magical
implications of this technique and consequently applied a magical
interpretation to Jesus’ exorcism. If the question is retained in the Markan
and Lukan versions since it was required in order to reveal the name of the
demon, then we may well ask what other equally dubious techniques have been
omitted from the exorcism accounts when they were deemed by the redactors to be
superfluous or to carry connotations of magical behaviour.
That the author of Matthew was aware of magical
connotations in this pericope is suggested by his drastic alteration of the
Markan version. He appears to have omitted all signs of a struggle between
Jesus and the demon and the two opposing sides have very little interaction.
While the author of Mark states that the demoniac κράξας φωνη μεγάλη (Mk. 5:7), the author of Matthew tones this down
to ἔκραξαν, thereby softening the severity of the demon’s aggression (Mt. 8:29).
In addition, there is no indication in the Matthean version that the demons
have ignored Jesus’ first command for them to leave and Jesus’ request for the
name, and consequently the name ‘Legion’, are also omitted. Since the author of
Matthew’s Gospel is often keen to lay emphasis upon Jesus’ messianic authority
and word, he may have chosen to present a Jesus who has no use of exorcistic
technique. However, since Jesus’ request for the name of the demon is clearly
indicative of magic, the author of Matthew may also have felt compelled to
remove this particular indication of a magical technique at work in Jesus’
exorcisms. Furthermore, the omission of the initial failed exorcistic attempt
may also have been necessary to remove the possibility that Jesus had to
reapply his exorcistic words, especially since the reapplication of techniques
has previously been established as a hallmark of ancient magic.[19]
Having taken great care to remove elements from the
Markan version that he considered to be particularly suspicious, the author of
Matthew’s insertion of the exorcistic command ‘go’ (ὑπάγετε, 8:32) is surprising. Although it is highly likely that an exorcistic
word, phrase or gesture would have been given at this point in Jesus’ exorcism,
the Markan and Lukan accounts do not include a word of command by which the
demons are transferred into the pigs, they simply state ‘he gave them leave’ (ἐπέτρεψεν αὐτοις, Mk. 5:13//Lk. 8:32).[20] The christological objectives of
the author of Matthew could account for this emphasis on Jesus’ authoritative
word of expulsion, particularly if this passage was considered to provide a
demonstration of Jesus’ messianic authority. If this is the case, then this may
well account for why the story of the Gerasene demoniac is preserved in Matthew
and yet other exorcisms, such as the Capernaum exorcism, are omitted. However,
if the author of Matthew was excluding magical techniques from his Gospel then
he may have made a glaring oversight in this instance since this command of
expulsion in the form of a flee command appears frequently in rites of magical
exorcism.
In addition to the suspicious presence of a binding
technique and a flee formula within the Synoptic accounts of the Gerasene
exorcism, the transfer of demons into pigs also has its parallels in the
ancient magical tradition. Although some scholars believe that the pigs have a
symbolic purpose in this passage, the transfer of evil into objects,
particularly animals, was a common method of exorcism in the ancient world.[21] This procedure is demonstrated by
the Assyrian exorcists who would drive a goat carrying a person’s illness into
the wilderness where it would be slaughtered. Similarly, in Babylonia, demons
were cast into water which was then transferred into a container. The container
was broken and the water was poured on the ground, thereby destroying the
demon. More specifically, for comparative purposes with Mk. 5:11-13//Mt.
8:32//Lk. 8:32-33, a Sumerian text dating back to the second millennium BC
describes how a demon that is responsible for an illness is transferred to a
pig and the pig is subsequently sacrificed in order to effect a cure:
[Take] a piglet […],
[Place it] at the head of the patient,
Tear out its heart (and)
[Put it] on the upper part of the body of the
patient,
[Sprinkle] its blood around his bed,
Dismember the piglet to correspond to his limbs,
Spread them (the limbs of the piglet) on the sick
man….
…Give the piglet as his substitute,
Give the flesh for his flesh, the blood for his
blood –
May (the demon) accept it!
The heart which you placed on his heart, you offer
instead of his heart –
Having observed first-hand Jesus’ domineering
authority when in dialogue with demonic beings, the Pharisees reasonably assume
that a man who commands demons can also make them work for him. Consequently,
the Pharisees accuse Jesus of possessing Beelzebul and using him as a powerful
tool by which he executes his miracles (Mk. 3:22//Mt. 12:24//Lk. 11:15). When
considering Jesus’ exorcistic behaviour in the context of early belief systems
that were active in the cultural milieu of the first century, it is clear that
the allegation made by the Pharisees would have been considered by many people
to be an entirely sensible rationalisation of Jesus’ activities. As a result,
an accusation of demonic influence could well have been made against Jesus at
some point in his ministry and these rumours may have been the impetus for the
Gospel authors to address this allegation directly in this passage. However,
although Jesus ridicules this possibility and claims that his power derives
from the Holy Spirit (Mk. 3:29//Mt. 12:31// Lk. 12:10), instead of seizing the
opportunity to acquit Jesus of charges of demon possession, the Gospel writers
have Jesus elaborate on how it is necessary to ‘bind’ Beelzebul and gain
control over him in order to free the possessed from their ordeal. Not being
satisfied by suggesting demonic manipulation in this passage alone, the Gospel
authors also portray Jesus as employing ‘binding and loosing’ terminology and
demonstrating his knowledge of the magical laws of sympathy elsewhere in the
Gospels (Mt. 16:19, 18:18). Furthermore, the Gospel writers suggest that Jesus
was extremely knowledgeable regarding magical methods used to manipulate
spirits and entirely competent when applying binding techniques such as
silencing formulas and the request for a name. As these binding techniques are
employed successfully and Jesus boasts of his ability to bind demons, then for
his opponents to make the supplementary claim that these demons are being
employed in his service is entirely understandable, if not credible.
Nevertheless, if we can dispense with the possibility that Jesus was
manipulating demonic spirits on the basis that his power-source is ultimately
revealed to be the Holy Spirit (Mt. 12:31//Mk. 3:29//Lk. 12:10), the fact that
Jesus appears to competently employ these magical binding techniques throughout
the Gospels will suffice to demonstrate that he is far from ignorant of magical
devices used to manipulate spirits and entirely capable of their successful
application.
Extract from Helen Ingram (2007) Dragging Down Heaven: Jesus as Magician and Manipulator of Spirits in the Gospels, PhD, The University of Birmingham, UK.
[1] The same charge of ‘having a demon’ is brought
against Jesus in John 7:20 and against John the Baptist in Mt. 11:18//Lk. 7.33.
[2] A similar association between possession and madness is
explicitly made in Jn. 10:20 in which the people accuse Jesus saying: ‘he has a
demon, and he is mad’.
[3] For example, Celsus says that the Jews ‘worship
angels and are addicted to sorcery' (Origen, Con. Cels. 1.26). In
addition, Justin Martyr believes that the Jewish exorcists used magical
techniques and the name of God when performing their exorcisms (Justin Martyr, Dialogue
with Trypho, 85. 3).
[4] Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician, p. 143.
[5] See Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 26.2, Acts of
Peter V and the Clementine Recognitions II.
[6] Irenaeus, for example, believed that his enemies
perform their miracles through the help of evil spirits (Irenaues, Adv. Haer.
1.15.6).
[7] See PGM IV. 1227-64 (‘Rite for driving out
demons’) in which the magician states ‘Come out, daimon, since I bind you with
unbreakable adamantine fetters’ (IV. 1246).
[8] See PGM IV. 296-466 (‘Wondrous spell for binding a
lover’) in which the magician says ‘I adjure all demons in this place…attract
and bind her’ (IV. 350). 9
[9] For the use of curse tablets to inhibit an
opponent speaking in court, see Dickie, Magic & Magicians, p 17. For
other examples of bindings in the Greek magical papyri, see PGM VII. 985, PGM
XV. 1, PGM XXXII. 5 and PGM CI. 1.
[10] Faraone, ‘The Agnostic Context of Early Greek
Binding Spells’, p. 5.
[11] Philostratus, Life of
Apollonius, 4.10; 8.7.
[12] Smith, Jesus the Magician, p. 127.
[13] I say ‘Satan/Beelzebul’ here because Jesus
immediately responds to the charge of using Beelzebul (Mk. 3:22//Mt. 12:24//Lk.
11:15) by saying ‘how can Satan cast out Satan?’ (Mk. 3:23), thereby implying
that they are to be understood as the same individual.
[14] We are not told when or how the
binding happened, although it is assumed by many that it took place at the
temptation. For example, Ernest Best proposes that ‘Christ
has already bound Satan according to Mark 3:27,
δήσης, aorist subjunctive,
would suggest one definite act, and this must be…the Temptation’ (Ernest Best, The
Temptation and The Passion: The Markan Soteriology (SNTSMS 2;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965) p. 13).
[15] The tension between the Lukan phrase δακτύλω θεου and
Matthew’s πνεύμα will be addressed later in Chapter 13. However this is not the only
occasion in which the author of Luke has removed the word ‘bind’. For
example, the reference to Isaiah 61:1-2 in Luke 4:18 has been carefully edited
to remove the words ‘bind up the brokenhearted’.
[16] The binding of Azazel in 1 Enoch 10:4-6 is an
example of the binding of a demonic leader-figure as the first stage in the
defeat of the subordinate demons.
[17] The Testament of Solomon states that
Solomon was able to set his demon to work on building his temple (11f).
[18] See PGM IV.555-560 and 575-585 for three more
occurrences of ‘Silence! Silence!’.
[19] For the repetition of technique as a major
indicator of magical practice, see chapter 13.
[20] Morton Smith compares Mk. 5:13
to PGM LXI. 10: ‘I release you against her’ (avpolu,w se pro.j th.n
dei.na)
(Smith, Jesus the Magician, p. 110).
[21] Pliny asserted a belief in the transfer of evil
into objects (Pliny, Nat. Hist. 28.86).
[22] Translation by Frederick H. Cryer &
Marie-Louise Thomsen, The Athlone History of Witchcraft and Magic in Europe:
Biblical and Pagan Societies, vol. 1 (London: the Athlone Press,
2001) p. 71. For text, see R. C. Thompson, Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian
Tablets in the British Museum, vol. 17 (London, 1903) pl. 5-6: II. 43 –
III. 18 and for a translation of the whole text see Thompson, The Devils and
Evil Spirits of Babylon, pp. 13-25.
No comments:
Post a Comment