I. JESUS THE POSSESSOR OF SPIRITS?
There are a number of difficulties that arise when applying a
spirit-possession model to the relationship between Jesus and the Holy Spirit
as presented by the Gospel authors:
1. If the reader of the Gospels is to understand that Jesus was healing,
exorcising and teaching while in a possessed state, then we would naturally
expect to encounter evidence within the Gospels of the abnormal behaviour that
is typically associated with possessed individuals, such as fits, convulsions
and seizures. As reports of this type of behaviour are noticeably absent we may
reasonably conclude that Jesus did not exhibit these symptoms, although Davies’
suggestion that the evangelists would have edited out such potentially damaging
material is equally as credible.[1]
3. There are many other psychological disorders which imitate the
symptoms of possession but clearly do not involve the presence of an external,
supernatural being. For example, sudden and irrational changes in personality
and the notion of a new persona acting in a manner disconnected from the
consciousness of the original persona are both behaviours that are typical of
the psychological disorder known as ‘dissociation’, a common psychological
device that is adopted by an individual in order to deal with anxiety or
traumatic situations. When an individual employs a series of alternate personas
as a coping mechanism and each of these persona begin to function as an
individual persona within themselves, then this normally triggers the condition
known as Multiple Personality Disorder.
4. A fourth difficulty when applying Davies’ spirit-possession theory is
that the Gospel passages cited by Davies as examples of possession behaviour,
namely the odd behaviour in Mk. 3:21 and the teaching on alter-persona speech in
Mk. 13:11, are also observations made of magicians in antiquity who have
possession of a spirit or are able to manipulate spiritual powers. Although
Morton Smith agrees that ‘he is beside himself’ (ὅτι ᾿εξέστη, Mk. 3:21) suggests
a form of abnormal behaviour, he also draws close attention to the link between
‘magic’ and ‘mania’ that was made during and in the centuries following Jesus’
lifetime and adds:
‘Magicians who want to make demons obey often scream their spells,
5. Interpreting Mk. 3:21 as indicative of abnormal behaviour is a reasonable assumption, however the implication that the crowd had carried out an in-depth psychological analysis of Jesus and arrived at the conclusion that his persona was absent or displaced is a little more difficult to comprehend. Furthermore, the terminology used in Mk. 3:21 is present in other Gospel passages which are clearly devoid of any connotations of possession. For example, in response to Jesus’ exorcism in Mt. 12.23 the author of Matthew writes that the crowds were ‘amazed’ (ἐξίσταντο). Are we to understand that the crowd are also spirit-possessed in this instance? It is more probable that use of this term in this instance is simply intended to portray a sense of wonder and amazement.[3]
6. In addition to the difficulties encountered when establishing
symptoms of physical possession in Jesus’ behaviour, an alteration in speech
does not inevitably indicate passive possession since it was explicitly
linked in antiquity with the practice of magic and the manipulation of
prophetic spirits. For example, the possession of a spirit that alters the
voice of the magician is mentioned in Isaiah 29:4:
‘Then deep from the earth you shall speak,
from low in the dust your words shall come;
your voice shall be as one that has a familiar spirit out of the ground
and your speech shall whisper out of the dust.’
The translation of ob within
this passage as ‘one that has a familiar spirit’ (the version given by the KJV)
describes the common technique that was used by magicians in the ancient world
to command spirits to enter into their bodies in a form of ‘controlled
possession’. It is not clear, however, whether the term was generally used
to refer to the magician or the spirit itself. The Brown-Driver-Briggs
Hebrew and English Lexicon translates bw) as ‘skin-bottle’, an
interpretation which embraces the notion that the magician was the vessel for
the spirit and/or that the voice of the spirit was deep and guttural and seemed
to come from the abdomen or the ‘armpit’. In the classical period these
magicians were called ventriloquists or engastrimuthoi
(‘belly-talkers’) as the deep guttural voices appeared to come from deep in
their stomachs. Similarly the Latin pytho was applied to the spirit
possessing the magician in the Greek mystery cults, hence the phenomena was
typically described as having ‘pytho in your belly.’ Morton Smith suggests, with particular reference to the witch of Endor
in I. Sam. 28:7, that ob refers to the spirits themselves and
hence ‘the man possessed is known as “one who has an ‘ob” (I Sam. 28:7), more
specifically, “one who has in him an ‘obot”.’[4] Smith elaborates on
the origin of these ‘obot’ as follows:
‘The 'obot (plural of 'ob) are a mysterious class of beings, commonly
said to be 'spirits of the dead,' but probably some sort of underworld deities. Although they are in the realm of the dead, and speak from the
earth in whispering voices (Isaiah 8.19; 29.4)’ [5]
Alternatively, Christophe Nihan proposes in his study of 1 Samuel 28
that the term ob is used in the Old Testament to refer
to the practice of necromancy and although it can be applied to the magician it
can also signify the spirit itself, since the Arabic ‘aba’
means ‘to return’ and the spirit is thought to ‘return’ to the earth. [6] Nihan concludes that
the use of the word ob can be explained by paying particular
attention to the Hebrew term ‘father’, therefore the term ‘would refer
specifically to a dead ancestor’ who could be consulted through necromancy.[7]
Since evidence found within the Old Testament reveals that the
possession of a familiar spirit often had a direct effect upon the speech of
the magician, we must rule out the immediate assumption that a change in speech
is a clear indicator of passive possession. On the contrary, an alteration in
speech may well indicate that the individual has actively engaged in magical
spirit manipulation and he is subsequently in possession of a familiar spirit
(we will come to examine the possession of familiar spirits below).
7. A further question which must be raised when considering Davies’
‘possessed-healer’ analogy is one of Jesus’ own awareness of his possessed
state. T. K. Oesterreich draws a clear distinction between a form of lucid
possession, in which self-awareness is maintained throughout the possession
experience, and hypnotic or somnambulistic possession, in which the individual
loses awareness of himself and is left with no memory of the events that took
place while in the possession trance.[8] Davies implies that
his model of spirit-possession belongs to the latter option, stating:
‘it is not uncommon for possessed people to be amnesiac to a greater or
lesser degree regarding their exploits while possessed, because their
If the miracles of
the Gospels were performed while Jesus was in a somnambulistic state, then we
would expect to encounter many instances of disorientation or confusion
immediately following the miracles or even indications that Jesus was unaware
that he had performed a miracle. Again, there is the likely possibility that
the evangelists would have omitted any reports of amnesiac behaviour. However,
the Gospels authors not only fail to record any amnesiac and disorientated
behaviour in their accounts of Jesus’ life, but they promote a strong theme
which is completely to the contrary – that Jesus demonstrated great authority
and control over his powers. As we shall examine in greater depth below, the
Gospel authors include numerous comments from both Jesus’ opponents and
followers regarding his ἐξουσια (‘authority’) in the
application of his powers and they assert that he is entirely capable of
transferring this power to his disciples (Mk. 6:7-13//Mt. 10:1//Lk. 9:1).
Either this emphasis on Jesus’ autonomy in the application of his powers was
invented by the evangelists in order to invalidate any rumours of spirit-
possession or these are authentic observations of the relationship between the historical Jesus and the power-source by which he performed his miracles.
Either way, by presenting Jesus in an autonomous and dominant role in respect
to his miracle-working δύναμις, the Gospel writers contradict the
theory that Jesus was occasionally in an amnesiac, behaviourally unstable and
psychologically passive state of spirit-possession.
II. OBSERVATIONS OF JESUS’ ἐξουσια IN THE GOSPELS
Since demon-possessed individuals and spirit-inspired prophets were an
everyday encounter in the ancient world, a first century audience would
presumably have been accustomed to recognising the symptoms of possession.
Therefore, if Jesus was exhibiting typical possession-like behaviour then we
would expect to encounter some allegations made by observers, in the polemical
materials at least, that he was possessed. But this is not the case. When the
Gospel authors include a response from the crowds immediately following a
healing or exorcism, the crowds do not comment on Jesus’ possession behaviour,
but instead on the noticeable degree of ἐξουσια that he holds over
his powers. For example, those who witness the exorcism of the Capernaum
demoniac immediately respond by questioning the authority behind the exorcism
(‘what is this? A new teaching! With authority (ἐξουσια) he commands even
the unclean spirits and they obey him’, Mk. 1:27//Lk. 4:36). Jesus’ autonomy in
the application of his powers is so prominent on certain occasions that the
people begin to fear (Mk. 9:14-16) and question the source of his personal
power (‘by what authority are you doing these things?’, Mk. 11:28//Mt.
21:23//Lk. 20:2).
Furthermore, since the common definition of the Greek word ἐξουσια is ‘freedom of
choice, right to act or decide’[10], the presence of
this term in the Gospels by its very definition starkly contradicts the passive
state that is central to Davies’ model of spirit-possession.
III. THE TRANSMISSION OF δύναμις TO THE DISCIPLES
(MK. 6:7-13//MT. 10:1//LK. 9:1; 10:17)
In all three Synoptic Gospels, Jesus grants a select group of his
disciples the ἐξουσια to cast out demons, heal the sick and
raise the dead (Mk. 6:7-13//Mt. 10:1//Lk. 9:1). By revealing that Jesus is able
to teach his techniques of healing and exorcism to others and having those who
have acquire these skills claim great success in their endeavours (cf. Lk.
10:17), the Gospel authors suggest that this power source cannot be exclusive
to Jesus and therefore the capability to perform miracles is not the result of
a spiritual entity that has possessed him alone. Furthermore, since
all three Synoptic authors imply that both Jesus and the disciples are capable
of summoning these miraculous powers at will whenever a healing or
exorcism is required, this clearly contradicts the typical model of possession
in which the possessing spirit dictates precisely at what time and to whom a
possession seizure will manifest itself. Further questions regarding the
exclusivity of this miracle-working power are raised in the account of Simon
Magus, who attempts to buy the power of the Holy Spirit in Acts 8:14-24, and
Jesus implies that the Jewish exorcists share in the same source of power to
exorcise demons in Mt. 12:27//Lk. 11:19. If we are to understand that Jesus’
miraculous powers were only effective when he was subjected to bouts of
possession by the Holy Spirit, is the reader to understand that the Jewish
exorcists were also spirit-possessed when they engaged in their miracle-working
activities?
Although precise details explaining how these powers are taught to the
disciples are not provided by the authors of the Synoptics, John’s Gospel
reveals that in one instance Jesus breathes the Holy Spirit into the
disciples (Jn. 20:22). Although John Hull indicates that Jesus breathes on the
eyes of the disciples in the Pistis Sophia[11], I would not consider
this passage to be comparable with the incident in Jn. 20:22, since by
breathing into the eyes of the disciples in the Pistis Sophia Jesus
intends to grant them a vision and not to imbue them with any spiritual power.
Alternatively, Morton Smith proposes that the reader should understand the
transmission of power to the disciples in Jn. 20:22 as the possession of the
disciples by the spirit of Jesus while he is still alive.[12] By interpreting the
act of breathing as the transference of spiritual power, Smith is appealing to
the ancient Hebrew correlation between the soul and the breath of the body.[13] The early Hebrews made a close association between
spirit and breath (or wind) since both were considered to be forms of invisible
energy and consequently gods are often portrayed in religious and literary
texts as breathing power, or spirit, into man and, in a similar fashion,
blowing upon objects or people in the ancient world was considered to imbue the
object with an element of the bearer’s spirit or power.[14] The blowing out of
air was also an integral part of Hellenistic magical ritual and, as we have
discovered in the previous chapter, breathing techniques and the blowing out of
air are common features of the rituals in the Greek Magical Papyri.[15]
By implying that Jesus’ ability to heal and exorcise was a specific
technique that could be taught to others and that the bearer had complete
autonomy in the application of this miracle-working power, the Gospel authors
clearly contradict a theory of passive possession in which it is typically the
possessing-spirit that decides to whom and at what time a possession episode
will occur. Therefore, as John Hull suggests, rather than fulfilling the role a
‘spirit-possessed healer’, Jesus appears throughout the Gospels as ‘the model
of a supreme magician passing on power to his initiates.’[16]
IV. THE TEMPTATION NARRATIVE AS A
DEMONSTRATION OF POWER-AUTONOMY
While some scholars have ruled out the influence of the Holy Spirit
within the temptation narratives and indicated that there is no evidence to
suggest that the Spirit assists Jesus in resisting the Devil’s temptations,
others maintain that Jesus remains under the influence of the Spirit throughout
the temptations. I would suggest that although the forceful nature of Jesus’
expulsion into the wilderness does appear to support a theory of possession, if
the intentions of the Gospel writers had been to portray Jesus as remaining in
a state of spirit-possession while in the wilderness then the subsequent
inclusion of the anti-magical apologetic material, i.e. the temptation
narratives of Matthew and Luke (Mt. 4:1-11//Lk. 4:1-13), is entirely illogical.
If we are defining ‘possession’ as a state in which the normal persona
is temporarily suspended and a new persona becomes dominant, then it must
follow that during a possession episode the possessed individual is no longer
an autonomous person with a mind free to make decisions for him or herself, but
instead an instrument under the control of this foreign, external possessing
power. Consequently, if the Gospel authors intended the reader to understand
that Jesus was spirit-possessed during this period of temptation, then they
must have overlooked the fact that the dialogue would not be between the Devil
and the person of Jesus, but between the Devil and the new possessing power,
the Spirit of God. If we are to believe that Jesus is being tested in his
alliance to God here, then the temptation narrative would paint the bizarre
picture of a spirit, deriving ultimately from God, being tested in its
faithfulness to God. On the contrary, Matthew and Luke affirm that the Devil
appeals directly to Jesus’ own human weaknesses by tempting him to use
his powers for self-gratification (‘command this stone to become bread’, Mt.
4:3//Lk. 4:3), to further his own authority and self-importance (Mt. 4:8//Lk.
4:5) and to frivolously test the potency of his powers (‘throw yourself down’,
Mt. 4:6//Lk. 4:9). By having the Devil attempt to exploit Jesus’ human
weaknesses, the authors of Matthew and Luke suggest that Jesus personally
determines how his powers are employed and he is able, if he wishes, to swap
allegiances, relinquish his power or use his powers to evil or self-gratifying
ends. This implication that Jesus has absolute autonomy in the application of
his powers clearly invalidates the theory that he is subject to divine-possession
throughout the Matthean and Lukan temptation narratives.
V. THE HEALING OF THE CENTURION’S
SERVANT (MT. 8:5-13//LK 7:1-10//JN. 4:48-54)
The healing of the centurion’s servant (Mt. 8:5-11//Lk. 7:1-10) is
repeatedly studied for its teachings concerning faith, humility and the
inclusion of the Gentiles. However it also harbours a significant passage
regarding Jesus’ authority over the application of his powers and even hints
that a spirit, or even multiple spirits, may be under Jesus’ control. Since
this healing takes place at a distance and at the precise moment when Jesus
gives the healing word (a fact emphasised by the author of John in Jn.
4:51-53), the Gospel writers must have been aware that this method of healing
was highly unusual and yet they do not adequately explain how it was supposedly
achieved. Is the reader to understand that Jesus performed a telepathic
healing? Or did a whispered prayer to God take place at some point during
Jesus’ discourse with the centurion?
Cures from a distance are reported of other healers in antiquity. For
example, Morton Smith remarks that the Indian sages were able to exorcise at a
long distance[17] and the Talmud
contains an account in which Hanina ben Dosa
heals a boy through prayer while at a distance from him.[18] A closer examination of distance healing reveals that this type of
healing is commonly achieved through three methods; a) by imploring God or
employing spirits to carry out the healing on the healer’s behalf, b) through a
form of sympathetic magic in which healing ‘effluvia’ leaves the body of the
healer and travels to the location of the sick individual, or c) as a result of
the healer ‘splitting’ himself into two parts and sending his spiritual half to
perform the healing.
The ability to divide the self is a technique laid claim to by many
magicians and shamans throughout history. Pythagoras, for one, was reportedly
seen in two cities at the same time on the same day and the Greek shamans were
capable of detaching their souls from their physical bodies and sending them to
various places at a distance to the body, a process known as ‘bilocating’.
Although ‘bilocating’ was a common magical practice in antiquity, if we look
more deeply into the narrative of Mt. 8:5-13//Lk. 7:1-10 we discover that the
central focus of the story is not concerned with the innate powers of Jesus
himself, but on his commanding authority over subordinates that will carry out
the healing on his behalf.
The centurion’s words reveal that his confidence in Jesus’ healing power
derives from Jesus’ ability to control spirits. The centurion is an official
who holds a position of authority and he is accustomed to giving orders to
soldiers under him who will immediately carry out his requests. He compares
Jesus’ position to his own by saying καὶ γὰρ (‘for also’) Jesus
has a military-like authority over others that are under his control.[19] Since the centurion
knows from personal experience that a word of command can produce results, he
urges Jesus that it is not necessary for him to attend the bedside of his
servant as others will carry out the healing if he ‘only says the word’ (μόνον εἰπὲ λόγω, Mt. 8:8//Lk. 7:7). The centurion thereby reveals two personal
convictions about Jesus’ power; 1) that Jesus has a military-like authority
over his powers, and 2) that Jesus has unknown powers that appear to be at his
disposal to carry out healings on his command. The centurion’s observation that
Jesus shares a similar military role is echoed in Jesus’ behaviour elsewhere in
the Gospels; for example, he often acts like a commanding general, ordering
demons out of the possessed with ‘authority’.[20] The author of Luke’s
constant use of παρηγγειλεν (‘charge’ or
‘command’) in particular supports this idea and Graham Twelftree comments that
‘the word has strong military associations, and its basic meaning has to do
with passing an announcement along the ranks of command.’[21]
Ultimately, Jesus’ positive response implies that the centurion is
correct in his observation. He is not rebuked for making such a forthright
statement about Jesus’ power source, as is the case in the Beelzebul
controversy (Mk. 3:22-30//Mt. 12:24-32//Lk. 11:15-23), but he is commended on
his faith and he is rewarded as the healing taking place ‘at that hour’ (Mt.
8:13). Both Gospels also include a rare occurrence of emotion on Jesus’ behalf
(‘he marvelled’, Mt. 8:10//Lk. 7:9). The inclusion of Jesus’ emotional response
and the general style of the dialogue between Jesus and the centurion suggests
to some scholars that this is an authentic account of an observer’s insight
into how Jesus was able to heal the sick.
An effort to play down the importance
of Jesus’ own authority in favour of emphasising the prevailing authority of
God over Jesus has been made by the redactors in their interpretation of the
centurion’s self-referential credentials in Mt. 8:9//Lk. 7:8: ‘For I am a man
under authority.’ The Syriac versions suggest that in the original Aramaic the
centurion’s statement was ‘I am also a man having authority’ (my
emphasis) and some commentators suggest that the change to ‘I am a man under
authority’ is a deliberate alteration of the text.
By having the centurion state that he
acts under authority, the comparison is made between the centurion who
acts under the authority of Antipas and Jesus who acts under the
authority of God and therefore the whole issue of Jesus’ own authority is
conveniently avoided. However, the inclusion of messengers in the Lukan account
of the healing may have been an embellishment on the concept of the centurion having
authority. The author of Luke has the centurion actively demonstrate his
authority by ‘sending’ two sets of
messengers to Jesus. If the statements concerning ‘authority’ and ‘command’
were to come from the mouths of the messengers themselves, then this would
further strengthen the centurion’s claim that he was a man having
authority with subordinates willing to carry out his orders.
Even if we permit the interpretation ‘under authority’ to stand in Mt.
8:9//Lk. 7:8, the subsequent statement ‘with soldiers under me’ in both
accounts suggests that the centurion is comparing his own subordinate soldiers
to the presence of equally obedient minions over which Jesus has authority. The
identity of these ‘subordinates’ is considerably difficult to explain given
that Jesus does not elaborate on the centurion’s comment but simply marvels at his faith (Mt.
8:10//Lk. 7:9). Consequently, the reader is not enlightened on the identity of
these beings and the mysterious comparison remains as follows:
The identity of these subordinate beings has not been satisfactorily
explained. Many commentators ignore their existence in the passage or suggest
that these ‘others’ are the diseases themselves that obey Jesus or the demons
that are underlying the diseases. Some suggest that the centurion is speaking
of the work of his disciples, however as no spoken commands to the disciples
are recorded by the Gospel writers, the instantaneous cure would be dependent
upon the ironic coincidence that the disciples were healing the slave at the
exact time when the centurion encountered Jesus. Alternatively, considering
Jesus’ ability to exercise control over demons[22], it is highly likely
that the centurion is referring to spiritual beings under Jesus’ authority. More
specifically, since the pericope plays upon the concepts of willing
servants, a fact emphasised by Luke who has the centurion send messengers to
Jesus, then this would suggest that the spiritual beings present in this
passage are not compelled demons, but willing spirits. If these anonymous
‘others’ are to be understood as divine spiritual subordinates that are at
Jesus’ disposal then the reader of the Gospels is faced with an immediate
difficulty. Control over demons was a skill ordinarily expected of an
exorcist, but command over good spirits was considered to be the work of
a magician. We will fully explore the implications of this interpretation when
we come to examine the relationship between the magician and his assisting
spirit(s) below, but the overall value of this passage for the moment lies in
its emphasis on Jesus’ overarching authority and the consequent invalidation of
theories which account for the relationship between Jesus and his spiritual
power in terms of passive-possession.
It is clear that suggesting that the historical Jesus was subject to
periods of passive-possession is a flawed argument. The key principle upon
which the spirit-possession theory repeatedly falters is in its definition of
possession as a state over which the individual holds no control and its
attempt to apply this definition to Jesus in the Gospels when the Gospel
authors fully contradict this possibility by continually emphasising the degree
of authority that Jesus possesses over his powers to heal, exorcise and perform
miracles of nature. We must therefore abandon the portrait of Jesus as a
‘spirit-possessed healer’ and consider whether Jesus had an autonomous role in
the application of his spiritual power or that he had a spirit, or numerous
spirits, under his control, as implied by the centurion in Mt. 8:5-13//Lk.
7:1-10.
Authority over spiritual bodies was a characteristic that was typically
associated with the shaman in the ancient world. Such individuals were
reportedly capable of inducing states of possession and yet they retained a
degree of control over their powers. Therefore, since the balance between
spirit-possession and spirit-control is very delicate in
shamanism, its practitioners represent a ‘half-way house’ between the possessed
and the magician and for this very reason a brief examination of shamanism is
necessary at this juncture.
VI. SHAMANISM AND THE COMMAND OF THE
SPIRIT WORLD
The word ‘shaman’
derives from the Tungusian šaman or saman meaning ‘medicine man’
and the term has been liberally applied throughout decades of anthropological
study to individuals claiming to derive power from a mystical communication
with the spirit world. Since careless use of the term has led
to it being used interchangeably with ‘magician’, ‘medium’, or ‘healer’, some
anthropologists have suggested that in order to preserve the exclusivity of the
term ‘shaman’ the designation must be reserved for individuals who share common
characteristics and symbolic themes which set them apart from other
magio-religious practitioners. As a result, modern anthropological
studies tend to unite individuals who display evidence of these common
characteristics and derive from various geographic and historical locations
under the umbrella term ‘shaman’ in order to separate them from the alternative
titles recounted above. For example, modern scholarship associates the Tungus
medicine-men with the Greek ‘shamans’ who emerged from the Pythagorean schools
during the fifth century B.C. on the basis of a common pattern of behaviours
that are particular to these individuals. These common features that are
typical of shamanistic practice in various cultures tend to be found in the
formative stages of a shamanic vocation, namely the calling, a ‘wilderness’
experience and the reception of a spirit. Since these events are fundamentally
associated with the life of the shaman, they are therefore significant factors
when considering whether an individual is displaying shamanistic tendencies and
behaviours.
The calling to a shamanic lifestyle
The call to a shamanic profession typically takes two forms; a
hereditary ‘passing on’ of the shamanic tradition or a spontaneous selection
episode in which the shaman encounters a divine being through a series of
involuntary visions or illness. If the shaman is recruited by way of a
hereditary calling, he must actively seek out spirits with whom to establish
contact. However if the calling is spontaneous and initiated by a higher
spiritual power, then the newly selected shaman has no voluntary control over
his new vocation and the spirits will often impose an illness upon the chosen
shaman until he accepts his calling.
The shaman’s ‘wilderness’ experience
Upon receiving his calling, the next stage of a shamanic vocation
typically involves a ‘crisis’ period in which the new shaman seeks out solitary
isolation, often retreating into the wilderness or underground chambers, where
he adopts various forms of self-denial such as fasting and celibacy and engages
in prayer in order to prepare himself to receive the spirit. During this period
of training, the new spiritual power will manifest itself as an illness or
through a series of prophetic dreams or seizures.
Physical and
spiritual isolation is sought in many forms of mysticism as a method of
attaining a mental state of contemplation and many holy men throughout history
have sought isolation in the early stages of their careers. For example, Moses
went out into the wilderness of Ethiopia (Exod. 3; 33:11) and Pliny mentions
that Zoroaster was in solitude for twenty years in the desert where he fasted,
prayed and received divine guidance.[23] Underground caves
were typically associated with Greek shamans seeking to achieve a wilderness
state or recreate a symbolic descent into the realm of the dead and these
locations were used by Pancrates of Memphis, who claims to have become a
magician by spending twenty-three years underground being instructed by Isis[24], and Pythagoras, who
was in isolation underground in Egypt for ten years.
The shaman’s communication with the
spirits
Once the newly-selected shaman has adopted his calling and completed the
necessary training, he begins to experience seizures, trance-states or periods
of an altered state of consciousness (ASC) in which his soul leaves his body
and ascends to the heavens or descends into the underworld. The shaman’s
engagement with the spirit world is dissimilar to that experienced by the
spirit-possessed healer in that the shaman retains his memory throughout the
trance and he is able to induce the spirits to enter his body without fear of
being controlled by them. Since the shaman usually operates
within a cultural or historical world-view which considers demonic entities to
be the root cause of most problems that can befall humanity, by acting as an
intermediary and establishing a relationship with benevolent spirits the shaman
can employ them to help combat problems caused by other spirits. Therefore,
when the shaman returns to his community he discovers that he is able to use
these skills to benefit individuals or the community in general, particularly
by performing healings, exorcisms and divination.
VII. JESUS THE SHAMAN?
It is evident that certain events in the evangelists’ descriptions of
Jesus’ life have parallels with the behaviours reported of the shaman. For
example, the abnormal perceptual phenomena of a voice from the heavens and a
spirit descending in the shape of a dove at Jesus’ baptism imitates an account
of spiritual election and a call to a shamanic profession (Mt. 3:1-17//Mk.
1:9-11//Lk. 3:21-22). The subsequent temptation narrative imitates the crisis
period of the shaman; Jesus withdraws into the Judean wilderness[25] (a place considered the dwelling place of demons,
cf. Mt. 12:43-45), where he endures a period of forty days fasting (Mk.
1:12//Mt. 4:2//Lk. 4:2) and encounters demonic and divine spiritual beings
(Satan and angels; Mk. 1:12//Mt. 4:11).
Luigi Schiavo proposes that the reader should understand the temptation
narrative as an ‘ecstatic text’ in which Jesus undergoes a period of fasting
and purification in the wilderness in order to enter into a shamanic ASC trance
and communicate with devils and angels.[26] Schiavo suggests
that the use of the presupposition evn in Lk. 4:1 indicates that this passage
‘cannot be dealing with a physical change from one place to another (which would
be ei,j, but with an
interior, spiritual transformation)’, therefore he proposes that the temptation
is to be understood as a ‘transcendental experience of religious ecstasy’.[27]
Although it is possible to recount certain events of Jesus’ life in
terms of a shamanic profession and a shamanistic framework would certainly
allow for the degree of observable evxousi,a that Jesus appears
to have over his powers, many of the prior objections that were encountered
when attempting to apply a model of passive possession re-emerge in a
comparison to shamanism, namely the absence of trance states and questions
regarding the exclusivity of power in view of the transmission of ἐξουσια to Jesus’ disciples
in Mk. 6:7-13//Mt. 10:1//Lk. 9:1. If Jesus was subject to the seizures and
trance states that were typical of shamanistic behaviour, then surely this
behaviour would have been recorded in the polemical materials, if not in the
Gospels themselves. Not only are shamanic ASC and trance states largely absent
from the Gospels, but other techniques used by shamans to induce visions or
achieve communication with spirits, such as frenzy and the use of drugs, are
also not mentioned. In addition, since the shaman is chosen either as the
result of his hereditary tradition or through a calling by the spirits, the
inclusion of a passage in all three Synoptics in which the disciples are able
to share in Jesus’ power and Jesus himself is able to choose who will acquire
this power (Mk. 6:7-13//Mt. 10:1//Lk. 9:1) clearly contradicts the theory that
this miracle-working power was granted through a person-specific spiritual
election.
If the relationship between Jesus and his miracle-working δύναμις cannot be
conclusively compared to shamanistic practice due to the absence of trance
states, Jesus’ apparent rejection of forms of self-denial and his ability to
transmit his power to others, then the next progressive step is to abandon all
theories of spirit-possession and consider the possibility that Jesus was able
to perform miracles by manipulating spirits through magical means. It is within
this alternative framework that Jesus’ opponents frequently attempt to explain
the source of his powers and this will therefore be our next consideration.
VIII. THE DEAD, THE DEMONIC AND THE
DIVINE: THE MAGICAL MANIPULATION OF SPIRITS IN ANTIQUITY
Spiritual intermediaries providing a linking mechanism between man and
God appear in the religious systems of almost every culture throughout history;
from the ‘minor spirits’ of Mesopotamian mythology to the jinn of Islam
and the angelic/demonic hierarchy of Christianity. The ancient Greeks
identified these intermediary spiritual entities by the term dai,mwn (daimon), a
word which seems to have been broadly applied to lesser gods, the souls of
deceased humans, the gods of other religions and even the human soul itself. To
use the Hellenistic term daimon as synonymous with its modern
counterpart demon, a term exclusively reserved for evil beings, is to
misconstrue the use of the term in the first centuries since the Greek daimones
were generally regarded as having both benevolent and malevolent intentions.[28] The intermediate
position of these spirits between God and man is described by both Plato and
Apuleius[29], Plutarch could not
conceive of a world without ‘daimons’[30] and Pythagoras
imagined that ‘the whole air is full of souls which are called genii (daimones)
or heroes.’[31] Whenever a worldview
accommodates the existence of malevolent or benevolent spiritual beings such as
the Greek daimones, there is often an accompanying magical worldview
which claims that extraordinary acts can be achieved through the magical
manipulation of these spirit agents. Accordingly, many magicians in antiquity
sought to secure a daimon, or even a god, as an assisting spirit who would in
turn empower the magician to perform miracles.
The assisting, or familiar, spirit
A spirit whose obedience and power had been obtained by a magician was known in the ancient world as his attending, or ‘familiar’, spirit. The term ‘familiar spirit’ was adopted from the Latin familiaris, meaning a ‘household servant,’ and it was intended to convey the notion of a spirit behaving as a servant to a magician. In a much simpler sense, the term ‘familiar’ implies that the spirit and magician enter into a ‘familiar’ relationship with one another. Justin Martyr mentions the existence of these spirits in his First Apology[32] and Eusebius wrote of their value to the pagans in his Oration on the 30th Anniversary of the Reign of Constantine:
‘they endeavoured to secure the familiar aid of these spirits, and the
unseen powers which move through the tracts of air, by charms of
The employment of a ‘familiar’ spirit was widely acknowledged in
connection with those who claimed to produce wondrous signs and miracles in the
ancient world. For example, Solomon was thought to have control over a demon
that in turn had control over many others[34] and, in contrast,
Plotinus claimed that he had a personal spirit ‘not being from among the
demons, but a god’.[35] Plutarch writes that
Socrates was in possession of an agathodaimon (‘good daemon’) which whom
he had ‘frequent concordance of the daimon with his own decisions, to which it
lent a divine sanction’[36] and a belief in the
magical use of these spirits survived until the witch trials of the seventeenth
century.
As the source of assisting spirits was highly debated in antiquity, individuals suspected of carrying out miracles using familiar spirits were often viewed with suspicion. The Old Testament laws repeatedly condemn those who have familiar spirits as their possession constituted idolatry and they were believed to be the spirits working behind many false prophets.[37] The dubious origins of assisting spirits and the condemnations of those using them in the Hebrew bible resulted in the possession of a familiar spirit being synonymous with the possession of a demon. Therefore a charge of possessing a familiar spirit would be made by an individual’s opponents in order to draw attention to the ‘demonic’ source of his or her powers. It is within this sceptical milieu that Irenaeus accused Marcus of possessing ‘a demon as his familiar spirit, by means of whom he seems able to prophesy’[38] and the Christians accused Simon Magus of performing his miracles using the spirit of a boy who he created out of thin air and then sacrificed (Acts 8).
The ancient Greeks referred to the magician’s attending spirit as a πάρεδρος (‘paredros’) and Leda
Jean Ciraolo in her study entitled ‘Supernatural Assistants in the Greek
Magical Papyri’ interprets this term as an adjective meaning ‘sitting beside or
near’, from the verb πάρεδρεύω,‘to wait or attend upon.’ [39]
Rites employing a pa,redroj feature heavily within the Greek magical papyri.[40]
For example, in The Spell of Pnouthis(PGM I.42-195) the magician
addresses the πάρεδρος as a ‘friendly assistant, a beneficent god who serves me whenever I say’
(I. 89-90). In verses 160-63 of this spell, the magician requests that the πάρεδρος reveals his name and
upon obtaining this name, the magician is able to control the spirit and
henceforth gains the ability to walk on water, become invisible, kill his
enemies and cure the sick. [41]
The spirit even supplies water, wine and bread. Of the many benefits resulting
from the possession of this assisting spirit, the instructions for the rite
promise that ‘you will be worshipped as a god since you have a god as a friend’
(I. 191) and when the magician dies, the πάρεδρος will ‘wrap [up] your
body as befits a god’and ‘take your spirit and carry it into the air with him’
(I. 178-179).
The possession of a ‘familiar’ spirit was considered to be such an
integral part of ancient magic that they were deemed to be a contributing
factor to most magical operations. These spirits were highly valued for their
ease of accessibility and practicality, since they allowed the magician to
perform his magic without the need for elaborate ritual or technique. For
instance, in admiration of the efficiency of the πάρεδρος in PGM IV. 2081-85,
the author of the spell writes that ‘most of the magicians, who carried their
instruments, even put them aside and used him as an assistant.’ These spirits
were also particularly valued for their instantaneous response to the
magician’s requests. For example, upon obtaining command over the spirit in
The Spell of Pnouthis (PGM I. 42 – 195) the magician is told ‘he will
quickly respond to you about whatever you want’ (I. 78). Later in the same
text, the author states: ‘say to him, “Perform this task,” and he does it at
once’ (I. 183). The expression ‘quickly, quickly’ also occurs frequently in the
Greek magical papyri when commanding a spirit.[42]
Consequently, assisting spirits were often employed by magicians to perform
miracles at a distance.
Reconsidering the healing of the centurion’s servant (Mt. 8:5-13//Lk.
7:1-10) in light of these examples alone, the presence in this Gospel passage
of a spiritual power which works under Jesus’ command, responds immediately to
his request and performs healings at a distance is highly reminiscent of the
magician’s use of a familiar spirit.[43] However
it is not solely within this passage alone that our suspicions of spirit
manipulation are raised. Further evidence which suggests that Jesus was
engaging in spirit manipulation appears sporadically throughout the Gospels.
For example, the notion that Jesus could summon angels to his aid is suggested
in Mt. 26:52 and we read that angels were willing to ‘serve’ Jesus immediately
following the temptations in Mk. 1:13//Mt. 4:11. [44]
Furthermore, Jesus warns 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). Although in this instance the term πνεύματα is commonly understood
as a neuter term for ‘demons’ or ‘evil spirits’, it is replaced by δαιμόνια in some manuscripts
perhaps with the intention to eradicate the interpretation that good spirits
were under the disciples’ control.[45]
In addition, two direct charges of the magical manipulation of spirits
are made against Jesus by his opponents in the Gospels. In response to Jesus’
healing of the blind and mute demoniac, the Pharisees accuse Jesus of
possessing a demonic spirit through which he performs his miracles (Mk.
3:22//Mt. 12:24//Lk. 11:15). Equally, when Herod receives the news of Jesus’
miracles he immediately fears that Jesus has possession of the soul of John the
Baptist and that he is using John to perform his miracles (Mk. 6:14-29//Mt.
14:2). Ultimately, Jesus corrects any alleged perversion of his spiritual
power-source by claiming that he derives his miracle-working powers from the
Holy Spirit (Mk. 3:29//Mt. 12:31//Lk. 12:10). As the dead and the demonic were
considered to be valuable sources of attending spirits in antiquity, the
allegations made by the Pharisees and Herod are clearly charges of magic.
However, since divine spirits constituted the third and perhaps the most
frequent source of attending spirits in the ancient world, implications of
spirit manipulation cannot be discounted from Jesus’ defence in Mk. 3:29//Mt.
12:31//Lk. 12:10.
Extract from Helen Ingram (2007) Dragging Down Heaven: Jesus as Magician and Manipulator of Spirits in the Gospels, PhD, The University of Birmingham, UK.
BACK TO: WAS JESUS POSSESSED?
[1] Stevan L. Davies, Jesus the Healer: Possession, Trance and the Origins of
Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1995) p. 102. In addition, note that the term δαιμονίζομαι (‘to be possessed by
a demon’, (Foester, ‘δαίμων / δαιμόνιον’, TDNT 2, p.
19)) which is usually used for those possessed by demons, is never used for
Jesus in the New Testament.
[2] Morton Smith, Jesus
the Magician (London: Gollancz, 1978) p. 32. Smith later adds: ‘in the
centuries following Jesus’ lifetime magic continued to be closely associated
with madness’ (p. 77). In support of the maniacal behaviour of the magician,
Marcel Mauss mentions: 'violent gestures, a shrill voice…are taken often taken
to be attributes of magicians. They are all signs betraying a kind of nervous
condition, which in many societies may be cultivated by magicians.’(M. Mauss, A
General Theory of Magic, trans. Robert Brain (London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul, 1972) p. 27).
[3] Particularly since evxi,sthmi is often used by the
Gospel writers to express a sense of wonderment upon witnessing a miracle (see
Mk. 2:12, 5:42, 6:51; Mt. 12:23; Lk. 8:56).
[4] Smith, Jesus the
Magician, p. 78. Smith adds that a ‘belief in 'obot or similar powers seems
to have lived on in Palestine to at least the third century A.D’ (p. 78).
[5] Smith, Jesus the
Magician, p. 78.
[6] Christophe L. Nihan,
‘1 Samuel 28 and the Condemnation of Necromancy in Persian Yehud’ in Todd Klutz
(ed.) Magic in the Biblical world: From the Rod of Aaron to the Ring of
Solomon, JSNTsupp 245 (2003) p. 29.
[7] Christophe L. Nihan,
‘1 Samuel 28 and the Condemnation of Necromancy in Persian Yehud’, p. 31.
[8] T. K. Oesterreich
describes somnambulism as a state ‘in which the normal individual is
temporarily replaced by another and which leaves no memory on return to the
normal’ (T. K. Oesterreich, Possession and Exorcism: Among Primitive Races in
Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Modern Times (New York: Causeway Books, 1974) p. 39). Similarly, Erika
Bourguignon discovered that possessed individuals who use trance usually suffer
from amnesia following their ASC experience (Erika Bourguignon, Possession
(San Francisco: Chandler & Sharp, 1976).
[9] Davies, Jesus the
Healer, p. 34. In addition, Davies quotes Michael Lambek: ‘Hosts by and
large do not remember what occurred while they were in a trance’ (p. 35,
quoting from Michael Lambek, ‘From Disease to Discourse’, in Colleen Ward, Altered
States of Consciousness and Mental Health: A Cross-Cultural Perspective
(Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1989) p. 40).
[10] W. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, A
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957) p. 277 - 278.
[11] Pistis Sophia, 141.
[12] Smith, Jesus the Magician, p.
115.
[13] The BDB reflects
this association by translating 'ruah' as ‘breath, wind, spirit’ (pp. 924-926).
[15] For example, PGM IV.
3007-86 instructs the magician: ‘while conjuring, blow once, blowing air from
the tips of the feet up to the face’. In accordance with this principle, Celsus
recounts that the Egyptian magicians are able to ‘blow away diseases’ Origen, Con.
Cels. I. 68.
[16] J. M. Hull, Hellenistic Magic and
the Synoptic Tradition, (SBT, 2nd Series 28; London: SCM, 1974) p. 2.
[17] Smith, Jesus the Magician, p.
107.
[18] See b. Ber. 34b.
[19] It is interesting to note that the RSV
omits the kai (‘also’) in both versions (Mt. 8:9//Lk 7:8), although it is retained in
the KJV version of Luke’s account.
[20] Cf. Jesus’ exousia in Mk.
1.27//Lk. 4.36 (‘What is this? A new teaching! With authority he commands even
the unclean spirits and they obey him’) and the question in Mk. 11.28//Mt.
21:23//Lk. 20:2 ‘by what authority are you doing these things?’.
[21] Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus:
The Miracle Worker (Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1999) p. 156, cf. Lk
5:14, 8:29, 56, 9:21, Acts 1:4, 4:18, 5:28, 40, 10:42, 15:5, 16:18, 23, 17:30,
23:22, 30.
[22] Further evidence to support this
assertion will be presented when examining Jesus’ exorcisms in Chapter 11
below.
[23] Pliny, Nat. Hist.
11:97.
[24] Lucian, Lover of Lies, 34-46.
[25] As previously
discussed above, Matthew and Luke use the softer ‘led’ (Mt. 4:1; Lk. 4:1) to describe Jesus’ withdrawal into the
wilderness, while Mark uses the forceful ‘drive out’ (Mk.
1:12).
[26] Luigi Schiavo, ‘The Temptation of
Jesus: The Eschatological Battle and the New Ethic of the First Followers of
Jesus in Q’, JSNT 25.2 (2002) pp. 141-164.
[27] Luigi Schiavo, ‘The Temptation of
Jesus’, p. 145.
[28] This is demonstrated in the Greek word
for ‘happiness’ (eudaimonia), which literally means ‘having a good demon’.
Richard Kieckhefer acknowledges the confusion between the terms demon
and daimon as follows: ‘one can discern…a tension between the early
Christian notion of demons as fallen angels…and the Graeco-Roman conception of daimones
(or daemones in Latin) as spirits linked with the world of nature’
(Richard Kieckhefer, Forbidden Rites: A Necromancer's Manual of the
Fifteenth Century (Stroud: Sutton, 1997) p. 154).
[29] Plato, Timaeus 90. Apuleius
refers to Socrate’s daimon in order to demonstrate that the human soul
could be called a daimon while the person is alive and even after death.
He adds: ‘there are certain divine powers of a middle nature, sinute in this
interval of the air between highest ether and earth below, through whom our
aspirations and our deserts are conveyed to the Gods. The Greeks call them
‘daimons’’ (Apuleius, De Deo Socratis, 9).
[30] See Plutarch, De Defectu
Oraculorum, Chapter 13 in Plutarch, Moralia, vol. 5.
[31] Diogenes Laertius, Pythagoras, The
Lives of Eminent Philosophers, vol. 2, book 8, (trans. R. D. Hicks (London:
Heinemann, 1925) 8:32).
[32] Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 18.
[33] Eusebius, Oration on the 30th
Anniversary of the Reign of Constantine (Laus Constantini) 13.
[34] The Testament of Solomon, 11f.
[35] Porphyry, Life of Plotinus X.
[36] Plutarch writes that ‘heaven seems to
have attached to Socrates from his earliest years as his guide in life a vision
of this kind, which alone, ‘showed him the way, illuminating his path,’ in
matters dark and inscrutable to human wisdom, through the frequent concordance
of the daimon with his own decisions, to which it lent a divine sanction’
(Plutarch, On Socrates’ Daimon 10. (trans. P. H. De Lacy and B. Einarson
(Cambridge: Loeb Classical Library 1959) pp. 405-07)).
[37] The KJV tends to use the term
‘familiar spirit’, whereas the RSV translates as ‘medium’. Cf. Lev. 19:31,
20:6, 20:27; Deut. 18:11; 2 Kings 21:6; 2 Chr. 33:6.
[38] Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I.13.3.
[39] L. J. Ciraolo, ‘Supernatural
Assistants in the Greek Magical Papyri’ in Marvin Meyer and Paul Mirecki (eds.)
Ancient Magic and Ritual Power (Boston: Brill, 2001) p. 279.
[40] See PGM I. 1-42, 42-195; IV. 1331-89,
1716-1870, 1928-2005, 2006-2125, 2145-2240; VII. 862-918; XI. a.1-40; XII.
14-95.
[41] ‘he will quickly freeze rivers and
seas and in such a way that you can run over them firmly’ (I. 120-121), ‘he
will tell you about the illness of a man…and he will also give [you both] wild
herbs and the power to cure…’ (I. 188-190). In lines 181-83, the text instructs
the user ‘Whenever you wish to do something, speak his name alone into the air
[and] say, [“Come!”]….and say to him “Perform this task,”, and he does it at
once….).’
[42] For example, PGM IV. 153: ‘quickly,
quickly; immediately, immediately’, also PGM IV. 972-3: ‘now, now; immediately,
immediately; quickly, quickly.’
[43] Especially considering the heavy use
of military terminology in Luke’s Gospel (see pg. 163 above) and Leda Jean
Ciraolo’s observation that the word ‘paredros’ was an ‘adjective used as a
substantive to designate a variety of governmental and military officials’ (L.
J. Ciraolo, ‘Supernatural Assistants in the Greek Magical Papyri’ in Marvin
Meyer and Paul Mirecki (eds.) Ancient Magic and Ritual Power (Boston:
Brill, 2001) pp. 279-293).
[44] Unsurprisingly, the author of Luke
omits the servitude of the angels. Perhaps this is a further example of the
omission of material bearing magical connotations within the Gospel of Luke
(the addition of the Angel of Agony in Lk. 22:43-44 is often considered to be
an interpolation and is treated as such in many modern bible versions).
[45] According to the
critical apparatus of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (27th
ed.), the variant δαιμόνια in Lk. 10:20 appears in uncial D, also
in family 1, the miniscule manuscripts 565. 2542, sys.c.p, bopt
and Did Cyr.
No comments:
Post a Comment