The Representation and Role of Demon Possession in Mark Eliza Rosenberg (260183564) Faculty of Religious Studies, McGill University September 6, 2007 A the sis submitted to McGill University in partial fulftllment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts © Copyright by Eliza Margaret Rosenberg Libraryand Bibliothèque et 1+1 Archives Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de l'édition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada Your file Votre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-38463-3 Our file Notre référence ISBN: 978-0-494-38463-3 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library permettant à la Bibliothèque et Archives and Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par télécommunication ou par l'Internet, prêter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des thèses partout dans loan, distribute and sell theses le monde, à des fins commerciales ou autres, worldwide, for commercial or non­ sur support microforme, papier, électronique commercial purposes, in microform, eUou autres formats. paper, electranic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in et des droits moraux qui protège cette thèse. this thesis. Neither the thesis Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de nor substantial extracts from it celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement may be printed or otherwise reproduits sans son autorisation. reproduced without the author's permission. ln compliance with the Canadian Conformément à la loi canadienne Privacy Act some supporting sur la protection de la vie privée, forms may have been removed quelques formulaires secondaires from this thesis. ont été enlevés de cette thèse. While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires in the document page count, aient inclus dans la pagination, their removal does not represent il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. any loss of content fram the thesis. ••• Canada Table of Contents Ab s tract 1 Acknowledgements 111 Introduction 1 The Face of Possession in the Text of Mark 12 Practical Overview and Ancient Cosmology 12 The Course of Possession in Mark 16 Ancient Contexts 24 Demonic Possession and Sexual Transgression 28 /--- The Mind and the Soul 34 Historical Overview 34 Mental Illness in Mark and Antiquity 38 Ancient Possession and Modem Mental Illness 42 Recent Psychiatry-Based Hermeneutics 44 Implications: Mind, Self, and Soul 50 Possession as Political Protest 58 Development of the Political Hypothesis 58 Textual and Historical Considerations 59 Modem Analogies and Their Complications 71 The Unknown, Fear, and the Numinous 78 Understanding and Classification 78 Fear in Mark 81 Ncurobiology, Socio-biology, and Fear 85 Fear, the Unknown, and the Numinous 94 Conclusion 97 Works Consulted 101 Abbreviations 101 Primary Texts 103 Secondary Materials 104 Modem Exorcisms 118 Socio-biology; Fear 123 1 Abstract Demon possession and exorcism are major themes in the gospel of Mark. Since the Enlightenment, Mark's Western audience has often found them to difficult to interpret, especially in the case of possession itself. The author of Mark assumed that his audience would understand the idea of possession, an assumption that does not necessarily hold true for modem audiences. This study aims to provide some idea of what possession means in Mark. It proceeds with exegesis of Mark's possession pericopes and situates them within the context of ancient beliefs about demons and possession. Critical consideration of modem cross-disciplinary research related to possession is important in this task. So too is the history of modem interpretation and exegesis of Mark, which has offered insights as well as misapprehensions. The weight of evidence supports the conclusion that part of the spiritual importance of possession for Mark is its disorienting, frightening, and ultimately incomprehensible nature. 11 Abstrait La possession démoniaque et l'exorcisme sont des thèmes très importants pour l'évangelie selon Marc. Depuis la siècle des luminaires, l'audience occidental de Marc les ont trouvé difficile à comprendre, surtout la possession. L'auteur de Marc supposait que son audience comprenait l'idée, mais ce n'est pas vrai pour les audiences modernes. Cette étude veut donner une idée de le sens et de la signification de la possession en Marc. Elle procède avec l'exégèse des histories de la possession en Marc et les met dans la contexte des convictions anciennes à propos des démons et de la possession. La réflexion critique des études pluridisciplinaires de la possession est importante, et aussi l'histoire moderne de l'interprétation et l'exégèse de Marc, leurs idées et aussi leurs erreurs. La plupart de l'évidence support la conclusion qu'une partie de l'importance spirituelle de le possession, pour Marc, est sa nature désorientant, effrayante, et en fin incompréhensible. iii Acknowledgments Many people's efforts and assistance have made the completion of this thesis possible. It had its genesis as an undergraduate honours thesis at Oberlin College (2004), and while the present study begins where that thesis left off after only a few pages, many thanks are due to the people who first set me on this track. My undergraduate general advisor Paula Richman and thesis advisor Cindy Chapman are owed special thanks for their guidance. James Dobson suggested some very useful cross-cultural interpretive strategies. Thomas van Nortwick and Kirk Ormand of Oberlin's classics department were also instrumental in helping me to develop an understanding of the ancient Greek and Roman religious milieu of the Second Temple period and the early church. Caren Calendine and Megan Williams, both visiting professors at Oberlin during my years there, routinely exceeded the call of duty in assisting with research and interpretation even when they had no regular obligation to do so. 1 have become happily indebted to an even greater number of individuals at McGill. The section on political hypotheses of possession developed as a paper for lan Henderson's seminar. It would be far weaker and less thorough without his suggestions. Some of the supporting material on socio-biology came to my attention during the course of research for an unrelated paper for Patricia Kirkpatrick's Old Testament interpretation seminar in the winter of 2005. Gerbem Oegema has given me the opportunity to gain a greater familiarity with pseudepigraphical traditions and with Second Temple Judaism more generally. Informai consultations with fellow students, including Sara Parks Ricker, Jeffrey Keiser, IV Christine Bolton, Meredith Warren, Jen Bourque, and Ryan Bailey have been of inestimable value. FinaUy and ab ove aU, 1 would like to thank my advisor, Ellen Aitken, for her years of assistance, encouragement, suggestions, direction, guidance, and support. While any errors in this thesis are entirely my own, anything that may be of value in it owes a debt of gratitude to her help and insight. 1 1. Introduction No reader of Mark's gospel! can fail to notice its interest in matters demonic. The synoptic gospels alllist exorcism amongJesus' itinerary of practices,2 which along with other ancient evidence suggest the historicity ofJesus' reputation as an exorcist.3 For all this agreement, however, it is the shortest of the canonical gospels devotes the most discussion to Jesus' interactions with evil spirits. Matthew and Luke, usually expanders of Mark, condense or omit these accounts,4 and John is without exorcisms.5 In Mark, Jesus performs four exorcisms (1.21-28,5.1-20,7.24-30, and 9.14-29) and becomes involvedin two disputes about them (3.22-30 and 9.38-41). The first of these exorcisms is in fact the first act of power that Jesus performs publicly and can be seen as both incipient and paradigmatic for his subsequent miniStry.6 The words ÔOll,lCùV, ôotlloviSOIlOI, lTVSÛllo [cXKa6opTOV], and TTVSÛIlO [KoKôv/TTovllPÔv] occur a combined total of twenty-six times/ as opposed to fifteen in Matthew,8,9 constituting a verbal as weIl as a thematic emphasis. These terms are 1 Quotations from the Greek New Testament, including Mark, relyon fourth revised edition of the Nestle- ,Aland text (1966). Translations at:e original unless othetwise noted. Mk 1.32-34, 1.39,3.13-15, 6.6b-13; Mt 4.23-25, 7.21-23, 8.16-17, 10.1-8; Lk 4.40-41,8.1-2,9.1-2,10.17-20, 13.31-33. 3 Non-biblical ancient references to Jesus as exorcist. 4 Matthew tells the story of the Gerasene demoniac, or rather the Gadat:ene demoniac at less than half its length in Mark (8.28-34), shortens the story of the possessed boy considerably (17.14-20), and omits the Capemaum periscope entirely, preserving only the final acclamation (7.28-29). Luke omits the story of the Syrophoenician woman and shortens the one of the possessed boy (9.37-43a). 5 John does preserve references to accusations thatJesus himselfwas possessed «(7.19-20, 8.48-52, 10.19-21). Ronald Piper ("Satan, Demons, and the Absence ofExorcisms in the Fourth Gospel," 2000) provides a detailed exploration of why the inclusion of exorcism pericopes would have heen redundant within the practical and cosmological nru:ration ofJohn (253-278). 6 See Herman Hendrickx (The Miracle Stones, 1987) 33-40,50-55; 71.23,26,32,34 (twice), 39; 3.15, 22 (twice), 30; 5.2, 8, 15, 16, 18; 6.7, 13; 7.25,26,29,30; 9.17, 20, 25 (twice), 38. B 7.22; 8.16, 31; 9.32, 33, 34; 10.8; 11.18; 12.22,24,27,28,43; 15.22; 17.18.