Occasioned by the cure of idiots. Beelzebul neither Ashmedai nor Satan. The fly-gods of the ancients. The Scarab-Beetle. Baalzebub. Zeus and Hercules. Beelzebul, lord of dung or lord of the dwelling? Beelzebul as Bel-Ea-Mul-lil. Christ possessed of Beelzebul. Refutation of the Pharisaic theory. Proposal of a new alternative. The sign from hell. The Scene of the event. The Huxley-Gladstone controversy. Num- ber of the demoniacs. Folie à deux. Alleged transmigration of the demons. Motives of the same. Failure of previous explanations. Data for a reconstruction. The facts and the theory. Not a case of manifold possession. No demonic supplication. Simple command of Jesus: Begone! The stampede of the swine. Theories of Paulus, Lange, Farrar, Rosenmüller, Lutteroth. Incompetency of the same. Fresh scrutiny of time, place, and incidents. Probable cause of the panic. Loss of the swine-owners. Possible reduction of it. Possession in sub-apostolic times. Absence of "possession " from the Great. The old demonism and the new diabolism. Witchcraft. The demonomania of South-Eastern Europe. The Dancing Manias. The convulsionnaires of France. The demonolaters of India. The dervishes of Algiers. The demoniacs of China. The cessation of genuine possession? The peculiarity of the environment in the time of our Lord 216-249 J. The Use of popular Language by Jesus K. The Demonising of the Heathen Gods M. Was Jesus nicknamed Beelzebul? N. Scene of the Healing of the Blind-and-Dumb Demoniac O. Did Jesus practise Accommodation? P. Ejection of Demons by Fasting . 285-291 DEMONIC POSSESSION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT THE CHAPTER I INTRODUCTORY HE anthropologist here finds himself on ground which he deems common to the races of the lower culture. The expert physician here discovers, in the phenomena of possession, indubitable evidence of mental disease. The student of Scripture, after utilising the best exegetical data, finds himself confronted by a fact to which he finds it difficult to assign any definite significance. The perplexities of the subject are really enormous, and have scarcely been realised as yet. History and medicine and theology have their separate contributions to make towards the solution of this problem; but the awkwardness of the situation lies in the fact that they persist in making these contributions separately. The result is a conflict of opinion or a suspense of judgment. The trend of modern opinion is most easily indicated by citing the views of a few eminent and fair-minded writers. These are set forth without prejudice to the detailed investigation of this vexed question. According to Meyer,1 the demoniacs of the Gospels were popularly regarded as persons possessed of demons; a view of the matter shared by the first Evangelist. The bodies of the possessed (oi δαιμονιζόμενοι) were thus looked upon as the seat and organ of demonic working. They were really sick persons, suffering from peculiar diseases (mania, epilepsy, delirium, hypochondria, paralysis, temporary dumbness); these being apparently inexplicable from physical causes, and believed therefore to have their foundation, not in an abnormal organisation or in natural disturbances of the physical condition, but in the actual indwelling of demonic personalities. Many of these might be counted in a single sick person. The belief is conceivable from the decay of the old theocratic consciousness and of its moral strength, which referred all misfortunes to the sending of God. This belief, however, rendered healing possible only through the acceptance of the existing view, leaving the latter untouched; but making the healing all the more certain for the Messiah, Who has power over the kingdom of devils, and Who now stood victoriously opposed to all diabolic power. If it be assumed that Jesus Himself shared the opinion of His age and nation regarding the reality of 1 Commentary, Matt. iv. 24. possession by demons, then we must either set up the old doctrine on the authority of Jesus, or attribute to Him an error, not simply physiological, but essentially religious, and irreconcilable with the pure height of His divine knowledge. Against the old view, apart from all physiological and medical objections, the following are urged as decisive : 1. The non-occurrence of demoniacs in the Old Testament. 2. The undisputed healing of the same by many exorcists. 3. The non-occurrence of reliable instances in modern times. 4. The complete silence of the fourth Evangelist on the subject. 5. The absence from Paul's Epistles of definite references to expulsions. 6. The conduct of the demoniacs, who were not at all filled with godless dispositions and antichristian wickedness, which was necessarily to be expected as the result of the real indwelling of devils. The opinion of Dean Farrar1 is as follows: "So many good, able, and perfectly orthodox writers have, with the same data before them, arrived at different conclusions on this question, that any certainty respecting it appears to be impossible. My own view under these circumstances is of no particular import 1 Life of Christ, chap. xxiii. |