Exorcisms

I will use a specific example to add to my concern the other day that various analyses of Jesus et. al. appear to me to skip over certain things when providing neutral discussion of historical events. The issue here is not that accounts that Jesus "rose from the dead" are lies or that trying to determine what beliefs led being important, even if you do not think that what is believed actually happened.  We are fairly comfortable with that in various contexts, including when trying to consider the mentality of let's say a child who does not quite get the idea of item permanence.  It also is not a matter of scornfully rejecting beliefs and those who believe them.  It is a full understanding of things. 

Am re-reading Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend by Bart Ehrman, a person whose writings I have overall found quite worthwhile.  Reading some of this books -- he has some academic tomes and others (like this) geared to the educated amateur -- you notice various repeating themes. For instance, and it is somewhat controversial (e.g., it clashes with a text I was assigned for a class back in the day and the editor that introduces books in A New New Testament), he strongly states that when epistles are written in Peter or Paul's name, but not actually by them, it is a type of fraud. Many other scholars argue it was seen -- at least in many cases -- as an appropriate thing to do, a sort of "in the tradition of Paul" that if anything might be seen as a sort of sign of respect.

Calling the author(s) of the Pastoral Epistles something of a fraud is a serious matter, so Ehrman is not trying to be hyper-PC here and not give any offense. He and others also provide analysis that (if at times not being blunt about it) doesn't take what was written as scripture. For instance, Jesus says things that they basically state turns out to be wrong -- e.g., that the world was coming to an end and it will occur sometime in the lifetime of those alive at the time. Paul, e.g., thought he himself would be taken up along with the others while still alive:

For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.  

Then, Paul died, etc., and others wrote Colossians and Ephesians where this "time coming that are near" tone suddenly becomes "the time is here" in significant part, plus a bunch of behavior regulations involving servants, women et. al. since we are going to be here for the long haul. Or, 2 Peter, where "God's time" is referenced, so "near" can mean that even today is nowhere near (in human time) to the end of days. This sort of thing helps show that Peter and Paul did not write these epistles, even (in Peter's case) through someone who could write Greek.

My point here is not to make fun of this sort of thing, but to note that Ehrman is in effect saying even Jesus himself was wrong, or at best, the evangelists, so worrying about the faithful being upset is not being used here to avoid secular analysis as would be done with any other work. Also, to get to the point, he talks in some detail about gender roles in First Century life to help us understand Mary Magdalene -- very little is written about her in the Bible, so generalizations about her "type" is helpful here.

This all is helpful, including the discussion as applied to same sex marriage (this was written in 2006, but it all the more topical now) in that opposition then to homosexual practice was largely a matter of it violating proper gender roles. So, it is appropriate to see it partially as a matter of sex discrimination (to be clear, I'm adding this point). Still, one of the few things we know about Mary (other than her sex and probable hometown unless that isn't a place name but meant to associate her in some way with "tower") -- at least are told -- is that she was possessed by demons. It is fairly clear that Jesus was famous for his exorcisms.

So, it would be useful to understand just what this meant. Ehrman, for some reason, doesn't tell us. He makes sure to let us know that the reference to "seven" demons might be symbolic, but doesn't discuss what being possessed and exorcised itself meant. People today, including many Christians, simply do not take demons seriously.  Many would be more upset to know that half of Paul's epistles actually wasn't written by him probably than to be told that "exorcism" is really symbolic (e.g., Mary was a troubled sinner and Jesus "drove out" her sin) or was in effect is how the people at the time understood certain psychiatric diseases. At any rate, it is appropriate to examine the question, since it is fundamental to understanding Jesus' ministry.

A bit of this is hinted at -- the overall concern was that evil forces (something of a late day development, since it somewhat takes things out of God's hands .. the path to Gnostic thought where there are a bunch of forces out there, including a "creator god" that is in effect bad guy was far from illogical) infested the world. A savior had to come to deliver us from them in some fashion. Exorcisms were a clear sign deliverance was at hand. The symbolism is apparent but there was also a belief that something tangible was going on. Exorcism is also in no way limited to this specific context.  It is something pretty well studied.

But, unlike fraudulent authorship or roles of women, Ehrman does not provide general analysis, even when it is one of the few things the gospels tell us about Mary Magdalene. We get pages of  analysis of two film portrayals even though the book is particularly concerned with the first few centuries.  Why not some pages about exorcism and what specifically it was about at the time?  I referenced a textbook earlier -- by Howard Clark Kee. It is somewhat academic in nature, but looking at it, it is a fairly good work overall. Still, again, only a few brief references to exorcism. Exorcism is a major aspect of the historical Jesus. It simply is hard to completely understand with at least a brief overview on the subject.

Just taking for granted (even if they are wrong) people believed it occurred and going from there is incomplete. I think the overall "real story" here is pretty fascinating and we can learn a lot even without knowing all of it. But, a full account is that much more helpful and why Ehrman does not do so here is unclear to me. To be blunt, I think it is to avoid a bit of controversy, the idea he is just some atheist who is rejecting Christian teachings. But, sorry, he's half gone on that level as is. And, a literal belief in exorcism et. al. is not even necessary for many Christians.

Anyway, the book is quite good, even with this issue.