Dragging Down Heaven - Jesus As Magician and Manipulator of Spirits in The Gospels.
Dragging Down Heaven - Jesus As Magician and Manipulator of Spirits in The Gospels.
Dragging Down Heaven - Jesus As Magician and Manipulator of Spirits in The Gospels.
2. Magic vs Miracle
[3][24]
Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 26.2.
[4][25]
Ignatius accounts for Jesus’ triumph over the activities of the magi
as follows: ‘a star shone forth in the heaven above every other star…
every sorcery and every spell was dissolved’ (Ignatius, Eph. 19. 3). See
also Augustine, Sermons 20. 3-4; Origen, Con. Cels. 1.60; Justin, Dial.
78.1,7, 9; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3. 9. 2; Tertullian, De Idol 9.
[5][30]
Origen declares that Egypt contains many practitioners of magic
(Con. Cels. 1.22, 28, 38, 68).
[6][31]
Pythagoras was considered to have acquired the ability to predict
the future, heal the sick, command the weather while in Egypt (See
Diogenes Laertius, Life of Pythagoras III). Similarly, Plato studied
mathematics in Egypt following the death of Socrates. Indeed the word
‘mathematicus’ is usually translated as ‘astrologer’. For example, the
Latin word mathematicus is used in this sense by St. Augustine in Book
2 of De Genesi ad litteram: ‘Quapropter bono christiano, sive
mathematici, sive quilibet impie divinantium, maxime dicentes vera,
cavendi sunt, ne consortio daemoniorum irretiant.’ According to the
Oxford English Dictionary, the translation of mathematicus as atrologer
remained in popular usage until the early 18th century.
[7][32]
Apuleius, Apology 25. 10.
[8][33]
Apuleius, Apology 25, 26.
[11][62] Lucan, Pharsalia 6. 527-528.
[12][65]
E. A. Wallis Budge, Egyptian Magic (New York: Bell, 1991) p.
xiii.
Philostratus, Life of Apollonius, iv. 44.
[13][67]
[14][72]
The combination of subservient prayer and an underlying
persuasive request is also present in PGM III 107: ‘Hearken to me as I
pray to you, that you may perform the NN [deed], because I invoke you
by your names’.
3. Accusations of Magic
‘After she [Mary] had been driven out by her husband and
while she was
wandering about in a disgraceful way she secretly gave
birth to Jesus…
because he was poor he [Jesus] hired himself out as a
workman in Egypt,
and there tried his hand at certain magical powers on
which the Egyptians
pride themselves; he returned full of conceit because of
these powers, and
on account of them gave himself the title of God.’[12]
‘‘who for a few obols make known their secret lore in the
middle of the
market-place and drive out demons and blow away
diseases and invoke the
souls of heroes, displaying expensive banquets and
dining-tables and cakes
and dishes which are non-existent, and who make things
move as though
they were alive although they are not really so, but only
appear as such in
the imagination.’ And he says: ‘since these men do these
wonders, ought
we to think them sons of God? Or ought we to say that
they are the
practices of wicked men possessed by an evil demon?’’[13]
1.
I would suggest that Jesus’ use of secrecy in Mark’s
Gospel corresponds almost identically to the magician’s
use of secrecy when engaging with the three main
contact groups of his initiates (the disciples), his
opponents (the demons) and his public (the healed). The
motivations driving the magician to maintain secrecy
when confronted with these groups might help to shed
some light on why the author of Mark presents Jesus as
constantly demanding secrecy regarding his activities
and concealing his identity from the disciples, the
demons and the healed.
‘For you are I, and I, you (σὺ γὰρ εἰ ἐγὼ και ἐγὼ σύ).
Whatever I say
must happen, for I have your name as a unique
phylactery in my heart,
and no flesh, although moved, will overpower me…
because of your name,
which I have in my soul and invoke’ (PGM XIII. 795)
“I also know what your forms are…I also know your wood:
ebony.
I know you, Hermes…I also know your foreign names…
These
are your foreign names” (PGM VIII. 8-21) [10]
‘You [are] the dew of all the gods, you [are] the
heart of Hermes, you
are the seed of the primordial gods, you are the
eye of Helios, you are
the light of Selene, you are the zeal of Osiris, you
are the beauty and
the glory of Ouranos, you are the soul of Osiris’
daimon…you are
the spirit of Ammon.’ (PGM IV. 2984-86)
[1]
I must emphasise that Wrede only suggests this theory
since he personally did not consider the author of Mark to
be the creator of the secrecy theme. Wrede believed that
‘material of this kind is not the work of an individual’ (W.
Wrede, The Messianic Secret trans. J. C. G. Greig
(Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 1971) p. 145).
[2]
R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, p.
37.
[3] In the Gospel of Thomas the promise of revealed
knowledge is extended to include not only the disciples,
but also everyone who reads and understands the words
of Jesus. For example, saying 108 of The Gospel of
Thomas reads: ‘He who drinks from my mouth will be as I
am, and I will be he, and the things that are hidden will
be revealed to him.’ The ‘I will be he’ indicates that when
the individual ‘drinks’ from the wisdom of Jesus, the spirit
of Jesus will enter into that individual. In this case,
Thomas has become ‘like Jesus’ by correctly interpreting
his words and it follows that these ‘hidden’ things will be
revealed to him.
[4]
Origen, Con. Cels. 1.24.
[5] The original text of this story was found on a papyrus
preserved in Turin and first published in W. Pleyte and F.
Rossi, Papyrus de Turin (Leiden, 1869-76). The text was
later translated by E. A. Wallis Budge in his Legends of
the Gods (London: Kegan Paul, 1912) pp. 42-55 and Sir
James G. Frazer refers to this story in his study The
Golden Bough when discussing the tabooness of the
names of gods (The Golden Bough, 22.5).
[6] The LXX parallel to Mk. 1:24 has τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί.
[7]
For further examples of this type of address, see Josh
22:24, Judg. 11:12., 2 Sam. 16:10, 19:23; 2 Kgs. 3:13; 2
Chr. 35:21; Jer. 2:18, Hos. 14:9 and Jn. 2:4.
[8]
Cf. Collossians 4:11, Josephus, Ant., 15. 9. 3; 17. 13. 1;
20. 9. 1; Bel. Jud, 3. 9, 7; 4. 3. 9; 6. 5. 5
[9]
This formula is applied extensively throughout the
Greek magical papyri. To give two examples: PGM IV. 130:
‘Arouse the heart of NN whom NN has borne’ (cf. IV. 94-
153) and PGM IV. 2496: ‘Make her, NN, whom NN bore,
ill.’
[10] Although PGM VIII is dated to approximately the
fourth or fifth century, the ‘I know’ formula appears in the
magical writings of many ancient civilizations. For
example, the Egyptian Papyrus of Ani, a papyrus of the
Theban period which contains a number of pages of the
Book of the Dead, includes the sentence ‘I know thee, I
know thy name, I know the names of the Forty-two Gods
who live with thee in this Hall of Maati…’ (Ch. 125).
[11]
William Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature, p. 277.
[12]
The possibility that the author of the story was fully
aware of the techniques used in magical spirit
manipulation is supported by Jesus’ use of magical
techniques as a defensive response in both of these
passages (as we will see later).
[13]
Josephus, Antiquities, XII. 14.
[14]
Although in this latter case we may assume that the
command not to enter the village is an indirect injunction
to silence.
[15]
In the case of Mk. 5:40, the crowd has been removed
prior to the healing, (5:40 ‘he put them all outside’) and
the command to silence follows in verse 43.
5. Apologetics
If the Gospel authors were aware that charges of magic were being
brought against Jesus and they were actively seeking to oppose these
charges by incorporating anti-magical apologetic, then the presence of
verbal and physical techniques within the Gospels that are clearly
associated with magical activity is highly confusing. Material bearing
connotations of magical practice could possibly remain within the
Gospels for three reasons; either the technique was not viewed as strictly
magical in its original context, or it was overlooked during the editorial
process, or the material was too well known to be discarded by the
Gospel authors. It is unlikely that the evangelists would not have
considered certain unusual healing techniques to have connotations of
magic since these particular methods are clearly paralleled in the
magical papyri and magical materials from the ancient world. Equally, if
charges of magic were in circulation during and after Jesus’ lifetime,
then the evangelists would surely have ensured that they had taken
adequate care to exclude any evidence which could fuel polemics. The
third and most persuasive explanation is that either Jesus’
contemporaries were aware that he was using particular techniques or
reports of these techniques were in circulation immediately following his
death, therefore the redactors felt compelled to include these methods
even though they carried serious implications of magical practice. If an
obligation to the reader’s familiarity with these rumours is the reason
that this suspicious material remains in the Gospels and if these rumours
were based on genuine observations of how the historical Jesus healed
the sick, then these instances may provide the reader with rare glimpses
of the historical Jesus using magical methods of healing.
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]
Compare this with PGM I. 92: ‘Test this oath of the god
on [what] you wish.’
[2]
This is, of course, assuming that the story was
conceived by either Matthew or Luke and that they are
not drawing upon Q material. However, if they are reliant
on a Q source, then attempts to address rumours of
magical practice may have been made even earlier into
the tradition.
[3]
In a similar fashion, Jesus refuses to perform a miracle
for the Pharisees in Mk. 8:11-12//Mt. 16: 1-4 due to the
manner in which they test him.
[4]
Apuleius makes a distinction between philosophers and
magicians on this basis, stating that the magicians and
the doctors only heal for monetary gain (Apuleius,
Apology, 40.3). In addition, Apollonius claims that he is a
true philosopher and therefore he does not have any
interest in monetary gain (Philostratus, Life of Apollonius,
8.7).
6. Magical Words
[1]
Tertullian, Against Marcion, IV. 9.
[2]
Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 4. 15. 1.
[3]
Tertullian, Apol. 21.17.
[4]
Iamblichus, De Myst. VII. 257, 10-15.
[5]
Origen, Con. Cels. 1.25.
[6]
Hull, Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition, p. 85.
[7]
Smith, Jesus the Magician, p. 95.
[8]
The disciple’s name is given in Aramaic and Greek in
Acts 9: 36 and both these names have the identical
translation ‘gazelle’ (this is a footnoted in the RSV at Acts.
9:36: ‘The name Tabitha in Aramaic and the name Dorcas
in Greek mean gazelle’).
[9]
For example, John Hull comments: ‘in general the
accounts of the miracles are remarkable for the lack of
interest shown in the emotions of Jesus and his patients.’
(Hull, Hellenistic Magic, p. 84).
[10]
Hull, Hellenistic Magic, p. 85.
[11]
The translation of ‘chirp’ is in accordance with the BDB
translation of ‘chirp’ (this is further supported by the note
in the BDB that the term is onomatopoeic, p. 861).
7. Magical Materials
The authors of Mark and John report that Jesus applied spittle to the eyes
of the blind and the dumb (Mk. 7:33, 8:23 and Jn. 9:6). Saliva was
widely reported to have medicinal properties in the ancient world. For
example, Celsus and Galen mention its healing properties and Pliny
collected together many instances of its use in the treatment of boils,
pains, sores, snake bites, epilepsy and eye diseases.[1] Even modern
medical studies have investigated the usefulness of saliva as an
antiseptic healing agent.
The magical, rather than medicinal, attributes of these cures ensured that
these methods were commonly employed by magicians. In classical
literature in particular, it is often the case that the cure cannot be
achieved by the application of any spittle, as would be the case with a
medicinal cure, but the healing spittle must come from a magician or an
individual with divine standing. Upon re-examining the account of
Vespasian’s healing of the blind man, it is apparent that the man who
approached Vespasian did not require simply anyone’s spittle but
specifically Vespasian’s spittle, thereby suggesting that spittle in itself
has no medicinal value and its healing capability is directly linked to the
power or importance of its bearer. In a similar fashion, it is a sorceress in
Petronius’ Satyricon who treats Encolpius’ impotence by taking some
dirt and mixing it with her spittle. [10]
Since mention of saliva or spitting is restricted to Mk. 7:33, 8:23 and Jn.
9:6 and does not occur elsewhere within the New Testament in a healing
context, this suggests that if the historical Jesus employed spittle as a
healing agent then he very rarely used this particular method. [12]
However, as the authors of Matthew and Luke are highly sensitive to
magical techniques, as previously indicated when considering the
censorship of foreign words of power, they may have chosen to omit any
mention of spittle due its association with magic and this may explain
the noticeable absence of spittle in the Matthean account of the healing
of the blind and dumb (Mt. 15:29-31) and the elimination of the entire
story in the Gospel of Luke. We must also bear in mind that the healing
of the blind man at Bethsaida (Mk. 8:22-26) contains a technique that
has been previously identified as a hallmark of magical practice; namely
the reapplication of techniques that are not effective on their initial
application. The preservation of spittle cures in the Gospel of Mark
suggests that the evangelist considered these cures to be an unavoidable
inclusion. Again, perhaps Jesus’ use of spittle cures was common
knowledge amongst the populace when the author of Mark came to
construct his Gospel. If so, then perhaps these passages record bone-fide
instances of the historical Jesus using magical materials and exploiting
magical superstitions when engaging in his healing activities.
[1]
Celsus, De Medicina V, 28, 18B; Galen, On the Natural
Faculties, III, VII, 163; Pliny, Nat. Hist. 28. 7. See also 28.
4, 22.
[2]
The use of spittle for healing purposes is also attested
in rabbinical sources (BB 126b; Shab. 14.14d; 18; Sotah.
16d,37).
[3]
Tacitus, Historia 4. 8; Suetonius, Vespasian, 7.
[4]
‘Among the Irish peasants fasting spittle is considered
of great efficacy for sore eyes, especially if used mixed
with clay taken from a holy well. This is made into a paste
and applied to the eyes, and it is said that “nothing beats
the fasting spittle for blindness”. Saliva mixed with sand
and then applied to the eyes, nostrils or forehead of the
patient is used in Khordofan, or the operator may spit on
the patient three times after reciting a spell or passage
from the Kuran’ (R. Selare, ‘A Collection of Saliva
Superstitions’ Folklore 50. 4 (1939) p. 350). The value of
mud alone for treating eye troubles is recorded by the
Roman physician Serenus Sammonicus in his De
medicina praecepta: ‘Si tumor insolitus typho se tollat
inani, Turgentes oculos uili circumline caeno’ (Serenus
Sammonicus, De Med. Praec. 225, 226).
[5]
Pliny, Nat. Hist. 28.7.35. Pliny also comments: ‘it is the
practice in all cases where medicine is employed, to spit
three times on the ground, and to conjure the malady as
often; the object being to aid the operation of the remedy
employed. It is usual, too, to mark a boil, when it first
makes its appearance, three times with fasting spittle’
(Pliny, Nat. Hist. 28. 7.).
[6]
For example, Pliny recommends the use of spitting to
avert witchcraft (see quotation on pg. 120 above) and a
substantial number of spitting charms are used to ward
off the evil eye.
[7]
A similar use of spittle is recounted by Theocritus:
‘Thrice on my breast I spit to guard me safe, From
fascinating charms’ (Theocritus, Idyll, VI, 39).
[8]
As a basis for a covenant, see J. G. Frazer, The Golden
Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion, 21:9.
[9]
Spitting in order to increase luck is mentioned by Pliny
who observes that boxers spit on their fists for luck before
a fight (Pliny, Nat. Hist. 28.7) and R. Selare notes that ‘it
is the common practice of hucksters, pedlars,
fisherwomen and applewomen to spit on the first money
they receive for luck’ (R. Selare, ‘A Collection of Saliva
Superstitions’, p. 363). For other magical uses of spittle
within a modern-day context, see Fanny D. Bergen, ‘Some
Saliva Charms’, JAF 3. 8 (1890) pp. 51-59.
[10]
Petronius, The Satyricon, 131.
[11]
Although Pliny does refer to its effectiveness when
removing foreign objects from the ear (Nat. Hist., 28. 7).
[12]
Other instances of spitting take the form of ἐμπτύω.
This suggests spitting with contempt and is clearly not
medicinal (see Mk. 14:65; 15:19; Lk. 18:32, and in the Old
Testament: Num. 12:14; Deut. 25:9; Job 17:6).
8. Magical Touch
‘So at length the lawless men, seeing that his body could
not be consumed
by the fire, ordered an executioner to go up to him and
stab him with a
dagger. And when he had done this, there came forth [a
dove and] a
quantity of blood.’ [20]
[1]
Stevan L. Davies, Jesus the Healer: Possession, Trance
and the Origins of Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1995)
p. 91.
[2]
T. K. Oesterreich, Possession and Exorcism: Among
Primitive Races in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Modern
Times (New York: Causeway Books, 1974) p. 378.
[3]
Stevan Davies indicates that in the spiritual
environment of Jesus’ time ‘the modality of possession…
was commonly accepted’ and victims of demon
possession and spirit-possessed prophets were an
everyday encounter (Stevan Davies, Jesus the Healer, p.
59).
[4]
Stevan Davies, Jesus the Healer, p. 18.
[5]
T. K Oesterreich, Possession: Demonical and other
(London: Kegan Paul, 1930) p. 39.
[6]
Davies, Jesus the Healer, p. 95.
[7]
Oesterreich writes: ‘At the moment when the
countenance alters, a more or less changed voice issues
from the mouth of the person in the fit. The new
intonation also corresponds to the character of the new
individuality…in particular the top register of the voice is
displaced: the feminine voice is transformed into a bass
one, for in all the cases of possession which has hitherto
been my lot to know the new individuality was a man’
(Oesterreich, Possession and Exorcism, pp. 19-20).
[8]
Davies, Jesus the Healer, p. 29, cf. p. 46.
[9]
Typical possession ‘is nevertheless distinguished from
ordinary somnambulistic states by its intense motor and
emotional excitement’ (Oesterreich, Possession, p. 39).
‘Muscle rigidity and loss of control of gross motor
movements’ are mentioned by Davies (Davies, Jesus the
Healer, p. 33).
[10]
Campell Bonner, ‘Traces of Thaumaturgic Techniques
in the Miracles’, HTR 20. 3 (1927) p. 176.
[11] Bonner, ‘Traces of Thaumaturgic Techniques in the
Miracles’, p. 176.
[12] William 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.
254.
[13]
Although the Johannine version of the baptism is
recounted as a vision by John the Baptist, I am including it
here as it retains the imagery of the descending dove.
[14] Davies, Jesus the Healer, p. 64.
[15]
Davies, Jesus the Healer, p. 148.
[16] Davies, Jesus the Healer, p. 65.
[17]
Davies, Jesus the Healer, p. 148: ‘If Jesus believed
himself to be one who was anointed by God, it is anything
but unlikely that the anointing in question was his initial
possession experience.’
[18]
J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and
Religion, Chapter III. 33-34.
[19]
James L. Allen, Jr., ‘Yeats’s Bird-Soul Symbolism’, TCL 6.
3 (1960) p. 117.
[20]
The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:1 (trans. J.B. Lightfoot).
There is some disagreement concerning the mention of a
dove here. For example, Eusebius does not mention the
dove and many have thought that the text has been
altered. Cf. also the martyrdom of St. Eulalia in
Prudentius’ Peristephanon in which it is reported that a
white dove left her mouth upon death.
[22]
Davies, Jesus the Healer, p. 64.
[23]
The term ἐκβάλλει is typically used by the author of
Mark in connection with the exorcism of demons, cf.
Mk.1:34, 39, 43; 3:15, 22; 4:13; 7:26; 9:18, 28.
‘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!”
(PGM IV. 555-560) [18]
12. Necromancy
‘A certain female juggler had died, but a magician of the band put a
charm under her
arm-pits, which gave her power to move; but another wizard having
looked at her, cried out
that it was only vile carrion, and immediately she fell down dead, and
appeared what she was in fact.’
The manipulation of the spirits of the dead for magical purposes was
known in antiquity as ‘necromancy’, from the Greek νεκρός (‘corpse’)
and μαντεία (‘divination’). This term was often used to refer to the
physical resurrection of a corpse or the re-animation of dismembered
body parts using magical procedures, although it was also broadly
applied to the practice of consulting the spirits of the dead regarding
future events. This latter type of ‘spiritual’ necromancy was occasionally
distinguished from the practice of bodily reanimation by the variant term
‘sciomancy’, from the Greek σκιά (‘shadow’) and μαντεία
(‘divination’).[5] The prevalence of divinatory practices using the dead in
the ancient biblical world is exemplified by the inclusion of laws
forbidding such practices alongside the prohibitions against magic in the
Old Testament. For example, Lev. 19:26 states ‘you shall not practice
augury[6] or witchcraft’ and Deut. 18:10-11 explicitly forbids divination
and consultation of the dead. The most infamous biblical example of this
particular type of necromantic divination is the consultation of Samuel
performed by the witch of Endor in 1 Samuel 28.
When the spirits of the dead were not being summoned to return to their
corpses in order to reanimate it or harassed by magicians curious about
future events, they were subjected to attempts by magicians to acquire
them as familiar spirits who would work under the authority of the
magician and perform supernatural acts whenever the magician so
requires. We must therefore be aware that in addition to necromantic and
sciomantic activity, many magicians in antiquity were actively seeking
to gain possession of the dead as powerful assisting spirits.
And so we come to ask: did these artists believe that Jesus had used a
magical tool when performing his miracles, particularly when raising the
dead? An association between wands and magical activity has clearly
been made in the art of this period. For example, Peter is identified as a
great magician in the Acts of Peter and therefore he appears on
sarcophagi carvings bearing a wand that is similar to that used by Jesus
(fig. 18). In addition, Moses is frequently depicted in the catacomb
frescoes as using a wand when striking water from the rock and crossing
the red sea (figs. 19-21). The book of Exodus states that Moses carried a
mateh (Exod. 7:8-21; 8:5-6, 16-17), a term which the Brown-Driver-
Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon translates as ‘staff, rod, shaft’[21],
however Mathews suggests that this instrument should be understood as
having the same function as a wand.[22] By depicting Jesus as using a
similar type of instrument, these artists obviously intended their
audience to understand that Jesus was also a powerful magician.
Therefore, in order to fully appreciate the implications of magic that
these artists were weaving into the Lazarus story, we must investigate
how the wand was believed to function in the ancient world.
Although the precise use of the wand in the ancient world is uncertain,
De Waele suggests that the wand was considered by various cultures to
be an extension of the bearer’s body and an effective power conductor
through which he can transmit energy from himself to another person or
object.[24] In addition to their efficacy in transferring energy, wands were
also valued by the ancient Greeks as conductors of human souls. For
example, Aristotle claimed that he had witnessed a man drawing the soul
of a sleeping boy out of his body using a ‘soul-charming wand’
(psuchoulkos rhabdos)[25] and the Greek god Hermes appears in The
Odyssey with a golden wand with which he summons the souls of the
dead out of their bodies.[26] Due to their usefulness in directing energy
and manipulating the souls of the living and the dead, wands were
frequently employed by magicians as a necromantic tool and they often
appear in representations of necromancy, on gemstones in particular, as
a ‘plain small rod’ which is used by the necromancer to touch the head
of the corpse. There is no definite consensus to explain why contact
between the wand and the head of a corpse was necessary. It is highly
unlikely that the necromancer is simply pointing to the corpse, since the
precise connection between the head and the point of the wand cannot be
coincidental on each occasion. In light of this recurrent wand-head
connection, De Waele suggests:
‘we have to deal with a tradition that tried to clear Jesus of the charge of
magic
and also one that revered him as a great magician.’[31]
The divinatory texts within the Greek magical papyri are crammed with
instructions for the use of young, pure boys. For example, a third-
century lamp divination (PGM VII. 540-78) states: ‘the boy, then,
should be uncorrupt, pure’. The boys’ sexual purity is stressed in ‘a
vessel divination’ (PDM XIV. 1-92) in which the magician is advised:
‘you should bring a pure youth who has not yet gone with a woman’
(XIV. 68). The popularity of boy mediums in antiquity was so
widespread that in one text entitled ‘a vessel divination’ (PDM XIV.
395-427) the magician is instructed ‘you can also do it alone’ (XIV. 425)
and Betz expands this phrase by adding ‘i.e., without a youth.’ [36]
Furthermore, it was most often the case that instructions detailing the
use of boys were omitted from magical texts since the authors readily
assumed that the performer would be familiar with the necessary
procedures.
Boy mediums have been used in magical practices from at least the
fourth century B.C. and they were often employed in a practice known
as ‘lecanomancy’, a method based on the notion that ghosts can manifest
themselves in liquids. In the initial stages of a lecanomatic divination
rite, the boy is usually blindfolded or his vision is restricted. Irenaeus
mentions this practice when referring to the magicians in his Against
Heresies (175-185 CE):
‘bringing forward mere boys [as the subjects on whom they practise],
and
deceiving their sight, while they exhibit phantasms that instantly
cease.’[40]
The blindfold is then removed and the boy is required to gaze into a
reflective surface, such as stone, flames, or water. The images or shapes
that the boy sees are thought to reveal a message from the gods or
spirits. To aid the success of this type of divination, the magician is often
directed to induce a trance-state in the boy in order to make him
receptive to visions. Instructions to bring about a trance state for this
purpose are provided in a text entitled ‘Charm of Solomon that produces
a trance’ (PGM IV. 850-929).[42] Betz comments that this title literally
means ‘Solomon’s Collapse’ and it is therefore ‘an indication of ecstatic
seizure’.[43] Convulsive behaviour in a boy was a contributing factor to
the accusations of magic made against Apuleius. When his accusers
claimed that a boy ‘fell to the ground’ in his presence and consequently
sought to attach a charge of magic to Apuleius, he defended himself by
claiming that the floor was slippery or that the boy was suffering an
epileptic seizure.[44]
The identity and role of the νεανίσκος (‘young man’) who follows
Jesus at Gethsemane (Mk. 14:51) has been subject to a great deal of
discussion in New Testament scholarship since his function within the
passage and his relationship with Jesus is unclear. Some commentators
have suggested that the νεανίσκος of Mk. 14:51 could be the author
of Mark inserting himself into the Gospel narrative. However, we may
presume from the great care taken by Mark to provide details regarding
the youth’s unusual mode of dress that he did not intend the youth to be
a superfluous literary device. In addition, simply by the criteria of
embarrassment alone, the evangelist would not include a character
dressed in such a bizarre fashion without good reason. It appears that the
author of Mark was comfortable with the inclusion of this strangely
dressed, anonymous figure and therefore the neani,skoj and the details
of his unusual clothing must serve an important function within the
narrative.
Another similarly dressed νεανίσκος appears later in Mk. 16:5 and
some scholars have identified this figure as the same νεανίσκος
previously encountered in Gethsemane. The white robe (στολὴν
λευκήν) worn by the youth in Mk. 16:5 has led some commentators to
conclude that the figure is an angel. However, although the term
νεανίσκος is used to refer to an angel in 2 Macc. 3:26-34 and Tobit 5
(in this latter instance this is because the angel is disguised), Scroggs and
Groff correctly point out that the author of Mark uses ἀγγελος
(‘angel’) elsewhere within his Gospel seemingly without
embarrassment, therefore it is likely that he would have used the term
ἀγγελος if he intended the reader to recognise this figure as an angel.
Others have suggested that the στολὴν λευκήν worn by this young
man indicates that he was undergoing a Christian baptism or a ritual
involving a symbolic death and resurrection experience. Although the
customary dress of Christian baptism closely resembles the clothing of
the neani,skoj in Mk. 16:5, we immediately encounter difficulties with
this theory when attempting to identify this character with the near-
naked νεανίσκος accompanying Jesus in Gethsemane. First, the
νεανίσκος in Mk. 14:51 is not dressed in a στολὴν λευκήν but in a
σινδών, a word used by all three Synoptic writers to describe the linen
cloth in which Jesus’ body was wrapped (Mk. 15:46//Mt. 27:59//Lk.
23:53). Some scholars have deduced from this parallel that this σινδών
is a burial cloth and therefore the youth must either be Lazarus or
clothed in the ceremonial garb required for a death-rebirth ritual.
Second, if the reader of the Gospels is to identify the νεανίσκος in
Mk. 14:51 as the same figure in the tomb in Mk. 16:5, then it may be
tempting to suggest that both passages describe a pre-baptismal and
post-baptismal individual, or equally a pre-initiatory and post-initiatory
individual. However, this theory would require Jesus to have completed
the youth’s rite of transformation, either his baptism or initiation,
between his arrest in Gethsemane and his resurrection from the tomb.
Since the Gospel writers tell us that Jesus was in custody during this
period, then the logical progression of events does not allow his
interpretation. Furthermore the reader is led to believe that the youth is
not a loyal follower of Jesus or fledgling disciple for, as Morton Smith
notes, he runs away and abandons Jesus in Gethsemane (Mk. 14:52). If
the youth is not to be understood as having a close relationship with
Jesus, then what is his purpose in the narrative? And why would he
follow Jesus around dressed in such an unusual manner if these were not
baptismal or initiatory garments?
Readers of the divinatory rites in the Greek magical texts cannot fail to
notice the similarities, particularly in clothing, between the boy mediums
in the magical papyri and the νεανίσκος in Mk. 14:51 and 16:5. The
youthfulness of the man is emphasised by Mark’s use of the Greek word
νεανίσκος, meaning ‘young man’ or ‘servant’, although the precise
age indicated by the term νεανίσκος is contentious. Furthermore, the
word σινδών which is used to refer to the linen cloth worn by the
νεανίσκος in Mk. 14:51 is also found in many of the rituals in the
Great Magical Papyri of Paris (PGM IV). For example, in PGM IV. 88-
93 the magician is instructed to ‘wrap a naked boy in linen from head to
toe (σινδονιάσας κατὰ κεφαλης μέχρι ποδων γυμνὸν κρότα)’
and in an ‘oracle of Kronos’ (PGM IV. 3086-3124) the practitioner is
instructed to ‘be clothed with clean linen (σινδόνα καθαρὰν) in the
garb of a priest of Isis’ (IV. 3096). The symbolic use of the sindw,n to
represent death and rebirth is evident in certain magical texts in which
the participant is required to use a σινδών when performing a pseudo-
burial. An example of this appears in a letter concerning bowl divination
(PGM IV. 154 – 285) which permits the magician to consult a drowned
man or dead man. It reads:
‘go up to the highest part of the house and spread a pure linen garment
(σινδόνιον καθαρόν)
on the floor…and while looking upward lie down / naked on the linen
(σινδόνα) and order your eyes to be completely covered with a black
band. And
wrap yourself like a corpse, close your eyes and, keeping your direction
toward
the sun, begin these words….’
The reader of Secret Mark is again presented with a young man who is
‘wearing a linen cloth (σινδόνα) over his naked body’ and once more
commentators have attempted to explain his unusual dress by suggesting
that the youth is undergoing an early Christian baptismal ceremony. To
propose that the series of events in Secret Mark describe a Christian
baptism raises the same difficulties as those previously identified in
canonical Mark and there are additional elements within this passage
that render this interpretation particularly problematic. For example, if
the young man in Secret Mark is simply undergoing a Christian
baptismal ceremony, then why is it necessary for the youth to come to
Jesus during the evening in a secretive manner and remain with him
throughout the night? And why would Clement refer to this particular
act as a μυστικὰς (‘secret doing’) of Jesus?
‘As for Mark, then, during Peter’s stay in Rome he wrote an account of
the Lord’s doings (πράξεις του Κυρίου)[55], not, however, declaring
all of
them, nor yet hinting at the secret (μυστικὰς) ones, but selecting what
he
thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being
instructed’ (I.15– 18, trans. M. Smith).
The statement ‘Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God’
(3:8-9) certainly indicates a strong element of tuition and suggests that
the youth is undergoing a secret initiation, such as those associated with
mystery cults. If the passage was considered by the author of canonical
Mark to describe an initiation rather than a baptism, then the evangelist
may have been understandably reluctant to reveal too much detail
regarding the methods used by Jesus to pass on his mystical teachings to
his initiates. Alternatively, these activities may have been interpreted by
the early reader as instances of magical practice and consequently the
Gospel evangelist may have censored this passage and omitted it from
the final version of his Gospel, hence this passage subsequently came to
be referred to under the vague heading of ‘mystical’ or ‘secret’ doings.
The magical connotations of the term μυστήριον are discussed by
Betz who observes that in the Greek magical papyri: ‘magic is simply
called μυστήριον (mystery, PGM IV. 723, 746; XII. 331, 333) or
μυστήρια (mysteries, IV. 476, V. 110)’.[58] Smith boldly suggests that
the ‘mystery of the kingdom’ was a magical ritual in itself. [59]
There are certainly many opportunities within the passage for those
familiar with the magical traditions of the ancient world to grow
suspicious of magical activity, particularly the presence of a naked youth
dressed in a linen cloth and the imparting of secret knowledge during the
night, a time which, although terribly clichéd, is typically associated
with necromantic activity.[60] In addition, a strict interval of six days
elapses before Jesus summons the boy to him. Are we to understand that
Jesus has allowed the boy a period of convalescence to recover from the
trauma of returning from the dead? Or does this indicate that a period of
preparation has been necessary to equip the boy for the event which
Jesus subsequently commands him to attend?
‘John the Baptist has been raised from the dead (by Jesus’
necromancy; Jesus
now has him). And therefore (since Jesus-John can control them) the
(inferior)
powers work (their wonders) by him (that is, by his orders).’[68]
For the ancient magician, the vengeful nature of both the ἄωροι and the
βιαιοθάνατοι and their hostility towards the living and resentment
toward their killers singled them out as particularly keen to lend their aid
to magical activity, as their bitterness could be redirected to victims at
the discretion of the magician. Tertullian addresses this magical spirit-
manipulation in his De Anima, describing how the violently killed and
the ‘too early killed’ were frequently invoked in many types of magical
ritual and they appeared to the magician as phantasmata. [77] Since these
vengeful souls were considered to be of such great value to the
magician, if one could not be found then one would be made. Hence
there were reports of magicians in antiquity who performed boy sacrifice
in order to create a restless spirit and this is probably the origin of the
rumour that Simon Magus performed his ‘miracles’ using the soul of a
murdered boy that he created out of thin air and promptly sacrificed. [79]
In addition to the human dead, the souls of animals were also used in
magical manipulations. For example, PGM XII. 107-21 contains
instructions on the use of ‘a black cat that has died a violent death’ and
certain texts in the magical papyri give instructions on the ‘deification’
of animals in order to grant the magician a powerful spirit through which
he can work his magic.[80]
‘taking it [the package] away to the grave of someone untimely dead, dig
[a hole]
four fingers deep and put it in and say ‘Spirit of the dead, who[ever] you
are,
I give over NN to you, so that he may not do the NN thing.’ Then, when
you
have filled up the hole, go away.’
The earliest curse tablets do not accredit power to the corpse itself, but a
change occurs around the fourth-century BC and the dead themselves
become a power that can be exploited. Magical texts and curse tablets
from the fourth-century BC onwards began to address the ghost of a
corpse directly and refer to this spirit as a δαιμόνιον. [81] The use of the
spirits of the dead came to be such a standard feature in ancient magic
that it was eventually crystallised in the special term νεκυδαίμονες
(‘corpse demon’). The term νεκυδαίμονες recurs frequently
throughout the Greek magical papyri, particularly in the Great Magical
Papyri of Paris (dated to around 200 AD) in which the term is used in
the construction of love charms such as the ‘Wondrous Spell for Binding
a Lover’ (PGM IV. 296-466). This particular binding spell requires the
magician to place the text beside the grave of one who has died an
untimely or violently death and adjure all the ‘daimons’ of the graveyard
to ‘stand as assistants beside this daimon’ for the magician’s consequent
employment. Later in the same text, the daimon of the corpse is invoked
with the special term νεκυδαίμον (IV. 360). Other rites from the same
papyrus instruct the magician regarding methods used to employ the
disembodied souls of the violently dead as spiritual assistants on earth.
For example, there is a love spell of attraction performed with the help
of heroes or gladiators or those who have died a violent death (PGM IV.
1390-1495), a rite for binding a lover using the demons of ‘men and
women who have died untimely deaths’ (PGM IV. 296-466) and in a
Prayer of Petition to Helios (PGM IV. 1950-1955) the magician prays:
‘I beg you, lord Helios, hear me NN and grant me power over the
spirit of
this man who died a violent death… so that I may keep him with me
[NN]
as helper and avenger for whatever business I crave from him.’ [82]
As the author of Mark states that the Gerasene demoniac has been living
amongst the tombs (Mk. 5:3) there is a strong possibility that the early
reader of the Gospels, who was accustomed to various superstitions
surrounding the untimely dead, would naturally assume that the
demoniac has been exposed to wrathful spirits forced to remain within
the vicinity of their graves.[86] This association between spirit-possession
and the individual’s proximity to the graves of the dead is reinforced by
the ancient magical practice known as ‘incubation’, a method in which
the magician would sleep on top of a grave in order to encounter the
ghost of the spirit within. It is the process of ‘incubation’ that is
described by Philostratus in his account of Apollonius of Tyana’s
consultation of Achilles[88] and this practice is also mentioned in Isaiah
65:4 regarding those who ‘who sit in tombs, and spend the night in
secret places’.
Throughout this exorcism in Mk. 5:1-20, the hostility and violent nature
of the spirits possessing the Gerasene demoniac are evident in the
demoniac’s aggressive behaviour and amazing strength (Mk. 5:3-5). The
vengefulness of these spirits is finally demonstrated in their chosen
method of expulsion - a cathartic release in the form of a
καταποντίσμος, (‘sea dive’), an ancient ritual associated with
sacrifices to Poseidon. If the author of this exorcism account was aware
that the spirits of the dead were generally violent and vengeful and that
they could return to exert their influence upon the living, then perhaps
this is the fundamental theory that lies beneath Herod’s statement in Mk.
6:14//Mt. 14:2. As established at the beginning of this chapter, it is
unlikely that the reader is to interpret the Jesus-John relationship in
terms of spirit-possession due to the fact that Herod states that John ‘has
been raised from the dead’, i.e. that an external force has acted upon the
body and/or soul of John to raise him from his grave. I would suggest
that the relationship between Jesus and the post-mortem John is to be
understood as an allegation of magical spirit manipulation. Herod is
proposing that Jesus has raised the spirit of John from the dead and that
he is using this spirit to perform miracles, much in the same way that a
magician in the ancient world would employ a βιαιοθάνατος to carry
out his magical operations.
By stating ‘John, whom I beheaded, has been raised’ (Mk. 6:16), Herod
draws attention to John’s mode of death and indicates to the reader that
his death satisfies the credentials for the creation of a highly vengeful
spirit that is ripe for magical exploitation. There are a number of
differing opinions regarding decapitation in the ancient world. The
Romans regarded it as a quick and painless death and therefore it was
often reserved for dignitaries, but to Greek minds it was a brutal act and
counted amongst the most violent of deaths. Due to their violent demise,
the souls of the beheaded were feared throughout antiquity and accounts
of headless men and headless creatures were particularly common. In
Hellenistic Egypt it was believed that the spirit of a beheaded criminal
became a type of 'headless' demon known as an Akephalos and these
headless demons frequently appear in the magical papyri.[97] For
example, the incantation in PGM V. 96 is addressed to a ‘Headless one’
(ἀκέφαλον) and the magician later claims in the same text that he is to
be identified as a ‘headless daimon’ (ἀκέφαλος σαίμων, V. 145).
Due to the fear associated with the victims of a violent death in the
ancient world, especially regarding victims of decapitation, the method
of John’s execution in Mk. 6:16 would have been particularly significant
for the early reader of the Gospels as it would have singled him out as a
prime candidate for magical manipulation. I would therefore suggest that
it is possible to interpret Mk. 6:14-29//Mt. 14:2 as an allegation that
Jesus is using the spirit of John as a powerful βιαιοθάνατος by which
to perform his miracles. Furthermore, by identifying himself as the killer
and accepting responsibility for John’s death, Herod reveals that he fears
retaliation from John’s vengeful spirit and this may account for his
steadfast opinion that it is John who has returned and his reluctance to
consider the alternative candidates proposed in Mk. 6:15//Lk. 9:7-8.
If the critic would dismiss the possibility that Jesus’ miraculous powers
had a demonic, or daimonic, source on account that this evidence is
found in the mouths of Jesus’ opponents in the Gospels who intended to
discredit his authority and claims to messiahship, then it is necessary to
silence any deliberation from hostile sources and proceed from hereon
accompanied solely by the words and behaviour of Jesus himself as
presented by the evangelists. In order to conclusively confirm that Jesus
has control of a spirit in the Gospels, rather than visa versa, we would
ideally hope to uncover an aspect of coerciveness in Jesus’ approach to
his empowering spirit or, at the very least, an indication of his ability to
compel a spirit to obey his will. Whereas the implications of demonic
and daimonic manipulation discussed in the previous chapters were
made by Jesus’ opponents, we will discover in the following chapter that
valuable evidence of spirit manipulation can also be found in certain
accounts of Jesus’ own behaviour and teachings, namely the implied
manipulation of the Holy Spirit in Mk. 3:29//Mt. 12:31//Lk. 11:20, the
use of the title ‘Son of God’ as a means of self-identification, the arrival
of a familiar spirit in the baptism narratives and the cursing of the fig
tree in Mk. 11:12-24//Mt. 21:18-22. I would suggest that evidence of
spirit manipulation and a coercive attitude can be discerned in Jesus’
own words, teachings or behaviour in each of these passages and this
annihilates all possession theories and firmly stamps the seal of magic
on his ministry. However, the spiritual source in question does not
derive from the demonic or the dead in this instance, but from the most
common source of assisting spirits employed by the magician in the
ancient world; the divine.
[1]
An echo of this is found in the Slavonic additions to Josephus’ Jewish
War in which we read: ‘some said of him, ‘our first lawgiver is risen
from the dead, and hath evidenced this by many cures and prodigies.’’
[2]
The confusion regarding Jesus’ words on the cross will be addressed
later.
[3]
‘By the logic of possession, then, if Jesus received John’s spirit he had
therefore become possessed by John and so sometimes had John’s
identity. Or, if possessed by Elijah’s spirit, he therefore sometimes had
Elijah’s identity’ (Stevan L. Davies, Jesus the Healer: Possession,
Trance and the Origins of Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1995) p.
95).
[4]
Origen, Commentary on Matthew, 10:20. Morton Smith points out
that there was a period of time when Simon Magus was believed to ‘be’
Jesus until his real methods were discovered (Morton Smith, Jesus the
Magician (London: Gollancz, 1978) p. 34).
[5]
This process would typically involve the conjuration of a spirit in a
ghost-like form or the controlled possession of the magician by the
invoked spirit (for induced possession as a method of magical prophecy,
see the use of the 'ob' in Chapter 12).
[6]
The Hebrew word here translated as ‘auguries’ generally carries the
meaning of ‘divination’ (cf. BDB p. 638).
[10]
See PGM XII. 279-283: ‘for the resurrection of a dead body’.
[12]
For example, the talitha koum commandment appears in the raising
of Jairus’ daughter (Mk. 5:41) and following the exorcism of epileptic
boy, Jesus teaches his disciples that this type of demon ‘cannot be driven
out by anything but prayer’ thereby suggesting to the reader that a
specific prayer technique should be used in this case (Mk. 9:29).
[13]
Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 53.3.
[15]
Mathews, T.F., The Clash of Gods: A Reinterpretation of Early
Christian Art (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993) p. 57.
[17] F. J. M. de Waele, The Magic Staff or Rod in Graeco-Italian
Antiquity (Drukkerij Erasmus, 1927) p. 25.
[18] De Waele, The Magic Staff, p. 27.
[21] BDB, p. 641.
[22]
‘these subjects are ubiquitous in catacomb art and…demonstrate
Moses making use of his magic wand’ (Mathews, The Clash of the
Gods, p. 72).
[23]
F. J. M. de Waele, The Magic Staff or Rod in Graeco-Italian
Antiquity (Drukkerij Erasmus, 1927). De Waele notes: ‘even as in our
days, this ancient object belongs to the equipment of the sorcerer…so it
may have been with the goetia, originally a kind of necromancy, but
afterwards generally, only a kind of prestidigitation…in augury and
astrology, as well as in many other forms of primitive sorcery, a wand or
staff may have been used’ (p. 23).
[24]
De Waele, The Magic Staff, p. 165.
[25]
Clearchus, On Sleep, quoted by Proclus in his Commentary on
Plato’s Republic X. For further discussion of this passage, see Hans
Lewy, ‘Aristotle and the Jewish Sage According to Clearchus of Soli’,
HTR 31.3 (1938) pp. 205-235.
[26]
Homer, The Odyssey 24. For examples of staffs used by gods and
goddesses such as Hermes, Dionysos and Asklepios, Athene, Artemis,
Nemesis, Rhea, Poseidon, and Apollon, see De Waele, The Magic Staff,
chapter 1: ‘The Magic Staff or Rod in the Hands of the Gods.’
[28]
De Waele, The Magic Staff, p. 165.
[29]
De Waele, The Magic Staff, p. 165.
[30]
M. Smith, Jesus the Magician, p. 64.
[31]
M. Smith, Jesus the Magician, p. 94.
[32]
Robin M. Jensen, ‘Raising Lazarus’, Bible Review 11.2 (1995), pp.
20-29.
[34]
Iamblichus, Myst. 3. 24.
[35]
Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 18.
[36]
Hans Dieter Betz (ed.), The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation,
Including the Demotic Spells, 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1986) p. 220.
[40]
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 2. 32. 3.
[42]
The author of the text adds in parenthesis following the title ‘works
on both boys and on adults.’
[43]
Hans Dieter Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation , p. 55.
[44]
Apuleius, Apology, 27. Having denied using a boy-medium,
Apuleius later states ‘it is my own personal opinion that the human soul,
especially when it is young and unsophisticated, may by the allurement
of music or the soothing influence of sweet smells be lulled into slumber
and banished into oblivion of its surroundings so that, as all
consciousness of the body fades from the memory, it returns and is
reduced to its primal nature, which is in truth immortal and divine; and
thus, as it were in a kind of slumber, it may predict the future’ ( Apology,
43). He adds: ‘this miracle in the case of boys is confirmed not only by
vulgar opinion but by the authority of learned men’ (Apology, 42).
[53] Readers who are interested in the current state of scholarship
regarding the authenticity of Secret Mark are directed to the recent
publication by Stephen C. Carlson, The Gospel Hoax: Morton Smith‘s
Invention of Secret Mark (Baylor University Press, 2005). Carlson
provides a comprehensive overview of scholarly investigation into this
text to date and argues that Secret Mark is a modern forgery that has
been fabricated by Morton Smith himself.
[55]
The ‘deeds of Christ’ appear in Matthew 11: 2.
[58]
H. D. Betz, 'Magic and Mystery in the Greek Magical Papyri' in
Christopher A. Faraone and Dirk Obbink (eds.) Magika Hiera: Ancient
Greek Magic and Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) p.
249.
[59]
Smith, Jesus the Magician, p. 135.
[60]
The practitioners of the spells in the Greek magical papyri are
frequently instructed to perform their rituals ‘at night’ (cf. PGM IV.
3091) and daimons are often invoked from out of the dark (cf. PGM
XXXVI. 138). Also, Heraclitus associates the magi with the ‘night-
walkers’ (Clement of Alexandria, Protrepticus 22.2).
[61]
Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, p. 14. n. 17.
[63]
Apuleius, Metamorphoses, XI. 2.
[64]
C. H. Kraeling, ‘Was Jesus Accused of Necromancy?’, JBL 59
(1940) p. 155. Arndt and Gingrich translate ἐγείρω as ‘raise, help to
rise’ (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. 213-214). Mark uses the term
ἐγείρειν of Jesus’ resurrection (Mk. 16:6) and of people after healing
(Mk. 1:31; 2:9-12; 3:3; 9:27; 10:49). In addition to indicating the raising
of the dead (Mt. 11:5; Mk. 5:41; Lk. 7:14, 7:22, 8:54; Jn. 5:21), the term
is also used in the Gospels to indicate the movement of the body upon
awaking from sleep (Mt. 2:13, 2:20, 8:26; Mk. 4:27, 14:42). Oepke
recognises the various interpretations of ἐγείρω by translating the term
as ‘to rise up’, also ‘to make well, to rise up strengthened’ and ‘‘to raise
the dead’ or pass. ‘to rise from the dead’’ (Albrecht Oepke, ‘ ἐγείρω /
ἔγεροις', TDNT, vol. 2, p. 335).
[65] Hence Philostratus protects Apollonius against a charge of magic
by claiming: ‘his foreknowledge was gained not by wizardry, but from
what the gods revealed to him’ (Philostratus, Life of Apollonius, 5.12).
[66]
It could be argued that since Eiljah was carried to heaven in a fiery
chariot (2 Kings 2:7-12), we cannot identify him as a member of the
dead.
[67]
Kraeling, ‘Was Jesus Accused of Necromancy?’ pp. 147-57
[68]
Smith, Jesus the Magician, p. 34.
[70]
Tertullian, De Anima, 56-57.
[71]
Porphyry attempts to explain this phenomenon when he writes: ‘The
soul, having even after death a certain affection for its body, art affinity
proportioned to the violence with which their union was broken, we see
many spirits hovering in despair about their earthly remains; we even see
them eagerly seeking the putrid remains of other bodies’ (Porphyry, De
Sacrificiis, Chapter on the True Cultus).
[72]
Plato, Phaedo, 6.
[77]
Tertullian, De Anima, 52.
[79]
Clementine Recognitions, XV: ‘Then we understood that he spake
concerning that boy, whose soul, after he had been slain by violence, he
made use of for those services which he required.’ Even the post-
crucifixion Jesus was subjected to magical exploitation in view of the
violent nature of his death and we will explore this later in Chapter 14.
[80]
Other texts including the ‘deifying a spring mouse’ (PGM IV. 2457)
and the ‘deification of a field lizard’ (PGM VII. 628). PGM III.1 states
that drowning the animal causes it to be transformed into an Esies. Betz
interprets the term Esies as ‘an epithet of the sacred dead often applied
to Osiris who was drowned and restored to life’ (Betz, The Greek
Magical Papyri in Translation, p. 334).
[81]
This correlation between the Greek daimons and the souls of the dead
was not only made in magical texts. For example, Josephus makes the
same connection in Bellum Judaicum 1.82, 84 and Antiquitates Judaicae
13.314, 317, 415-416.
[82]
See also PGM LVII. 1-37, dating from the 1st or 2nd century A.D,
which reads ‘I will not break [the] bonds with which you bound Typhon,
and I will not call those who have died a violent death but will leave
them alone’ (LVII. 5-6, my emphasis).
[86]
For the notion that the living can be possessed by the ghosts of the
dead, see Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 18.
[88]
In order to consult Achilles, Apollonius was required to spend the
night on his ‘barrow’ (Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius, 4.11).
[93]
Lucan, Pharsalia, 6. 717-987.
[94]
Philostratus, Life of Apollonius, 3. 38.
[97]
For more on the Akephalos see Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in
Translation, p. 335.
‘I swear by your great Name, that I will not stir from here
until you have compassion on your children!’ (M. Taanit 3:8)
‘You are presumptuous before the Creator and yet he does as you wish,
like a son presumes on his father and he does whatever he wishes.’
(M. Taanit 3.8)
The notion that a human being can influence a divine spirit to obey his
will by employing a series of threatening demands may seem incredible
to the majority of readers operating under the contemporary Western
Christian perception of God as a remote being, far removed from our
earthly realm and situated at a distance in the heavens. However, the
magicians of antiquity considered their gods to be far more readily
accessible and they alleged that it was not only the lesser spirits of the
demonic and the dead that were ripe for magical exploitation but also the
supreme gods themselves. Consequently the ancient magician would
often attempt to command the gods to do his bidding, either by gaining
possession of a god or a divine spirit that would work continually under
his authority as an assisting spirit, or by persuading a god to grant the
magician an equal status so that he too can possess divine powers, or by
employing a series of threats to coerce the god to obey the magician’s
will and respond whenever he requires the use of the spirit’s power. It is
this third and final method that is implied in Honi’s address to God in
the quotation above and it is this approach that is ultimately responsible
for the caricature of the arrogant, proud magician who threatens and
shouts at his god until his demands are met. With all three of these
techniques constituting irrefutable evidence of magical practice in the
ancient world, the early reader of the Gospels who was accustomed to
this type of magical behaviour would surely be surprised to encounter
instances in which Jesus appears to behave in this manner, particularly
evidence of behaviour which suggests that he was in possession of a
divine spirit or that he had a coercive approach to God. Nevertheless,
there are occasions in which Jesus admits that a spiritual power is
working under his authority and at times it appears that he is seeking to
influence the will of God.
‘I adjure [you], I place you under oath, by the great finger, Nathaniel:
Bind, bind, bind, unbreakably!’[18]
This particular text was most likely used by a thief to restrain a dog so
that he could steal from a house (coincidentally, Luke’s δακτύλω
θεου appears in close proximity to the binding terminology used by
Jesus and the metaphor of a plundered house in the parable of the strong
man in Mk. 3:27//Mt. 12:29//Lk. 11:21-22).
‘objectively there is no more likelihood that the Lord of the Air came
down
to a magician than there is that the holy spirit came down to Jesus.’ [24]
When the magician dies, the author of this rite states that the spirit will
wrap up his body and ‘carry it into the air with him’ (I. 178) and during
his lifetime, as a direct result of the possession of this assisting spirit, the
magician is promised: ‘you will be worshipped as a god since you have a
god as a friend’ (I. 191). As this final line indicates, the close bond
established between a magician and his assisting spirit was thought to
induce ‘god-like’ qualities within the magician, although his new divine
status could also be illusionary. Since an assisting spirit worked through
the magician and at his immediate behest, it would appear to observers
that the magician was performing these miracles by his own personal
powers and hence his naïve audience would consider him to be a god.
However the magician’s divine status was not always a charade. Many
rites in Hellenistic magic, known specifically as ‘deification’ rites,
promise to join the magician so closely to a divine spirit or god that his
soul will become divine and he will rightfully identify himself as a god.
Since the baptism accounts in the Gospels closely resemble the descent
of a divine familiar spirit and deification was often the direct
consequence of the possession of a divine spirit, we must seriously
consider deification as a valid interpretation of the processes described
within the baptism narratives.
The serpent in the Garden of Eden tempts Eve with the promise that if
she eats the fruit from the tree of knowledge then she ‘will be like God’
(Gen. 3:5). The serpent’s promise that a human being can achieve a
divine status was an appealing prospect in the ancient world and many
religious communities and magical practitioners believed that by
participating in a deification ritual they could experience a physical and
spiritual regeneration which would result in their transformation into a
god-like being. Consequently, rites of deification were extremely
commonplace in the ancient world. Attaining a divine status was
considered to be a central objective of theurgy (‘divine work’, from
θεὀς ‘God’ and ἔργον ‘work’) and many theurgists in the Hellenistic
world of the late second and early third centuries CE professed the
ability to establish a direct link of communication between themselves
and the gods. A close involvement with the operations of the divine
ensured that the theurgists were considered to be practising a higher,
more benevolent form of magic than inferior magic such as goetia and
henceforth the rituals of theurgy were adopted by leading Neoplatonic
philosophers seeking to distance themselves from the negative stigma
associated with magic.
Many examples of deification rites are found within the Greek magical
papyri and the most widely recognised of these is the ‘Mithras Liturgy’
in the Great Magical Papyri of Paris (PGM IV. 475-829). This ritual
promises the magician that he will attain immortality and be transformed
into ‘a lord of a godlike nature’ (PGM IV. 220). To indicate the
transition of the magician’s soul from a mortal to divine state, he is
required to announce during the ritual:
All four Gospel writers indicate that Jesus’ claim to a divine status was a
major contributing factor towards his eventual execution (Mk. 14:61-
64//Mt. 26:63-65//Lk. 22:70). For instance, in the trial narrative of
John’s Gospel a charge of blasphemy is made against Jesus on the basis
that has assumed a divine-like nature:
‘This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not
only
broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal
with
God.’ (Jn. 5:18)
‘the Jews say “it is not for a good work that we stone you but for
blasphemy;
because you being a man, made yourself God.”’ (Jn. 10:33)
‘the Jews answered him, “We have a law, and by that law he ought to
die,
because he has made himself a Son of God.”’(Jn. 19:7)
‘the strongest magic seems to be that effect caused merely by the will of
the operator; so strong is that will that it needs no extra help…it cannot
be interrupted or delayed because its triumph is its immediate attainment
of its objective.’[46]
It is possible that the authors of Mark and Matthew found the violence
within the fig tree pericope to be disagreeable but felt that the event was
too well known or important to be left out. Unsurprisingly, the author of
Luke does not include the incident in his Gospel and this omission may
be based on his sensitivity to the negative implications of this seemingly
random act of destruction. Certainly the destructive use of Jesus’ power
conjures up the unpleasant caricature of a magician who uses his
abilities to bring physical, psychological or financial harm to his
neighbours. It must also be noted that the act of ‘withering’ was closely
associated with magic in the ancient world. Morton Smith observes that
‘some spells intend their victims to ‘wither,’ ‘consume,’ ‘burn up’’ and
therefore ‘magic has probably had some influence here’. [57] Since
‘withering’ was particularly associated with the ‘evil eye’, it is perhaps
within this context that we can understand the influence of magic upon
this passage in the Gospels. For instance, Eric Eve calls the destruction
of the fig tree ‘an act of thaumaturgical vandalism’ which ‘in that culture
might very well be ascribed to the use of the evil eye’ [58] and he supports
this observation with a quotation from Regina Dionisopoulos-Mass’
study into the use of the evil eye in witchcraft:
‘A tree or vine that suddenly withers is certainly the victim of the eye…
There
are many tales of trees and vines that were green and strong in the
morning
but that had withered and died from a passing envious eye by
nightfall.’[59]
In addition, the statement ‘may no fruit ever come from you again’ (Mt.
21:19//Mk. 11:14) is similar to the binding curses found within the
magical papyri which read, for example, ‘may NN not be able…’ or ‘let
him not speak’ (cf. PGM V. 321f). Therefore we should not ignore the
possibility that Jesus’ words are to be understood as a magical binding
curse. This destructive use of Jesus’ power and the numerous parallels to
the magical act of ‘withering’ are not the sole contributing factors to the
emergent figure of Jesus as a magician in this passage. In addition, there
is a significant underlying current of magical technique that is present in
the subsequent prayer teaching in Mk. 11:22-24//Mt. 21:21-22. Most
studies of the fig-tree incident limit their attention to the implied
symbolism of the fig tree and fail to realise that the destruction of the
tree is clearly intended to illustrate the subsequent prayer teaching in
which Jesus teaches the disciples that they will be able to perform
whatever they wish if they pray correctly and with sufficient faith (Mk.
11:22-24//Mt. 21:21-22). In the Matthean version of the prayer teaching,
the endowment of power through prayer is dependent upon the pi,stij
(‘faith’) of the pray-er, therefore Jesus states ‘whatever you ask in
prayer, you will receive if you have faith’ (Mt. 21:22). Faith is also the
essential element of prayer in an earlier passage in Mt. 17:20:
‘Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a
grain
of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, `Move from here to
there,' and
it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.’
Due to the ambiguous use of πίστις in both Mt. 17:20 and 21:22, it is
unclear whether these passages teach the importance of faith in oneself
or faith in God. Since the prayer is addressed to the mountain in both
Mt. 17:20, 21:21 and Mk. 11:23 rather than to God, this suggests that
God does not have a role in the process and consequently the faith that is
required is the pray-er’s faith in his own skills and abilities. Similarly, as
the tree uproots itself directly in obedience to the pray-er in the Lukan
version of the mustard seed teaching, this clearly suggests that it is the
pray-er himself who has the ability to uproot the sycamine tree and that
this miracle can be achieved independently of a higher spiritual power:
‘if you had faith as a grain of mustard seed, you could say to this
sycamine
tree ‘be rooted up, and be planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you.’
(my emphasis, Lk. 17:6).
In the Markan version of the fig tree pericope, the πίστις of the pray-er
is understood unequivocally as having faith in one’s own words and
actions and these are the factors that are required to achieve a miracle.
The author of Mark states that a miracle will occur if the pray-er ‘does
not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass’
(Mk. 11:23). The obvious connotations of magical instruction that are
present this statement are softened by the evangelist who introduces the
importance of prayer in the following verse (11:24), however the
confidence in the operator’s ability to receive miracle-working power
through his will alone is made increasingly explicit in the second half of
the verse which states that the pray-er must simply ‘believe that you
have received it, and it will be yours’. This confidence in a guaranteed
response from God is also echoed elsewhere in the Gospels in the
statement ‘ask and it will be given you’ (Lk. 11:9, Mt. 7:7), a phrase
which Morton Smith claims has parallels within the magical papyri.[63]
The words of Jesus in Mk. 11:23 have a certain arrogance to them that
imitates those of the ancient magician who believes that his words alone
will suffice to produce miracles and that the gods are bound to his every
whim. Having refused in the temptation narratives to perform magical
feats for self-gain or to test the potency of his powers (Mt. 4:3-11//Lk.
4:3-13), here we have Jesus boasting to the disciples that he can do
whatever he wills to do and actively using his power to achieve frivolous
results. Equally, having taught the disciples ‘do not rejoice that the
spirits are subject to you’ (Lk. 10:20) in an attempt to subdue their
enthusiasm concerning their new found abilities, here Jesus appears to
be randomly exploiting his powers for his own amusement. Furthermore,
by having Jesus instruct the disciples regarding the technicalities of his
own abilities to perform miracles (hence the physical display of his
power by withering the fig tree) the author of Mark implies that this
miracle-working power can be shared by anyone who is instructed in the
methodology and technique used by Jesus. Not only does the
transferable nature of this power carry serious implications for magical
practice but since Jesus’ instructions to his disciples are typically carried
out in secret throughout the Gospels, we may ask whether previous
occasions in which Jesus has withdrawn with his disciples to impart
secret knowledge to them involved the teaching of similar magical
techniques.
If the reader of the Gospels is to understand that an impossible task, such
as moving a mountain, can be achieved on the strength of will alone,
then is the reader to assume that equally impossible tasks that are
reported in the ministry of Jesus, such as healing the sick, walking on the
water and transforming water into wine, were also performed on the
strength of Jesus’ will? While certain ‘impossible’ miracles attributed to
Jesus in the Gospels have clear parallels within the magical tradition [65],
there are undoubtedly instances in which a healing appears to take place
simply because Jesus wills it to happen. For example, the leper who
approaches Jesus to be healed begs ‘if you will, you can make me clean’
and Jesus’ healing command in all three Synoptics is simply ‘I will
(θέλω); be clean’ (Mk. 1:40-45//Mt. 8:2-4//Lk. 5:12-16). The healing
potency of Jesus’ will in this instance is made more explicit in the
account provided in the Egerton Gospel which omits the mention of
touch:
‘“If, therefore, you are willing, I am cleansed.” The Lord said to him, “I
am
willing; be cleansed.” And immediately the leprosy left him.’[66]
The possibility that a strong personal will is the sole prerequisite for the
performance of a miracle is rejected by the author of the Gospel of John
who is particularly eager to stress that Jesus does not have autonomy in
the application of his spiritual power and prefers instead to repeatedly
emphasise Jesus’ dependence on God’s will. The statement ‘I can do
nothing on my own authority’ reoccurs frequently throughout the Gospel
of John (5:30, 8:28, 14:10, cf. also 5:19) and the onslaught of passages
in which Jesus reaffirms that he is subject to God’s will is occasionally
so intense that it arouses suspicion as to whether this material is magic
apologetic (cf. Jn. 4:34, 7:17). The highest concentration of these anti-
magical assertions is found Jn. 6:38-40:
‘For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will
of
him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me , that I should
lose
nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For
this
is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in
him
should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.’ (my
emphasis)
[1]
Judah Goldin, ‘On Honi the Circle-Maker: A Demanding Prayer’,
HTR 56. 3 (1963) p. 234.
[7]
For examples of the Old Testament use of ‘finger of God’ cf. Ex.
31:18, Dt. 9:10.
[11]
Text 01 in Karl Preisendanz (ed.), Papyri Graecae Magicae: Die
Grieschischen Zauberpapyri, Vol II (Stuttgart: Teubner 1974) p. 233.
[13]
Thomas C. Römer, ‘Competing Magicians in Exodus 7-9:
Interpreting Magic in the Priestly Theology’ in Todd Klutz (ed.), Magic
in the Biblical world: From the Rod of Aaron to the Ring of Solomon,
JSNTsupp 245 (2003) p. 20. To support this statement, Römer provides
reference to a useful study by B. Couroyer entitled ‘Le “doigt de Dieu”
(Exode, VIII, 15)’, RB 63 (1956) pp. 481-95.
[14]
Marvin W. Meyer and Richard Smith (eds.), Ancient Christian
Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1999) p. 230.
[15]
Tran. Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic, p. 231.
[16]
Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic p. 279, citing Walter E.
Crum Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the British Museum
(London: British Museum, 1905).
[17]
Trans. Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic, p. 290. See also
Meyer’s
translation of an amulet to provide protection: ‘I adjure you by
Orphamiel, the great finger of the father’ (p. 116).
[18]
Trans. Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic, p. 250.
[20]
Origen, Con. Cels. I. 46
[23]
Augustine, City of God, particularly VIII. 14-18.
[24]
Smith, Jesus the Magician, p. 100.
[25]
Morton Smith observes that ‘Holy spirits, with and without the
definite article, are familiar in the magical papyri’ (Smith, Jesus the
Magician, p. 103) and he provides references to PGM I. 313; III. 8, 289,
393, 550; IV. 510, XII. 174 (Smith, Jesus the Magician, p. 193).
[26]
L. J. Ciraolo ‘Supernatural Assistants in the Greek Magical Papyri’ in
M. Meyer and P. Mirecki (eds.) Ancient Magic and Ritual Power
(Boston: Brill, 1995) p. 280.
[27] Origen, Con. Cels. 1.68.
[28] Lucian, Philopseudes 13.
[29] Philostratus, Life of Apollonius VIII. 5.
[38]
This third category of blasphemy and its relevance to the charges
brought against Jesus is discussed in Tibor Horvath, ‘Why was Jesus
Brought to Pilate?’, NovT 11 (1969) pp. 174-184.
[40]
Hans Dieter Betz (ed.), The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation
including the Demotic Spells, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (University of Chicago
Press, 1992) p. 84.
[41]
Betz translate ἱερὸν πνευμα in this passage as ‘sacred spirit’ (Hans
Dieter Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, p. 48).
[42]
For further examples see Smith, Jesus the Magician, pp. 125-126.
[43]
Clement, Recognitions of Clement, 2:9.
[45]
Apuleius, Apologia 26.
[46]
J. M. Hull, Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition, (SBT, 2nd
Series 28; London: SCM, 1974) p. 55.
[47]
In his authoritative book on the life of Apollonius of Tyana, G. R. S.
Mead writes: ‘Apollonius believed in prayer, but how differently from
the vulgar. For him the idea that the Gods could be swayed from the path
of rigid justice by the entreaties of men, was a blasphemy; that the Gods
could be made parties to our selfish hopes and fears was to our
philosopher unthinkable’, therefore ‘we find Apollonius indignantly
rejecting the accusation of magic ignorantly brought against him…with
such arts he would have nothing to do…but owing to ‘that wisdom
which God reveals to the wise’ ([Philostratus, Life of Apollonius] iv.
44)’ (G. R. S. Mead, Apollonius of Tyana: The Philosopher-Reformer of
the First Century A. D. (New York: University Books, 1966) pp. 132,
114).
[50]
For example, in defending Jesus’ activities against Celsus’ claim that
they resemble those of the Egyptian magicians, Origen states that Jesus
uses his powers to encourage faith and perform good deeds whereas the
Egyptian magicians indulge in deeds of self-interest and evil (Origen,
Con. Cels. 1.68, 7.17, 8.43). Similarly, the Sanhedrin stated that an act
which has beneficial results cannot be magic (bSanh 67b).
[57]
Smith, Jesus the Magician, p. 119.
[58]
Eric Eve, ‘Meier, Miracle and Multiple Attestation’, JSHJ 3.1 (2005)
p. 33.
[59]
Regina Dionisopoulos-Mass, ‘The Evil Eye and Bewitchment in a
Peasant Village’, in Clarence Maloney (ed.), The Evil Eye (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1976) pp. 49-50.
[63]
Smith, Jesus the Magician, p. 131. Smith provides references to PGM
IV. 777f: ‘Ask the god whatever you wish and he will give it you’ and
PGM IV. 2172: ‘What you ask, you shall receive’ (p. 206).
[65]
For example, we have read earlier in this chapter (pg. 285) that the
assisting spirit in the ‘Spell of Pnouthis’ (PGM 1.42-195) can make food
appear and grant the magician the ability to become invisible and walk
on water. We have also considered that some of these skills were
attributed to Celsus’ Egyptian magicians, Lucian’s Hyperborean
magician and Apollonius of Tyana.
[66]
Papyrus Egerton 2.2 (trans. Bart Ehrman, The New Testament and
Other Early Christian Writings: A Reader (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1998) p. 134).
‘I swear by your great Name, that I will not stir from here
until you have compassion on your children!’ (M. Taanit 3:8)
‘You are presumptuous before the Creator and yet he does as you wish,
like a son presumes on his father and he does whatever he wishes.’
(M. Taanit 3.8)
The notion that a human being can influence a divine spirit to obey his
will by employing a series of threatening demands may seem incredible
to the majority of readers operating under the contemporary Western
Christian perception of God as a remote being, far removed from our
earthly realm and situated at a distance in the heavens. However, the
magicians of antiquity considered their gods to be far more readily
accessible and they alleged that it was not only the lesser spirits of the
demonic and the dead that were ripe for magical exploitation but also the
supreme gods themselves. Consequently the ancient magician would
often attempt to command the gods to do his bidding, either by gaining
possession of a god or a divine spirit that would work continually under
his authority as an assisting spirit, or by persuading a god to grant the
magician an equal status so that he too can possess divine powers, or by
employing a series of threats to coerce the god to obey the magician’s
will and respond whenever he requires the use of the spirit’s power. It is
this third and final method that is implied in Honi’s address to God in
the quotation above and it is this approach that is ultimately responsible
for the caricature of the arrogant, proud magician who threatens and
shouts at his god until his demands are met. With all three of these
techniques constituting irrefutable evidence of magical practice in the
ancient world, the early reader of the Gospels who was accustomed to
this type of magical behaviour would surely be surprised to encounter
instances in which Jesus appears to behave in this manner, particularly
evidence of behaviour which suggests that he was in possession of a
divine spirit or that he had a coercive approach to God. Nevertheless,
there are occasions in which Jesus admits that a spiritual power is
working under his authority and at times it appears that he is seeking to
influence the will of God.
‘I adjure [you], I place you under oath, by the great finger, Nathaniel:
Bind, bind, bind, unbreakably!’[18]
This particular text was most likely used by a thief to restrain a dog so
that he could steal from a house (coincidentally, Luke’s δακτύλω
θεου appears in close proximity to the binding terminology used by
Jesus and the metaphor of a plundered house in the parable of the strong
man in Mk. 3:27//Mt. 12:29//Lk. 11:21-22).
Although the parallels between this magical text and the ministry of
Jesus in the Gospels appear to suggest that the author of this spell was
aware of the Gospel tradition, the manifestation of food, freedom from
bondage and the granting of invisibility were all magical skills
accredited to various magicians within the ancient world. For example,
Celsus states that the Egyptian magicians were able to call forth the
illusion of a grand banquet[27], Lucian’s Hyperborean magician has the
power to walk upon water[28] and Apollonius of Tyana was thought to
have vanished from a courtroom.[29]
When the magician dies, the author of this rite states that the spirit will
wrap up his body and ‘carry it into the air with him’ (I. 178) and during
his lifetime, as a direct result of the possession of this assisting spirit, the
magician is promised: ‘you will be worshipped as a god since you have a
god as a friend’ (I. 191). As this final line indicates, the close bond
established between a magician and his assisting spirit was thought to
induce ‘god-like’ qualities within the magician, although his new divine
status could also be illusionary. Since an assisting spirit worked through
the magician and at his immediate behest, it would appear to observers
that the magician was performing these miracles by his own personal
powers and hence his naïve audience would consider him to be a god.
However the magician’s divine status was not always a charade. Many
rites in Hellenistic magic, known specifically as ‘deification’ rites,
promise to join the magician so closely to a divine spirit or god that his
soul will become divine and he will rightfully identify himself as a god.
Since the baptism accounts in the Gospels closely resemble the descent
of a divine familiar spirit and deification was often the direct
consequence of the possession of a divine spirit, we must seriously
consider deification as a valid interpretation of the processes described
within the baptism narratives.
The serpent in the Garden of Eden tempts Eve with the promise that if
she eats the fruit from the tree of knowledge then she ‘will be like God’
(Gen. 3:5). The serpent’s promise that a human being can achieve a
divine status was an appealing prospect in the ancient world and many
religious communities and magical practitioners believed that by
participating in a deification ritual they could experience a physical and
spiritual regeneration which would result in their transformation into a
god-like being. Consequently, rites of deification were extremely
commonplace in the ancient world. Attaining a divine status was
considered to be a central objective of theurgy (‘divine work’, from
θεὀς ‘God’ and ἔργον ‘work’) and many theurgists in the Hellenistic
world of the late second and early third centuries CE professed the
ability to establish a direct link of communication between themselves
and the gods. A close involvement with the operations of the divine
ensured that the theurgists were considered to be practising a higher,
more benevolent form of magic than inferior magic such as goetia and
henceforth the rituals of theurgy were adopted by leading Neoplatonic
philosophers seeking to distance themselves from the negative stigma
associated with magic.
Many examples of deification rites are found within the Greek magical
papyri and the most widely recognised of these is the ‘Mithras Liturgy’
in the Great Magical Papyri of Paris (PGM IV. 475-829). This ritual
promises the magician that he will attain immortality and be transformed
into ‘a lord of a godlike nature’ (PGM IV. 220). To indicate the
transition of the magician’s soul from a mortal to divine state, he is
required to announce during the ritual:
All four Gospel writers indicate that Jesus’ claim to a divine status was a
major contributing factor towards his eventual execution (Mk. 14:61-
64//Mt. 26:63-65//Lk. 22:70). For instance, in the trial narrative of
John’s Gospel a charge of blasphemy is made against Jesus on the basis
that has assumed a divine-like nature:
‘This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not
only
broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal
with
God.’ (Jn. 5:18)
‘the Jews say “it is not for a good work that we stone you but for
blasphemy;
because you being a man, made yourself God.”’ (Jn. 10:33)
‘the Jews answered him, “We have a law, and by that law he ought to
die,
because he has made himself a Son of God.”’(Jn. 19:7)
‘the strongest magic seems to be that effect caused merely by the will of
the operator; so strong is that will that it needs no extra help…it cannot
be interrupted or delayed because its triumph is its immediate attainment
of its objective.’[46]
It is possible that the authors of Mark and Matthew found the violence
within the fig tree pericope to be disagreeable but felt that the event was
too well known or important to be left out. Unsurprisingly, the author of
Luke does not include the incident in his Gospel and this omission may
be based on his sensitivity to the negative implications of this seemingly
random act of destruction. Certainly the destructive use of Jesus’ power
conjures up the unpleasant caricature of a magician who uses his
abilities to bring physical, psychological or financial harm to his
neighbours. It must also be noted that the act of ‘withering’ was closely
associated with magic in the ancient world. Morton Smith observes that
‘some spells intend their victims to ‘wither,’ ‘consume,’ ‘burn up’’ and
therefore ‘magic has probably had some influence here’. [57] Since
‘withering’ was particularly associated with the ‘evil eye’, it is perhaps
within this context that we can understand the influence of magic upon
this passage in the Gospels. For instance, Eric Eve calls the destruction
of the fig tree ‘an act of thaumaturgical vandalism’ which ‘in that culture
might very well be ascribed to the use of the evil eye’ [58] and he supports
this observation with a quotation from Regina Dionisopoulos-Mass’
study into the use of the evil eye in witchcraft:
‘A tree or vine that suddenly withers is certainly the victim of the eye…
There
are many tales of trees and vines that were green and strong in the
morning
but that had withered and died from a passing envious eye by
nightfall.’[59]
In addition, the statement ‘may no fruit ever come from you again’ (Mt.
21:19//Mk. 11:14) is similar to the binding curses found within the
magical papyri which read, for example, ‘may NN not be able…’ or ‘let
him not speak’ (cf. PGM V. 321f). Therefore we should not ignore the
possibility that Jesus’ words are to be understood as a magical binding
curse. This destructive use of Jesus’ power and the numerous parallels to
the magical act of ‘withering’ are not the sole contributing factors to the
emergent figure of Jesus as a magician in this passage. In addition, there
is a significant underlying current of magical technique that is present in
the subsequent prayer teaching in Mk. 11:22-24//Mt. 21:21-22. Most
studies of the fig-tree incident limit their attention to the implied
symbolism of the fig tree and fail to realise that the destruction of the
tree is clearly intended to illustrate the subsequent prayer teaching in
which Jesus teaches the disciples that they will be able to perform
whatever they wish if they pray correctly and with sufficient faith (Mk.
11:22-24//Mt. 21:21-22). In the Matthean version of the prayer teaching,
the endowment of power through prayer is dependent upon the pi,stij
(‘faith’) of the pray-er, therefore Jesus states ‘whatever you ask in
prayer, you will receive if you have faith’ (Mt. 21:22). Faith is also the
essential element of prayer in an earlier passage in Mt. 17:20:
‘Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a
grain
of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, `Move from here to
there,' and
it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.’
Due to the ambiguous use of πίστις in both Mt. 17:20 and 21:22, it is
unclear whether these passages teach the importance of faith in oneself
or faith in God. Since the prayer is addressed to the mountain in both
Mt. 17:20, 21:21 and Mk. 11:23 rather than to God, this suggests that
God does not have a role in the process and consequently the faith that is
required is the pray-er’s faith in his own skills and abilities. Similarly, as
the tree uproots itself directly in obedience to the pray-er in the Lukan
version of the mustard seed teaching, this clearly suggests that it is the
pray-er himself who has the ability to uproot the sycamine tree and that
this miracle can be achieved independently of a higher spiritual power:
‘if you had faith as a grain of mustard seed, you could say to this
sycamine
tree ‘be rooted up, and be planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you.’
(my emphasis, Lk. 17:6).
In the Markan version of the fig tree pericope, the πίστις of the pray-er
is understood unequivocally as having faith in one’s own words and
actions and these are the factors that are required to achieve a miracle.
The author of Mark states that a miracle will occur if the pray-er ‘does
not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass’
(Mk. 11:23). The obvious connotations of magical instruction that are
present this statement are softened by the evangelist who introduces the
importance of prayer in the following verse (11:24), however the
confidence in the operator’s ability to receive miracle-working power
through his will alone is made increasingly explicit in the second half of
the verse which states that the pray-er must simply ‘believe that you
have received it, and it will be yours’. This confidence in a guaranteed
response from God is also echoed elsewhere in the Gospels in the
statement ‘ask and it will be given you’ (Lk. 11:9, Mt. 7:7), a phrase
which Morton Smith claims has parallels within the magical papyri.[63]
The words of Jesus in Mk. 11:23 have a certain arrogance to them that
imitates those of the ancient magician who believes that his words alone
will suffice to produce miracles and that the gods are bound to his every
whim. Having refused in the temptation narratives to perform magical
feats for self-gain or to test the potency of his powers (Mt. 4:3-11//Lk.
4:3-13), here we have Jesus boasting to the disciples that he can do
whatever he wills to do and actively using his power to achieve frivolous
results. Equally, having taught the disciples ‘do not rejoice that the
spirits are subject to you’ (Lk. 10:20) in an attempt to subdue their
enthusiasm concerning their new found abilities, here Jesus appears to
be randomly exploiting his powers for his own amusement. Furthermore,
by having Jesus instruct the disciples regarding the technicalities of his
own abilities to perform miracles (hence the physical display of his
power by withering the fig tree) the author of Mark implies that this
miracle-working power can be shared by anyone who is instructed in the
methodology and technique used by Jesus. Not only does the
transferable nature of this power carry serious implications for magical
practice but since Jesus’ instructions to his disciples are typically carried
out in secret throughout the Gospels, we may ask whether previous
occasions in which Jesus has withdrawn with his disciples to impart
secret knowledge to them involved the teaching of similar magical
techniques.
‘“If, therefore, you are willing, I am cleansed.” The Lord said to him, “I
am
willing; be cleansed.” And immediately the leprosy left him.’[66]
The possibility that a strong personal will is the sole prerequisite for the
performance of a miracle is rejected by the author of the Gospel of John
who is particularly eager to stress that Jesus does not have autonomy in
the application of his spiritual power and prefers instead to repeatedly
emphasise Jesus’ dependence on God’s will. The statement ‘I can do
nothing on my own authority’ reoccurs frequently throughout the Gospel
of John (5:30, 8:28, 14:10, cf. also 5:19) and the onslaught of passages
in which Jesus reaffirms that he is subject to God’s will is occasionally
so intense that it arouses suspicion as to whether this material is magic
apologetic (cf. Jn. 4:34, 7:17). The highest concentration of these anti-
magical assertions is found Jn. 6:38-40:
‘For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will
of
him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me , that I should
lose
nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For
this
is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in
him
should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.’ (my
emphasis)
[1]
Judah Goldin, ‘On Honi the Circle-Maker: A Demanding Prayer’,
HTR 56. 3 (1963) p. 234.
[7]
For examples of the Old Testament use of ‘finger of God’ cf. Ex.
31:18, Dt. 9:10.
[11]
Text 01 in Karl Preisendanz (ed.), Papyri Graecae Magicae: Die
Grieschischen Zauberpapyri, Vol II (Stuttgart: Teubner 1974) p. 233.
[13]
Thomas C. Römer, ‘Competing Magicians in Exodus 7-9:
Interpreting Magic in the Priestly Theology’ in Todd Klutz (ed.), Magic
in the Biblical world: From the Rod of Aaron to the Ring of Solomon,
JSNTsupp 245 (2003) p. 20. To support this statement, Römer provides
reference to a useful study by B. Couroyer entitled ‘Le “doigt de Dieu”
(Exode, VIII, 15)’, RB 63 (1956) pp. 481-95.
[14]
Marvin W. Meyer and Richard Smith (eds.), Ancient Christian
Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1999) p. 230.
[15]
Tran. Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic, p. 231.
[16]
Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic p. 279, citing Walter E.
Crum Catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the British Museum
(London: British Museum, 1905).
[17]
Trans. Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic, p. 290. See also
Meyer’s
translation of an amulet to provide protection: ‘I adjure you by
Orphamiel, the great finger of the father’ (p. 116).
[18]
Trans. Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic, p. 250.
[20]
Origen, Con. Cels. I. 46
[23]
Augustine, City of God, particularly VIII. 14-18.
[24]
Smith, Jesus the Magician, p. 100.
[25]
Morton Smith observes that ‘Holy spirits, with and without the
definite article, are familiar in the magical papyri’ (Smith, Jesus the
Magician, p. 103) and he provides references to PGM I. 313; III. 8, 289,
393, 550; IV. 510, XII. 174 (Smith, Jesus the Magician, p. 193).
[26]
L. J. Ciraolo ‘Supernatural Assistants in the Greek Magical Papyri’ in
M. Meyer and P. Mirecki (eds.) Ancient Magic and Ritual Power
(Boston: Brill, 1995) p. 280.
[27] Origen, Con. Cels. 1.68.
[28] Lucian, Philopseudes 13.
[29] Philostratus, Life of Apollonius VIII. 5.
[38]
This third category of blasphemy and its relevance to the charges
brought against Jesus is discussed in Tibor Horvath, ‘Why was Jesus
Brought to Pilate?’, NovT 11 (1969) pp. 174-184.
[40]
Hans Dieter Betz (ed.), The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation
including the Demotic Spells, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (University of Chicago
Press, 1992) p. 84.
[41]
Betz translate ἱερὸν πνευμα in this passage as ‘sacred spirit’ (Hans
Dieter Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, p. 48).
[42]
For further examples see Smith, Jesus the Magician, pp. 125-126.
[43]
Clement, Recognitions of Clement, 2:9.
[45]
Apuleius, Apologia 26.
[46]
J. M. Hull, Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition, (SBT, 2nd
Series 28; London: SCM, 1974) p. 55.
[47]
In his authoritative book on the life of Apollonius of Tyana, G. R. S.
Mead writes: ‘Apollonius believed in prayer, but how differently from
the vulgar. For him the idea that the Gods could be swayed from the path
of rigid justice by the entreaties of men, was a blasphemy; that the Gods
could be made parties to our selfish hopes and fears was to our
philosopher unthinkable’, therefore ‘we find Apollonius indignantly
rejecting the accusation of magic ignorantly brought against him…with
such arts he would have nothing to do…but owing to ‘that wisdom
which God reveals to the wise’ ([Philostratus, Life of Apollonius] iv.
44)’ (G. R. S. Mead, Apollonius of Tyana: The Philosopher-Reformer of
the First Century A. D. (New York: University Books, 1966) pp. 132,
114).
[50]
For example, in defending Jesus’ activities against Celsus’ claim that
they resemble those of the Egyptian magicians, Origen states that Jesus
uses his powers to encourage faith and perform good deeds whereas the
Egyptian magicians indulge in deeds of self-interest and evil (Origen,
Con. Cels. 1.68, 7.17, 8.43). Similarly, the Sanhedrin stated that an act
which has beneficial results cannot be magic (bSanh 67b).
[57]
Smith, Jesus the Magician, p. 119.
[58]
Eric Eve, ‘Meier, Miracle and Multiple Attestation’, JSHJ 3.1 (2005)
p. 33.
[59]
Regina Dionisopoulos-Mass, ‘The Evil Eye and Bewitchment in a
Peasant Village’, in Clarence Maloney (ed.), The Evil Eye (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1976) pp. 49-50.
[63]
Smith, Jesus the Magician, p. 131. Smith provides references to PGM
IV. 777f: ‘Ask the god whatever you wish and he will give it you’ and
PGM IV. 2172: ‘What you ask, you shall receive’ (p. 206).
[65]
For example, we have read earlier in this chapter (pg. 285) that the
assisting spirit in the ‘Spell of Pnouthis’ (PGM 1.42-195) can make food
appear and grant the magician the ability to become invisible and walk
on water. We have also considered that some of these skills were
attributed to Celsus’ Egyptian magicians, Lucian’s Hyperborean
magician and Apollonius of Tyana.
[66]
Papyrus Egerton 2.2 (trans. Bart Ehrman, The New Testament and
Other Early Christian Writings: A Reader (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1998) p. 134).
Throughout the course of this study we have been slicing into the Gospel
materials to pinpoint magical techniques and magical attitudes that are
present in Jesus’ behaviour. Now is the time to unfold the finished work
and reveal the overall pattern to which each critical incision has
contributed, although for some readers the results will not be particularly
pretty. The portrait of Jesus that emerges from Mark’s Gospel in
particular is in stark contrast to the familiar figure recognised by the
mainstream Christian tradition and yet it is a faithful reflection of the
evidence presented by the evangelist. That the author of Mark would
consciously seek to portray Jesus as a magician is an astonishing
thought. However the constant appearance of magical behaviours,
techniques and attitudes throughout the Gospel ensures that Jesus does
not merely satisfy one or two of the required credentials for an ancient
magician, but he appears to fulfil them all.
It was not only the depiction of Jesus that was integrated into the
magical tradition, but also the name of Jesus came to be used as a
valuable incantational device.
The Gospel writers do not hesitate to mention that Jesus’ name was
being used in healing and exorcistic incantations during his lifetime. For
example, the author of Luke has the seventy (two) disciples return to
Jesus and say ‘Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!’
(Lk. 10:17). The report of the strange exorcist, who also uses Jesus name
to cast out demons, demonstrates that it was not only Jesus’ followers
that were able to use his name to great effect (Mk. 9:38-9//Lk. 9:49-50).
The author of Luke also reveals that this practice continued after Jesus’
death; in Acts 16:18 we read that Paul was able to exorcise demons ‘in
the name of Jesus Christ’, the apostle Peter is able to heal ‘in the name
of Jesus Christ’ in Acts. 3:6 (cf. Acts. 9:32-35) and even the Jewish
exorcists attempt to use this technique in Acts 19:11-20.[4] Since
unidentified exorcists, such as the strange exorcist, were able to use this
method successfully, then we must assume that the relationship between
the practitioner and the person of Jesus was largely irrelevant and that
the name itself possessed magical properties. Furthermore, as some
exorcists failed to employ this method effectively (Acts 19:11-20) this
suggests that the use of Jesus’ name was a technique that must learnt to
be applied correctly.
The magical properties of the name ‘Jesus’ seems to account for the
popularity of its usage by magicians during and after the period of the
crucifixion. Morton Smith observes that ‘in Jesus’ lifetime magicians
began to use his name in spells’ [5] and ‘there is no question that Jesus’
name continued to be used in magic as that of a supernatural power by
whose authority demons might be conjured.’[6] The name ‘Jesus’ is
employed in the magical papyri for a variety of purposes. Most often,
Jesus is invoked by name to assist in exorcisms; for example in an
‘excellent rite for driving out demons’ (PGM IV. 1227-64) the magician
invokes ‘Jesus Chrestos’ (IV. 1233). Similarly, in ‘a tested charm of
Pibechis for those possessed by daimons’ (PGM IV. 3007-86) the
magician declares ‘I conjure you by the god of the Hebrews, Jesus’ (IV.
3019). The name of Jesus also features in various other types of spells.
For example, in a request ‘for release from bondage’, the magician asks
‘Hear me, O Christ’ (PGM XIII. 289) and in the fragmentary text PGM
XII. 190-192 (a ‘request for a dream oracle’) the invocation begins
‘IESOUS ANOUI…’ (XII.192). The name EIESOUS also appears in
PGM XII. 376-96 (a ‘charm to induce insomnia’, XII. 391). There is,
however, a major difficulty when proposing that the name ‘Jesus’ had
magical properties and Stevan Davies addresses this problem head-on
when he makes the following objection:
‘at that point in history the name Jesus (as common then as Bob is now)
would not have had ‘magical’ efficacy’[7]
Douglas Geyer suggests that the crucifixion of Jesus, much like the
decapitation of John the Baptist, constituted ‘a type of σπαραγμός, or
a desecrative rending of the flesh.’ [11] The violent nature of the
crucifixion is described by Joel B. Green as follows:
If John the Baptist would have been accorded all the superstitions
regarding a violent death and subsequently viewed as a biaioqa,natoj,
then Jesus’ violent manner of execution would surely have attracted the
same suspicious attention. Unsurprisingly, there are reports of magicians
scrabbling around for control of the spirit of Jesus following his
crucifixion on the premise that he was now a powerful βιαιοθάνατος
and readily accessible through magical means. The necromantic
manipulation of Jesus’ spirit is addressed in the Martyrdom of Pionius,
in which Pionius reports that the Jews at Smyrna in 250AD considered
Jesus to be a βιαιοθάνατος due to his violent death and they accused
the Christians of practicing necromancy using his spirit. [13] The
allegation is as follows: λέγουσι δὲ καὶ νεκουμαντείαν
πεποιηκέναι καὶ ἀνηγειοχέναι τὸν Χριστὸν μετὰ του
σταυρου.[14] There is some disagreement whether this passage is an
account of the necromantic manipulation of Jesus’ spirit or an accusation
that Jesus himself performed necromancy on the cross. [15]
Evidence of the necromantic manipulation of the spirit of Jesus is found
in many later Christian magical texts. One prime example appears in a
fourth or fifth century text entitled ‘spell invoking Christ for protection
against illness and ill treatment’ (Egyptian Museum 10263).[17] The spell
begins by invoking Jesus using the typical method of recounting details
about his life (i.e. ‘in the womb of the virgin Mary, who was born in
Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth, who was crucified…’) and the overall
purpose of the spell is to protect the bearer from illness and evil
influences. Since Meyer comments that this papyrus ‘seems to have been
buried with a mummy’, we may assume that the performer of this rite
has utilised a familiar technique used to manipulate the untimely dead by
placing the spell in a tomb alongside a corpse, thereby assuming that
Jesus can be used and summoned as easily as the rest of the dead in the
Underworld.[18] The name ‘Jesus’ also appears as a means of magical
self-identification, a method previously discussed in Chapter VIII. For
example, in a sixth-century exorcistic incantation entitled ‘spell to cast
out every unclean spirit’ (Oriental Manuscript 6796), the magician uses
the familiar ‘I am’ formula to identify himself with Jesus (‘I am Jesus
Christ’). A crucifixion scene also accompanies the main text and the
spirit of Jesus is invoked through an elaborate ritual of adjurations and
offerings during which the magician states:
‘I adjure you, father, by Orpha, that is your entire body, and Orphamiel,
that is
the great finger of your right hand, that you send me Jesus Christ…’[19
A final thought
[1]
This has recently occurred with the publication of the ‘Gospel of
Judas’, in which angelic ‘attendants’ (parastasis) are mentioned on three
occasions.
[3]
Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (London: Gollancz, 1978) p. 61.
[4]
Origen also observes that the name of Jesus was being
used to cast out demons (Origen, Con. Cels. 1.25).
[5]
Smith, Jesus the Magician, p. 61.
[6]
Smith, Jesus the Magician, p. 62-63.
[7]
S. L. Davies, Jesus the Healer: Possession, Trance and the Origins of
Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1995) p. 111.
[8]
Smith, Jesus the Magician p. 132. A similar declaration is made by the
magician in PGM XXXVI. 165: ‘I glorify your sacred and honoured
names which are in heaven’.
[9]
H. D. Betz, The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation Including the
Demotic Spells 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992) p.
131.
[10]
Josephus, Ant. 8. 46-9 (G. H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A
Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus (Mass: Hendrickson,
1993) p. 139).
[11]
Douglas W. Geyer, Fear, Anomaly, and Uncertainty in the Gospel of
Mark, ATLA Monograph Series, 47 (Lanham: Scarecrow Press, 2002) p.
215.
[12]
Joel B. Green, ‘Crucifixion’ in Markus Bockmuehl (ed.) Companion
to Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002) p. 91.
[13]
For a discussion of this text, see Jan Den Boeft and Jan Bremmer,
‘Notiunculae Martyrologicae III. Some Observations on the Martyria of
Polycarp and Pionius’, VC 39. 2 (1985) pp. 110 -130.
[14]
The Martyrdom of Pionius, 13:3.
[15]
For example, H. Musurillo translates this sentence as ‘they assert that
Christ performed necromancy or spirit-divination with the cross’ (H.
Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford, 1972), 137-167)
however J. L. Roberts proposes the more accurate translation: ‘that they
performed necromancy and that they brought up Christ with the cross (J.
and L. Roberts, Fouilles d’Amyzon en Carie I (Paris, 1983), p. 262).
[17]
For full text, see M. W. Meyer and R. Smith (eds.), Ancient Christian
Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power (Princeton: Princeton University
Press 1999) pp. 35-36.
[18]
Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic, p. 35.
[19]
For full text, see Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic, pp. 290
– 291.