THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
the child screamed at every attack, and that the evil spirit " bruising him, hardly departeth from him."
Both Mark and Luke record symp- 3. Symp- toms of epilepsy; the account in Mattoms of thew not only omits all these details, Possession, but especially characterizes the disease as lunacy (xvii. 15), thus giving a preferable explanation of the falling of the boy into fire and water, which has no specific cause in Mark, and is altogether lacking in Luke. The passage in Matthew is the more interesting since in iv. 24 he tlistinguishes " those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatic, and those that had the palsy." The demoniac met by Jesus in the synagogue at Capernaum (Mark i. 23-28) does not exhibit the characteristic foam of epilepsy, but shows symptoms of epileptic hysteria, especially as Luke iv. 35 notes that the fit did him no harm. It is evident, from a summary of the cases in Matthew and Mark, that such attacks were regarded as demoniac in origin, and to the same agency are ascribed the superhuman strength, the selfinjury, the dwelling among tombs, the threatening gestures, and the nakedness of the demoniac of Gadara (Mark v. 2-5; Luke viii. 27-29). Other complaints of a less serious nature, however, are also referred to the agency of demons, such as dumbness (Matt. ix. 32; Luke xi. 14), or blindness and dumbness (Matt. xii. 22), although no mention is made of the expulsion of demons in the accounts of the healing of the dumb and the blind in Matt. Lx. 27-31; Mark vii. 32, 37, viii. 22-26, x. 46-52. In like manner, Luke iv. 40-41 (cf. vi. 17-18, vii. 21) regards the curing of demoniacs as a special phase of healing, and in Acts viii. 7 demoniacs are distinguished from the paralytic and the lame. On the other hand, the woman bowed with " a spirit of infirmity eighteen years " was " bound by Satan " (Luke xiv. 11-16), and the fever of Peter's mother-in-law seems to have been believed to be demoniac (Luke iv. 38-39). The healings at Capernaum (Matt. viii. 16) were in the main exorcisms of demons, and these formed a large part of the activity both of Jesus (Mark i. 39) and of the Twelve (Mark iii. 14-15, vi. 7, 13; Matt. x. 8).
The gloom and asceticism of John the Baptist gained him the reputation of a demoniac (Matt. xi. IS; Luke vii. 33), and this charge was brought against Jesus himself (Matt. ix. 34, xii. 24; Mark iii. 22, 30; Luke xi. 15; John vii. 20, viii. 48, X. 20). Nor was it an easy matter to distinguish between spirits of evU and spirits of God (Matt, xxiv. 11, 24; I John iv. 1-3), so that the " discerning of spirits " was regarded as a special grace (I Cor. xii. 10, xiv. 29). Even a storm (Mark iv. 37-41; cf. Rev. vii. 1; Enoch lx. 11 sqq.; Jubilees ii.) was considered the work of demons. It is surprising, on the other hand, that moral defects and delinquencies are seldom represented as demoniac either by popular belief or by Jesus himself. Neither Matt. xi. 18; John vii. 20, viii. 48, 52, nor Luke xi. 24-26 admits ot such an interpretation, the only passages really entering into consideration being Luke xxii. 3, 31 and the account of the temptation, where, however, Satan is rather the avowed opponent of all Messianic work tlian the principle of evil.
In the exorcisms of Jesus the demoniacs are agitated at his approach (Mark i. 23, iii. 11, v. 6, ix. 20), while the evil spirits, recognizing him as the Son of God, implore him not to torment them before their time (Matt. viii. 29). Such recognition, although rebuked by Jesus (Mark i.
4. Exor- 25, iii. 12), receives its explanation cism by in the supernatural power of per-
Jesus. ception possessed by the evil spirits, since by means of his Spirit God wrought through Jesus all his miracles, wonders, and signs. The rebuke of Jesus is sufficient in most cases to exorcise evil spirits (Matt. viii. 16; Mark i. 25, ix. 25), even at a distance (Mark vii. 29, 30). The successful exorcism of the demon is recognized by the quiet and repose of the patient (Mark v. 15, vii. 30), or by a loud cry from the person possessed (Mark i. 26), while the transfer of the demon from the man of Gadara to the swine in Mark v. 2-13 finds its probable explanation in the fright of the animals at the final paroxysm of the maniac. The historicity of Jesus' successful treatment of demoniacs is admitted in principle even by adherents of the critical school. Exorcisms were the order of the day and were expected from a Messianic , prophet, and the chief proof for their historicity lies in statements of Jesus which represent their importance for himself and his activity as the Messiah (Matt. xi. 5; Luke vii. 22). It becomes clear from Matt. xii. 25-32 and Luke
xi. 17-23 that Jesus believed not only in the existence of demons (cf. Matt. xii. 43-45; Luke xi. 24- 26), but, like his contemporaries, in exorcism (Matt.
xii. 27; Luke xi. 19). The expulsion of demons implied the debilitation and the destruction of the " kingdom of Satan " (Matt. xii. 26; Luke xi. 18), thus representing victories over the principle of evil in the dawn of the Messianic age (cf . Assumption of Moses X.). It is clear, from the allusion to the " strong man " in Matt. xii. 29, and Luke xi. 21-22, that Jesus deduced his victory over the demons from his previous conquest of Satan, their lord, in his temptation (cf. Luke x. 18-20).
The accounts of the Gospels receive their full explanation, however, only in the light of the history of religion, which shows that the belief in demoniac possession was not restricted to the time of Jesus or to his surroundings. Exorcism
5. Exor- continued to be practised in the early cism in the Christian Church (Acts v. 16, viii. 7).
Early Of particular interest is the account Church, of the " spirit of divination," in Acts xvi. 16-18. The narrative in Acts xix. 13-19, on the other hand, contains no exorcism in the strict sense of the term, but merely shows the power of the name of Jesus over those possessed with demons (cf. Mark ix. 38-39; Luke ix. 49). Jesus hirtiself admitted the success of other exorcists and sanctioned them as helping to destroy the kingdom of Satan, so that the faUure of the Jewish exorcists (Acts xix. 13-16) is an exception to the general rule. Although the epistles contain no direct statements concerning demoniacs and exorcisms, such beliefs must be attributed to Paul when he mentions among chdrismata the ability to discern between spirits (I Cor. xii. 10). The con-