Tag Archives: healings
ROJ 4/26 Team 3, Question 2
There are subtle differences between Mark 3 and Matthew 12. Given that there was a fine line between a black magician and an actual prophet in antiquity, the authors were likely aware of this and amended the gospel in light of such a convention. The Pharisees have much more emphasis in Matthew; they accuse Jesus much more frequently of being Beezlebub. Matthew quotes in 12:15-21 a fulfilled prophecy from Isaiah: “Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles. 12.19He will not wrangle or cry aloud, nor will any one hear his voice in the streets; 12.20he will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick, till he brings justice to victory;12.21and in his name will the Gentiles hope.” In Mark he is portrayed much more as a miracle worker speaking to large crowds while in Matthew he is subject to ever growing scrutiny from the elders of the Jewish community. Matthew quotes the Old Testament a significant number of times compared to Mark. There is perhaps more emphasis on speaking to the Jewish community in Matthew. In Mark 3, Christ Jesus questions whether the law can be disobeyed if curing on the Sabbath would save someone’s life. Mark emphasizes his popularity as a prophet much more, for there is a greater acceptance among the public that he is indeed the Messiah.
Bohak discusses ancient Jewish magic, which appears to contradict our ideas about what Israelites taught about magic, (that it is wholly forbidden and pagan). Yet, he explores this theme that they did believe it existed. Bohak ascertains that there is “virtually no evidence for the Jewish use of written amulets” in the Second Temple period and there exists very little evidence of professional magicians with exception to Exorcists. This worldview must have shaped the gospel by emphasizing that Christ Jesus was not a black magician even though he is still accused of working the Sabbath.
In Matthew 14, the apostle Peter was called “You of little faith”, which implies that even though a miracle is occurring right in front of his eyes he still is not inclined to believe it is actually the Son of Man walking towards him and that their boat will not sink. Jesus reaches out to grab Peter and implores him to believe and have faith while in Mark there is no mention of this incident. In Mark it is mentioned that the wind calmed down and they continued on their way. Matthew’s depiction of the apostles is much more skeptical than in Mark. Again, this is addressing a very Jewish audience that is already questioning the veracity of Christ. “When they got into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him saying “Truly, you are the Son of God”.Cotter opines at length the miracle stories attributed to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. Jesus, while not only being a miracle worker, is also very human in his approach to magic. Instead of casting incantations in private, he heals people in public by touch. Touching people directly in public to heal opposed the social conventions of antiquity, for he not only touched the impoverished and people with leprosy (which easily was the most socially deplorable illness), he also touched women. This inspired a great love for Christ Jesus among the public, for he did not ascertain that his healing was limited to a specific demographic of people. Continue reading
RoJ 4/26 Team 1, Question 1
In ancient understanding, demon-possession was equated with the modern-day virus, with the demon making its home in a host and wreaking havoc therein. White says that, “Demons were the ‘germs’ of the ancient world” (170). This phrasing makes it seem as though demon-possession was a common occurrence/diagnoses and nothing to be feared under normal circumstances. This attitude contrasts with death, which was widely feared. The death itself wasn’t the object of fear, it was the idea of being trapped by death or the appearance of death and the subsequent mistaken burial/burning alive.
Miracle stories, which would more likely be attributed to medical knowledge and know-how in modern understanding, followed a simple format outlined by White. In its simplest form, the writer would (1) describe the situation, including how the healer came upon the dead/ill person, what was happening to them, and the alleged cause of the event; (2) outline the course of action/healing by the miracle worker, usually including “magic words” and a touch of some sort, though that was not always required, and the result of the action on the newly healed individual; and finally (3) the amazed reactions of the community gathered (White, 175). It’s important to remember that the purpose of telling a miraculous healing story is not to bring attention to the healing itself, but to exalt the status of the miracle worker as someone with otherworldly power and/or authority.
Stories of healing via exorcism in the Gospels and in Apollonius of Tyana follow similar story lines as outlined by White. In the reading of Apollonius and the Jesus’ healings of the “unclean spirits” in Mark, it appears that the situation came upon the healer unexpectedly. Apollonius was: “…lecturing on the subject of libations and there happened to be present at the talk a [demon possessed youth]” (Philostratus 361); in Capernaum, Jesus was also teaching when, “Just then, there was…a man with an unclean spirit” (Mk. 1:23); finally, in Gerasenes, Jesus had just stepped out of a boat when he was met by the demon-possessed (Mk. 5:2). Some backstory on the condition of the demon-possessed subject is given in Apollonius 4.2 (361) and in Jesus’ healing at Gerasenes (Mk. 5:3-5), though not in the healing in the synagogue of Capernaum. In all three occasions of exorcism, the demon acknowledged the power of the miracle worker prior to the exorcism itself—in Apollonius the demon did so with, “…sounds of fear and fury…” (361) while in both Markan instances, the demon did so with intelligible words and attesting to the divine nature and power of Jesus (Mk. 5:6-7, 1:24). To excise the unclean spirit, both Apollonius and Jesus speak to the demon in a way that brooks no refusal (Philostratus 361; Mk. 5:8, 1:25). With the exorcism itself, there is proof of its occurrence in Philostratus’ account of Apollonius (363) and in the Markan accounts (Mk. 5:11-13, 1:26). Each account ends with the amazed reactions of the crowd or witnesses (Philostratus, 363; Mk. 5:14-17, 1:27). We can see though, that not all reactions are positive; in Jesus’ healing at Gerasenes in chapter 5, the townspeople beg Jesus to leave after the exorcism is completed with the death of 2000 pigs.
The resurrection stories in Apollonius 4.45 and in Jesus’ healing of the young girl in Mark 5:21-43 are incredibly similar. Both women died at unfortunate times in their lives, with the girl in Apollonius’ story dying on or near her wedding day, before the honeymoon, and the girl in Jesus’ story dying incredibly young. In each story, the parents of the “deceased” play a role, with those in Mark taking the initiative to call on Jesus to heal their daughter and those in Apollonius offering a large reward, which is refused. The healer in both instances seems to heal the girl in question with a simple touch and a command or words (Philostratus 419; Mark 5:41). The wording in each story makes it seem as though the girl were sleeping rather than really dead; Apollonius: “…woke the bride from her apparent death” (Philostratus 419), while Jesus: “…said to her…’Little girl, get up!’” (Mark 5:41).
After reading each story, we can see that both resuscitation/resurrection and exorcism miracles follow the outline that White presents. I think that each author, Philostratus and Mark, seeks to raise the status of his respective character in the eyes of his readers. They want to align each man with the divine man tradition by fulfilling the requirement of otherworldly “deeds” in the aretalogy.