What do you think?
Rate this book
Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus
That the synoptic writers believed that Jesus cast out demons and that such a role figured prominently in the Synoptics' portrait of him can scarcely be denied. And yet, only scant scholarly attention has been focused on Jesus' role as exorcist. Even less consideration has been given to the significance of Jesus as exorcist for understanding the historical Jesus. Now, in a provocative and insightful study, Graham Twelftree helps New Testament scholars move beyond such myopia. Twelftree examines exorcists and exorcisms in first-century Palestine, assesses the New Testament accounts of demons and their demise, and explores the implications and significance of the fact that Jesus was indeed an exorcist. The volume appeared originally in the noted German series Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament.
277 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1993
43 people want to read
About the author
Graham H. Twelftree
13 books6 followersGraham H. Twelftree (PhD, University of Nottingham) is the Charles L. Holman Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity and the director of the PhD program in the School of Divinity at Regent University, Virginia. In addition to many scholarly articles and reviews, he is the author of a number of books, including In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians and People of the Spirit: Exploring Luke's View of the Church.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 10, 2018
As a revised doctoral dissertation, this book is a little technical in places, but it is worth the effort. Since I'm writing a book about demons, it's important to get a sense of what early Christians believed about them and this is a field which, despite its enormous popular interest, is covered by academic presses with high-priced books that find their way in the university libraries only. Indeed, this was one such book, but Wipf & Stock made it available in affordable paperback, since they apparently recognized that there was a readership for it. (Count me in!)
I blogged (Sects and Violence in the Ancient World) about this book as well, but there's more to say. Scholars—even biblical scholars—tend to be embarrassed regarding the supernatural. With the exception of a few religious presses, not many publishers will produce books advocating unequivocally for the reality of a spiritual world. Graham Twelftree, however, is willing to write directly about it. Jesus made his reputation, initially, as an exorcist. If you take the New Testament at its word, you can't deny that. If, however, you admit that you've opened the doors to suggesting the supernatural might just be real. The horns of this dilemma are the Devil's.
Twelftree, in good dissertation fashion, goes through several Second Temple sources on demons and exorcism. He traces the practice back to pre-Christian times, and discusses extensively some extra-canonical sources that are important for understanding the phenomenon. He does this quite well, and with academic rectitude. He does, however, hint that there's more to be said. To get to that, however, you need to go to his next book (which I will also review here).
It is a strange world where certain topics are off the board for academic discussion. Although it was decades ago, Graham Twelftree is to be applauded for taking on a taboo subject in academia. For those wanting a less technical introduction, his follow-up book (review forthcoming) might be a better introduction.
I blogged (Sects and Violence in the Ancient World) about this book as well, but there's more to say. Scholars—even biblical scholars—tend to be embarrassed regarding the supernatural. With the exception of a few religious presses, not many publishers will produce books advocating unequivocally for the reality of a spiritual world. Graham Twelftree, however, is willing to write directly about it. Jesus made his reputation, initially, as an exorcist. If you take the New Testament at its word, you can't deny that. If, however, you admit that you've opened the doors to suggesting the supernatural might just be real. The horns of this dilemma are the Devil's.
Twelftree, in good dissertation fashion, goes through several Second Temple sources on demons and exorcism. He traces the practice back to pre-Christian times, and discusses extensively some extra-canonical sources that are important for understanding the phenomenon. He does this quite well, and with academic rectitude. He does, however, hint that there's more to be said. To get to that, however, you need to go to his next book (which I will also review here).
It is a strange world where certain topics are off the board for academic discussion. Although it was decades ago, Graham Twelftree is to be applauded for taking on a taboo subject in academia. For those wanting a less technical introduction, his follow-up book (review forthcoming) might be a better introduction.
May 29, 2024
A DETAILED STUDY OF THE ROLE OF EXORCISMS IN JESUS’ LIFE AND MINISTRY
Author and biblical scholar Graham H. Twelftree wrote in the first chapter of this 1993 book, “in the current debate on exorcism, the student of the New Testament has a weighty responsibility to elucidate the data in the Gospels in relation to Jesus and exorcism…This book presupposes that the life, ministry and passion of Jesus of Nazareth were---and remain---of fundamental significance to the life of the Church. In turn, therefore, the search for the historical Jesus is an important enterprise for scholars who wish to serve the Church. Thus, the present study is an attempt to make a modest contribution to our understanding of the historical Jesus; to sketch a picture of the historical Jesus in his ministry of exorcism. In other words, this study seeks to determine if the historical Jesus was an exorcist and then to answer the question: If Jesus was an exorcist, what do the first reports of his activities as an exorcist contain? How would he have been viewed by those who saw him t work? And how did he understand his ministry of exorcism?” (Pg. 2-3)
He continues, “what follows is an attempt to press behind the Jesus of the Evangelists to the Jesus of history… I will need to do two things. In the first place, I will need to reconstruct the background against which Jesus’ ministry of exorcism would have been viewed by his contemporaries. Secondly, I will need to make an attempt at recovering the historical Jesus the exorcist. This will involve trying to sketch a picture of this aspect of the historical Jesus, as well as attempting to see how Jesus understood himself in relation to his exorcisms. I will also attempt to see whether I can say how Jesus’ audience assessed and understood him as an exorcist.” (Pg. 10)
Commenting on Mark’s gospel [1:27b-28], he says, “the remainder of the conclusion … is most probably from Mark’s hand. The vocabulary and grammar suggest this. Consequently we must credit Mark… with associating Jesus the exorcist with Jesus the teacher, possibly after the pattern of the wandering Cynics and rabbis, a connection perhaps suggested by the mention of the synagogue in Mark’s tradition.” (Pg. 59) He adds, “Matthew, who is decidedly reticent about the exorcism stories, prunes the Markan accounts. Yet, he does not obliterate the consternation of the demoniacs; though in 17:17-18 he removes Mark 9:20, the most grotesque instance.” (Pg. 60)
He says of Mk 3:23-27 [and parallels], “Why are the exorcisms of Jesus linked with the inbreaking of the kingdom of God?... are the exorcisms of Jesus linked with the coming of the kingdom because JESUS performs the exorcisms or because Jesus performs the exorcisms IN THE SPIRIT OF GOD? Or, do we, in fact, have to choose between the two options?... in contrast to his contemporaries… Jesus claimed it was the Spirit of God who provided him with his power-authority. The Spirit of God was not one of the Jewish rabbis’ sources of power-authority. In so far as we can tell, Q is making a unique claim for Jesus.” (Pg. 108-109)
He summarizes, “There are two natural conclusions that we should draw … That is, first, in declaring no reliance on a power-authority, and now using … proofs, but in simply ordering the demon out… and then in saying that his power-authority was the Spirit-Finger of God, Jesus’ technique of exorcism, if not innovative, would have at least been very conspicuous. Secondly, Jesus believed that when he was operating out of his own resources, at the same time, he believed that it was God who was to be seen as operative in his activity.” (Pg. 164-165)
He observes, “In many ways, Jesus as an exorcist was a very ordinary exorcist; demons were distressed and threatened by his presence… On the other hand, there were aspects of Jesus’ exorcism which, although not unique, stand out as particularly characteristic of his procedure. Unlike probably most exorcisms of the era, no mechanical aids were used, such as special artifacts or the laying on of hands. Jesus neither used nor offered proof of his cures---save the evidence of healed demoniacs. In contrast to others, he did not even declare the source of his power-authority; not even that he was dependent on the Spirit of God.” (Pg. 173)
He summarizes, “I am not concluding that, in general, it was not possible for Jesus’ audience to come to the conclusion that he was the Messiah… But, I am concluding that for the observers of Jesus as an exorcist there is little to suggest that they would have so assessed him and his significance. They had no immediate frames of reference from which to draw such a conclusion… Indeed, if Jesus was, in hi exorcisms, self-evidently the Messiah then it is difficult to explain why the Fourth Evangelist does not make use of what would potentially be a useful component in his Gospel.” (Pg. 189)
He outlines, “How might Jesus have been understood or assessed by his contemporaries? Our answer needs to take account of the following points. First… viewed over-all, his life-style and ministry most nearly matches that of such figures… Secondly, our inquiry into the background of Jesus’ ministry of exorcisms highlighted a tradition of wandering charismatic healers in first century Palestine…. Thirdly… we have seen that there was a great variety of methods and types of exorcisms and exorcists in the tradition… some exorcists depended on the PERFORMANCE of special traditions, while others depended on the PERSON of the exorcist himself for their effectiveness. Fourthly… the earliest layers of the Jesus tradition give no int of an attempt to categorize Jesus along any of the lines reviewed earlier in this chapter. In fact, the only clear category brought to bear on Jesus’ activity was one of ‘good,’ that is, from God, or ‘evil,’ that is, from Satan…
“Fifthly, it cannot even be maintained that the exorcisms of Jesus would have suggested the divine origin of Jesus for… such stories could simply be used to reflect the upright character of the exorcist. Therefore, it is appropriate that we should conclude this discussion with the suggestion, not THAT as an exorcist Jesus ‘transcended’ the categories of the first century. Rather, it is improbable that his contemporaries saw him as either, (a), fitting … into any categories or, (b) attached any ‘labels’ to him that were available to them.” (Pg. 213-215)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying the historical Jesus.
Author and biblical scholar Graham H. Twelftree wrote in the first chapter of this 1993 book, “in the current debate on exorcism, the student of the New Testament has a weighty responsibility to elucidate the data in the Gospels in relation to Jesus and exorcism…This book presupposes that the life, ministry and passion of Jesus of Nazareth were---and remain---of fundamental significance to the life of the Church. In turn, therefore, the search for the historical Jesus is an important enterprise for scholars who wish to serve the Church. Thus, the present study is an attempt to make a modest contribution to our understanding of the historical Jesus; to sketch a picture of the historical Jesus in his ministry of exorcism. In other words, this study seeks to determine if the historical Jesus was an exorcist and then to answer the question: If Jesus was an exorcist, what do the first reports of his activities as an exorcist contain? How would he have been viewed by those who saw him t work? And how did he understand his ministry of exorcism?” (Pg. 2-3)
He continues, “what follows is an attempt to press behind the Jesus of the Evangelists to the Jesus of history… I will need to do two things. In the first place, I will need to reconstruct the background against which Jesus’ ministry of exorcism would have been viewed by his contemporaries. Secondly, I will need to make an attempt at recovering the historical Jesus the exorcist. This will involve trying to sketch a picture of this aspect of the historical Jesus, as well as attempting to see how Jesus understood himself in relation to his exorcisms. I will also attempt to see whether I can say how Jesus’ audience assessed and understood him as an exorcist.” (Pg. 10)
Commenting on Mark’s gospel [1:27b-28], he says, “the remainder of the conclusion … is most probably from Mark’s hand. The vocabulary and grammar suggest this. Consequently we must credit Mark… with associating Jesus the exorcist with Jesus the teacher, possibly after the pattern of the wandering Cynics and rabbis, a connection perhaps suggested by the mention of the synagogue in Mark’s tradition.” (Pg. 59) He adds, “Matthew, who is decidedly reticent about the exorcism stories, prunes the Markan accounts. Yet, he does not obliterate the consternation of the demoniacs; though in 17:17-18 he removes Mark 9:20, the most grotesque instance.” (Pg. 60)
He says of Mk 3:23-27 [and parallels], “Why are the exorcisms of Jesus linked with the inbreaking of the kingdom of God?... are the exorcisms of Jesus linked with the coming of the kingdom because JESUS performs the exorcisms or because Jesus performs the exorcisms IN THE SPIRIT OF GOD? Or, do we, in fact, have to choose between the two options?... in contrast to his contemporaries… Jesus claimed it was the Spirit of God who provided him with his power-authority. The Spirit of God was not one of the Jewish rabbis’ sources of power-authority. In so far as we can tell, Q is making a unique claim for Jesus.” (Pg. 108-109)
He summarizes, “There are two natural conclusions that we should draw … That is, first, in declaring no reliance on a power-authority, and now using … proofs, but in simply ordering the demon out… and then in saying that his power-authority was the Spirit-Finger of God, Jesus’ technique of exorcism, if not innovative, would have at least been very conspicuous. Secondly, Jesus believed that when he was operating out of his own resources, at the same time, he believed that it was God who was to be seen as operative in his activity.” (Pg. 164-165)
He observes, “In many ways, Jesus as an exorcist was a very ordinary exorcist; demons were distressed and threatened by his presence… On the other hand, there were aspects of Jesus’ exorcism which, although not unique, stand out as particularly characteristic of his procedure. Unlike probably most exorcisms of the era, no mechanical aids were used, such as special artifacts or the laying on of hands. Jesus neither used nor offered proof of his cures---save the evidence of healed demoniacs. In contrast to others, he did not even declare the source of his power-authority; not even that he was dependent on the Spirit of God.” (Pg. 173)
He summarizes, “I am not concluding that, in general, it was not possible for Jesus’ audience to come to the conclusion that he was the Messiah… But, I am concluding that for the observers of Jesus as an exorcist there is little to suggest that they would have so assessed him and his significance. They had no immediate frames of reference from which to draw such a conclusion… Indeed, if Jesus was, in hi exorcisms, self-evidently the Messiah then it is difficult to explain why the Fourth Evangelist does not make use of what would potentially be a useful component in his Gospel.” (Pg. 189)
He outlines, “How might Jesus have been understood or assessed by his contemporaries? Our answer needs to take account of the following points. First… viewed over-all, his life-style and ministry most nearly matches that of such figures… Secondly, our inquiry into the background of Jesus’ ministry of exorcisms highlighted a tradition of wandering charismatic healers in first century Palestine…. Thirdly… we have seen that there was a great variety of methods and types of exorcisms and exorcists in the tradition… some exorcists depended on the PERFORMANCE of special traditions, while others depended on the PERSON of the exorcist himself for their effectiveness. Fourthly… the earliest layers of the Jesus tradition give no int of an attempt to categorize Jesus along any of the lines reviewed earlier in this chapter. In fact, the only clear category brought to bear on Jesus’ activity was one of ‘good,’ that is, from God, or ‘evil,’ that is, from Satan…
“Fifthly, it cannot even be maintained that the exorcisms of Jesus would have suggested the divine origin of Jesus for… such stories could simply be used to reflect the upright character of the exorcist. Therefore, it is appropriate that we should conclude this discussion with the suggestion, not THAT as an exorcist Jesus ‘transcended’ the categories of the first century. Rather, it is improbable that his contemporaries saw him as either, (a), fitting … into any categories or, (b) attached any ‘labels’ to him that were available to them.” (Pg. 213-215)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying the historical Jesus.
July 30, 2024
Tweftree suggests that we "too often depict Jesus... after our own cultural viewpoint" (p.2); and he seeks to correct that by offering to answer these questions:
1. Was Jesus a genuine exorcist in the first place.
2. What did he do as an exorcist?
3. How did his contemporaries view him?
4. How did Jesus understand His own ministry? (p3)
Twelftree seems to provide insightful and thorough-going discussion of Jesus as an exorcist and insights into the various NT texts, the relationship of the synoptics with each other as it relates to the texts on Jesus' exorcisms, and background information on Jesus' life and times on the basis of the texts.
A very intriguing read that gives a good grasp in understanding the issues regarding Jesus as an exorcist.
1. Was Jesus a genuine exorcist in the first place.
2. What did he do as an exorcist?
3. How did his contemporaries view him?
4. How did Jesus understand His own ministry? (p3)
Twelftree seems to provide insightful and thorough-going discussion of Jesus as an exorcist and insights into the various NT texts, the relationship of the synoptics with each other as it relates to the texts on Jesus' exorcisms, and background information on Jesus' life and times on the basis of the texts.
A very intriguing read that gives a good grasp in understanding the issues regarding Jesus as an exorcist.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews