Demons and geography
The geographical distribution of demon possession in the
NT
Demon possession in the Gospel accounts is not a
geographically-uniform phenomenon. Specific cases of demon possession in the
synoptics occur in regional clusters, always in northern regions such as
Galilee, rather than occurring throughout every location in which Christ
traveled and performed healings. Conversely, there are no descriptions of demon
possession in Judea or Jerusalem in the four Gospel accounts. Moreover, there
are several quantitative summaries of demon possession in Galilee and the
northern regions that imply demon possession was a common and even
characteristic phenomenon in this area. No comparable quantitative statements
for the Judean area are found in the Gospel records. Finally, certain ostensibly
physical pathological conditions, such as blindness, deafness and muteness are
sometimes attributed to demon possession in the north, but are never so
characterized in the south, even though descriptions of these conditions do
occur in texts commenting on the Judean ministry.
This pattern strongly suggests that putative cases of demon
possession in the Gospel and other NT accounts are positively related to local
belief. In other words, where local folk belief encouraged or allowed for belief
in demons, cases of possession exist -- often in large groupings. Where such
belief was not taught or even discouraged, cases of demon possession are
severely reduced or even non-existent. This unmistakable pattern in the NT has
profound implications for assessing the reality of personal, malevolent demons
in the NT period. This striking pattern cannot be adequately explained by
recourse to the argument that demons are fallen angels ruled by Satan (which are
by definition not geographically-restricted beings) and intent on attacking
Christ and his ministry, in which case the distribution of demonic activity
would be expected to be uniform, or even close to uniform, in all locales.
Belief in demons in Galilee and Judea
Based on his studies of the relevant Talmudic literature,
Cambridge rabbinical scholar Herbert Loewe concluded that during the first
century AD rabbis in Galilee and Mesopotamia generally believed in the literal
existence of demons, while those in Judea did not. Loewe first of all includes a
commendable appeal for the need to exercise great care and sensitivity with
respect to local and chronological distinctions:
"References must be examined to see whether they are the
utterances of individuals or genuine examples of popular belief; and
distinctions must be drawn between local and general beliefs, between Semitic
and non-Semitic, and between Jewish beliefs and those borrowed by Jews from
their neighbours in European countries. A requirement more vital than any of the
foregoing, is the exercise of careful analysis in selecting Talmudic material.
It is absolutely necessary to assign each authority to its proper local and
chronological category; that is to say, evidence which applies to Babylon is
inadmissible for Palestine; that which is found to occur in Galilee cannot be
used to prove arguments for Judaea; and the same care must be exercised in
respect of chronology."
Loewe next summarizes the results of his findings:
"In investigating Talmudic evidence as to spirits, the reader will notice, at
the outset, different attitudes adopted by the Rabbis in dealing with this
question. In some cases the reality of demons seems to be taken for granted
absolutely; in others it seems, with no less certainty, to be denied. Stories
occur in which both these attitudes may be traced simultaneously. The reason for
this may be found if the nationality of the respective teachers be sought. It
has already been stated that Galilee was the center of Palestinian demonology,
and it will almost invariably be found that Galilean teachers accepted, while
Judean teachers rejected, the existence of spirits. The numerous instances which
the NT furnishes would have been impossible save in Galilee; there is a strong
similarity between these and those adduced by Galilean Rabbis. The same must be
said of those Rabbis who came from Mesopotamia. And they were brought up in
surroundings in which superstition was rife, their teaching was tinged by a
belief in spirits, and in comparison with them the clarity of Palestinian
teaching stands out in bold relief."
These quotations are taken from Loewe, "Demons and Spirits
(Jewish)," Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, ed James Hastings (Edinburgh
1911), 4:612-13. See also HA Kelly, "Towards the death of Satan: the growth and
decline of Christian demonology" (London 1968), p 68. Loewe then goes on to cite
supporting evidence from the Talmud.
Taking Loewe's conclusions as a starting point, this regional
historical phenomenon can be tested against the NT documents. In order to do
this, every reference to demons and evil spirits in the NT was analyzed, with
close attention being paid to the location of the occurrence.
A geographical survey of demon possession in the
synoptics
Jesus was raised in Nazareth, a town of the Roman province of
Galilee. Aside from the intense period leading up to his crucifixion, the
synoptic Gospel accounts show that Christ spent most of his three year's
ministry in the north, particularly but not exclusively in Galilee. The records
themselves attest to a great number of cases where Christ healed demoniacs,
although only a few of the cases are commented upon in detail. The following
will summarize the data.
First, we find evidence from particular statements in the
synoptics that demon possession was common in Galilee and the north. A few
examples will reveal the general tenor of these statements. Mark 1 says that
Jesus "cast out many demons" (daimonia polla) and that "he went throughout all
Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and casting out demons" (Mar 1:34,39; all
quotations from the RSV). Mark also recounts that the twelve disciples both
healed many who were sick and "cast out many demons" (daimonia polla; Mar 6:13).
Matthew records the same occasion as that described in Mar 1, and mentions the
locals in Capernaum bringing "many who were possessed with demons"
(daimonizomenous pollous; Mat 8:16; cf Luk 4:41). On another occasion in Luk
7:21, we find Jesus, while near Nain, curing "many of diseases and plagues and
evil spirits." These examples, with their deliberate emphasis on the great
number of demoniacs, demonstrate that whatever the situation elsewhere, demon
possession was common in Galilee -- even endemic.
As with these quantitative summaries, when we turn to examine
specific examples, we see that all such cases of demon possession occur in the
north, and usually in Galilee. For example, the first healing of a demoniac
recorded in Mark occurs in the synagogue of Capernaum (Mar 1:21-28). Mark also
mentions the case of a demon-possessed girl from Syrian Phoenicia in Mar
7:24-30, another northern region. Mary Magdalene, from whom seven demons were
cast out, was from Magdala, on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. The most
celebrated case of demon possession in the NT, that of the Gadarene demoniac,
occurred in the north as well, beside the Sea of Galilee.
When we turn to the fourth Gospel account, we discover that
John does not record a single case of demon possession, although he does mention
people with sickness. Many scholars have noticed this and have offered
suggestions as to why this should be so. One theory is that John came from a
Sadducean background and, since Sadducees did not believe in demons, he refrains
from mentioning them. Aside from the fact that there is no strong evidence for
this theory, a better explanation of this apparent anomaly lies in the fact that
John, unlike the synoptics, concentrates almost entirely on the south. The
disproportionate ratio of coverage between north and south in the synoptics is
reversed in John. With John we have almost the entire Gospel account devoted to
the Judean ministry in which demons could appear. Yet, they do not. This is
further evidence for the clustering of demons in the north.
To strengthen the above-outlined pattern even further, we can
take an additional step and note that there is a difference between the way some
examples of physical ailments are described in the north when compared with the
south. Illnesses mentioned in the south are always treated as purely organic
conditions, while in the north they are sometimes treated as afflictions caused
by demons. Thus we see some cases of blindness, deafness and muteness in the
north attributed to demons. In Mar 9:14-29 we are provided with an account of a
boy possessed by a "dumb and deaf spirit" (Mar 9:25; cf Mar 9:17). Moreover, Mat
9:32,33 records an incident in which Jesus healed a mute man, who was thought to
be possessed by a demon. Furthermore, another man afflicted by a demon is
described in this same Gospel account as "blind and dumb" (Mat 12:22; cf Luk
11:14).
Cases of the blindness in the south are depicted quite
differently. After his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, Jesus healed people in
the Temple that are simply described as being blind (Mat 21:14). The man born
blind in Joh 9 did not find himself in his condition because of demonic
affliction. As for blind Bartimaeus from Jericho -- he's just blind Bartimaeus,
not blind, demon-possessed Bartimaeus (Mar 10:46-52). Why is it that physical
problems are sometimes attributed to demonic agency in the north, but never so
in the south? What was so special about Judea that scared away the demons? These
examples also demonstrate that it is wrong to assume that all cases of demon
possession relate to mental illness.
To sum up, the results reveal that every single example of
demon possession in the Gospel accounts occurs in the north, outside Judea;
there are no examples of demon possession in Judea or Jerusalem recorded in the
four gospel accounts. What is more, there are several occasions in the synoptic
treatments of the Galilean ministry where we are told that Jesus healed many
people possessed by demons. Again, this is in stark contrast to the lack of even
a single reference to demon possession in the Judean ministry.
Possible objections
Next, we must test this pattern for flaws or alternative
explanations. Perhaps the Judean rabbis denied demons, but what of the common
people? This is a point well taken, since folk belief often flourishes among the
lower and less educated classes, even when it does not among the educated
elements of society. This may be so, but the undeniable pattern is there
nonetheless and it must be there for a purpose. Could it be that there are no
accounts of demon possession in Judea because no miracles of healing are
recorded there at all? No, there are miracles of healing recorded in Judea and
Jerusalem. Could this pattern be the simple result of the fact that the
synoptics spend so much time focusing on the Galilean and northern ministry? No,
because, once again, miracles of healing are recorded in Judea. The accounts of
the southern ministry in the synoptics, while not as extensive as the accounts
in the north, are by no means insignificant: there was ample opportunity to
record cases of demon possession, if they occurred in that region. Also, when we
turn to John, we see that the majority of his gospel account deals with the
Judean ministry and there is not a single reference to a healing of a
demon-possessed person (the only references to demons in John occur when Christ
is accused of having a demon -- which seems to have been a standard form of
slander and abuse among Jews). Thus the pattern holds up in the Gospel accounts.
It is only when we leave the Gospel accounts that we find two
possible exceptions to this general pattern. First, in Act 5:16 we read that
those with unclean spirits were brought from the towns "around/in the vicinity
of Jerusalem" to be healed by the apostles. The Greek is not overly precise, so
it is hard to say how far away these demon-possessed people came from, but the
language does show that wherever they were from, they were not from Jerusalem
itself -- the main center for Jewish teaching in Judea. But it is worth noting
that this is the only example in the book of Acts of demon possession in a
Jewish region. Based on the pattern of the Gospel accounts one would expect
examples around every corner. Yet this is not the case.
The other apparent exception comes in Act 10:38 where Peter,
giving an account of Christ's ministry noted that Christ healed all who were
oppressed of the devil. True, he does not use the word demon. Still, we cannot
cast this account aside in a cavalier fashion. On the other hand, although Peter
mentions both Judea and Galilee (Act 10:37), he doesn't specifically mention
where the healings of the demon-possessed took place. His is a general statement
about Christ's ministry as a whole, and since most of Christ's ministry took
place in Galilee, the greatest force of the statement about demons would
naturally apply to that region. As a Galilean himself, the cases of demon
possession would have left a strong impression on him, and it is thus not
surprising that he should mention them in such a summary of Christ's
ministry.
Moreover, the force of the impressive pattern of clear
examples from the Gospel accounts cannot be taken away by the two above possible
exceptions. If belief in demons was much weaker in Judea than in Galilee, we
would still expect to see some belief in demons in the south, just as we should
not be surprised to find that some in the north did not believe in demons. The
general pattern thus holds up even if there are some limited
exceptions.
Given this very compelling evidence, we have to ask: what is
going on? Why do we find so many demons in the north and so few in the south?
Why are organic ailments in the north sometimes attributed to demonic activity,
but never in the south? For the person who believes in the inspiration of
Scripture these examples can be neither accidental nor without purpose.
Something is being taught by this pattern. Is it not that belief in demons was
rampant in the north, and thus many people thought they were so possessed or
labeled others as possessed? Since demon belief was much less common in the
south (the above-cited source implies that it was virtually non-existent among
Judean rabbis), then the demons didn't exist either. We also see in this a
pattern that is found in the OT as well: belief in idols and accommodation with
pagan ideas was always much more common in the north than the south. Thus, the
"demon-possession" may have been part of a curse brought on by God because of
the pagan ways of the people.
Does all of this sound familiar? Believe in ghosts? See
ghosts. Don't believe in ghosts? Don't see ghosts. Believe in televangelist
healings? Healed by televangelists. Don't? You aren't. Believe in UFOs? See
UFOs. Believe in demons? Experience or attribute demon possession. Don't? You
don't. Strange, anomalous happenings once attributed to ghosts, fairies and
demons are now attributed to UFOs, the laws of chance and medical causes, etc.
People often see and experience what they believe -- regardless of whether these
things exist in reality. This also explains why one can talk to many
evangelicals who have "seen" or "experienced" the devil, but one will be hard
pressed to find a Christadelphian who has seen the devil of orthodoxy or been
demon-possessed. Why do the devil and his demons leave those alone who do not
believe in them?
Demons in Acts, the Epistles and the Book of
Revelation
This analysis can be extended further to the rest of the
accounts of demons in the NT. We see in Act 8:7 healings of unclean spirits in
Samaria, which is to the north of Judea and thus fits the general pattern. Next,
we see a reference to a woman with a spirit of "Python" in a Gentile area
(Philippi). This reflects a Gentile/Greek belief and not a Jewish one, so this
example also fits the pattern: the people of a region are afflicted by "beings"
that are believed to be real in their particular area.
To summarize the rest of the NT, for Paul demons are worthless
idols; he doesn't touch on demon possession in any of his writings. When writing
to the mainly Gentile Corinthians, he does not record a gift of casting out
demons. Nor was Paul raised in Galilee -- but rather in a Gentile region. Demons
in Revelation are idols and seducing spirits: there is no talk of possession. It
is only when we turn to James that we see what appears to be a general reference
to demon possession. That this should be so is hardly surprising: James, the
brother of the Lord, was raised in Galilee and was familiar with demon
possession. He was also writing to Jews and Jewish Christians, who would be
familiar with demon possession, even if they hadn't seen it in their regions.
Paul, in writing to a predominantly Gentile audience, doesn't feel he needs to
mention demon possession at all. James also wrote at a very early date, perhaps
as early as the late 40s AD, when his memories of such events in Christ's
Galilean ministry were still fresh (I think James' allusion is to the Gadarene
demoniac -- again, a Galilean case). James' references, then, are likely to
Galilean demon possession.
Thus, the general geographical patterns holds up for the
entire NT.
Not only does this pattern imply accommodation (or something
like it), but it cannot be assimilated easily into the other main alternative:
evil demons. If this is what the Bible is speaking about, why the
regionalization? If Satan was trying to attack Christ in his ministry, why were
the demons so ineffective and virtually absent in the south? If they had power
to enter into a person and bring on that person debilitating illnesses, could
they not travel to all regions? Was Christ's power more effective in the south?
Yet he spent more time in the north. Some might argue that the demonic onslaught
started with the beginning of Christ's ministry and that part-way through his
ministry Christ gained control over them; thus, when he went down to Judea late
in his ministry, they had already been chased away. But this won't do, because
although references to demons and evil spirits are much reduced in the book of
Acts, there are two examples nonetheless, after this supposed victory. Once
again, the geographical distribution of demon possession cannot be explained by
literal demons. (SS)
