Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§15.7 Who Did They Think Jesus Was?
1. Mention of the locale can probably be attributed to the recollections and
initial tellings of some of those involved. In 1.23 'synagogue' should not be
taken to imply a sanctified sanctuary; synagoge may refer simply to the
regular village assembly. 280 And there is no good reason why the second
exorcism should have been located in the territory of Gerasa, had a memory
to that effect not been part of the tradition from the first. 281
2. It was apparently not uncommon for demoniacs to engage the would-be
exorcist in a verbal duel. 282 'What have you to do with us/me?' (1.24; 5.7)
is a Semitic idiom probably meaning 'Why are you bothering us/me?' 283
3. In particular, success was thought to depend on the authority attaching to a
powerful name which the exorcist might call upon or command ('I adjure
you by .. .'). 284 So the demoniac, or one who believed himself so possessed,
might well hope to gain protection from or even advantage over the exorcist
by claiming to know the name of the exorcist. 285 A striking feature of the
280. See above, §9.7a.
281. Mark makes a lot, by implication for those alert to the signals, of impurity (tombs,
unclean spirit[s], pigs); but these still would not explain why the territory of Gerasa (?) was
chosen for the location. Pesch detects three distinct stages in the growth of the story prior to
Mark, the earliest the account of an exorcism in the territory of Gerasa (like that in 1.21-28)
(Markusevangelium 1.282, 292-93). But as with his earlier Der Besessene von Gerasa: Entstehung
und Überlieferung einer Wundergeschichte (SBS 56; Stuttgart: KBW, 1972), Pesch's
discussion still falls too much into the old form-critical trap of assuming an original pure form
(reine Form) and discernible stages in a transmission process. See also Meier, Marginal Jew
2.653; J. Adna, 'The Encounter of Jesus with the Gerasene Demoniac', in Chilton and Evans,
ed., Authenticating the Activities of Jesus 279-301, in dialogue particularly with F. Annen, Heil
für die Heiden. Zur Bedeutung und Geschichte der Tradition vom besessenen Gerasener (Mk
5,1-20 parr.) (Frankfurt am Main: Knecht, 1976). Most commentators discuss what location
was intended — Gerasa being some 50 km southeast of Lake Galilee; Matthew altered the reference
to Gadara, which had a harbour on the southeastern corner of the lake; the text of Mark
was probably altered by some to read Gergesa = modern Kursi? (see, e.g., Metzger, Textual
Commentary 23-24, 84).
282. Mark 5.7; Acts 19.15; according to Lucian, 'the patient himself is silent, but the
spirit answers in Greek or in a language of whatever country he comes from' (Philops. 16);
Philostratus, Life 3.38; 4.20.
283. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist 63-64. An interesting feature in both episodes is the
variation from singular to plural ('What have you to do with us? . . . the spirit came out of him'
in 1.24-26; 'My name is Legion, for we are many' in 5.9), which suggests that the conceptualisation
of the force(s) which caused possession was unclear; see further my interaction with
G. H. Twelftree, 'Demon-Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament', in my Pneumatology
170-86 (here 176-81).
284. See above, nn. 256 and 257.
285. Still important are the observations of O. Bauernfeind, Die Worte der Dämonen im
Markusevangelium (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1927) 13-18. The evidence persuaded Bultmann
that the motif could not be attributed solely to the 'messianic secret' {History 209 n. 1). See further
Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist 61-68.
675