Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§15.7 Who Did They Think Jesus Was?
but also in the hyperbolic reference to asking for the impossible (faith to move a
mountain). 368
(4) As indicated in the discussion of Jesus' exorcisms (§15.7d), the exorcist's
authority or power source was a key factor, as signalled particularly by the
formula, 'I adjure you by X'. By this formula the exorcist appealed to, or called
upon, or even commanded another power (X) greater than that of the demon to
expel the demon. It was precisely by following this logic that the first Christians
sought to heal others 'in the name of Jesus'. 369 Presumably, then, it is significant
that Jesus himself is never recalled as using such a formula, but only (once) the
bare order, 'I command you' (Mark 9.25). 370 Is the implication that Jesus did not
need to call on some other authority, that his healing and exorcistic ministry was
effective through his own power? 371
There is a further corollary to be followed up here. But if we first sum up
the issue of Jesus as a magician, the results are fairly clear. Jesus did not 'come
across' as a typical magician. Josephus may have characterized Jesus as 'a doer
of extraordinary deeds', but he avoided terms like magos ('magician') and goes
('sorcerer, cheat'), which he did not hesitate to use of the sign-prophets and others
of the period. 372 On the evidence reviewed above, Josephus probably reflected
the most common view that Jesus could not be dismissed simply as a magician
and cheat. The avoidance of material aids and absence of incantations in
the reports of his miracles simply reinforce the point. At the same time, his occasional
use of spittle, and one or two strange episodes (the woman being healed by
touching his garments, the pigs?), gave scope to those who wished to denigrate
Jesus, and 'magician' or 'sorcerer' was a convenient slur which evidently appealed
to the opponents of the movement which he inaugurated. 373 At this point
368. Known both to Mark (Mark 11.22-24/Matt. 21.21-22) and, with performance variation,
in q/Q (Matt. 17.20/Luke 17.6), also GTh 48, and echoed in 1 Cor. 13.2. With such a range
of attestation it is hard to doubt that Jesus said something to this effect (e.g., Jeremias, Proclamation
161; Davies and Allison, Matthew 2.727-28; Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus 293;
Becker, Jesus of Nazareth 182; Lüdemann, Jesus 79, 202).
369. Acts 3.6, 16; 4.7, 10, 12, 30; 16.18; Jas. 5.14.
370. See also Eitrem, Notes 30-34.
371. Chilton deduces from the conjunction of Mark 3.20-21 with 3.22-29 that Jesus
practised exorcism and healing by going into a trance meditating on the divine chariot (Rabbi
Jesus 93-95, 245).
372. Josephus, War 2.261 (the Egyptian); 2.264; 4.85; Ant. 20.97 (Theudas); 20.142,
160, 167, 188.
373. Smith's own reconstruction is of the same character. For example, he deduces from
Mark 6.14 that Jesus was accused of necromancy (he had raised the Baptist from the dead); the
story of Jesus' anointing at Jordan 'resembles nothing so much as an account of a magical rite
of deification'; Jesus' pronouncement that he had come to bring family strife (Matt. 10.35-36)
echoes the practice of casting spells to cause hatred and use of incantations in family quarrels;
693