That One Takes a Village - The Uniqueness of Jesus and the Beelzebul Controversy
(Q 11:14-26) By Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre
This article is based on chapter five of Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre, Jesus Among Her Children: Q Eschatology, and the Construction of Christian Origins. Harvard Theological Studies 55. Harvard University Press, 2006.
Last year when I watched John McCain gesture sideways toward Barak Obama in the second presidential debate and refer to him as "that one," I heard not only derisive shorthand but also a jab at Obama's wild popularity. Even Obama supporters were struck by the level of hype about him. Comedians and politicians could not help but make a bit of fun over Obama's near-messianic image. Jon Stewart's popular fake news program, The Daily Show, aired a loving but mocking biopic telling the story of Obama's destiny as world-uniter, as "the One" who "completes us." People talked about candidate Obama as if he were a messiah come to save us all. And the deep emotion from the people gathering across the country on election night and on the Washington Mall on inauguration day indeed confirmed that there was a collective feeling that we were witnessing a singular moment in American history.
But in the midst of all this (well-deserved) praise for Obama, we should not miss that candidate Obama regularly turned the focus onto his fellow Americans. "We are the change we have been waiting for," he so often said. Indeed an unprecedented level of grassroots organizing, networking, and volunteerism was crucial to Obama's success. Obama is clearly a remarkable individual. However, it is virtually impossible to describe the complex series of events and the millions of individual actions that led to his emerging as "The One," capable of inspiring millions of people to believe that change is possible. On election night, a colleague of mine came to our house with a tee shirt that read, "That One '08." This clever reversal of McCain's dismissal speaks volumes: to be recognized as The One requires The Many. People must wear tee shirts, make donations, register voters, convince family members, drive vans to the polls, and even simply believe that s/he is The One.
I have often felt that those of us interested in Christian origins regularly miss the many people necessary to propel "the One" into the history books. In Jesus Among Her Children, I argue that the scholarly quest for the historical Jesus has been a long search for a singular, exemplary (male) individual. Whether we are searching for a uniquely divine human or a profoundly human genius, we seem to expect a figure who is self-contained, singular, and heroic. We forget, I think, that in order to be a unique and powerful individual, people have to recognize you as such. And even when people acclaim someone as "the One," it may be as much because that person voices the concerns and hopes of many people than that a distinctive new thing has come among them. Maybe the `Jesus movement" was not all about Jesus. Maybe the centrality of Jesus himself-whether prophet or sage-was the result of a movement rather than the natural magnetism of its startling originator.
The Basileia of God People
It is not easy to imagine Christian communities before Christianity. We do not even have a name for them. The popular shorthand for the community that valued and wrote down the traditions of the synoptic sayings source (Quelle, or Q) is the "Q people." Attempting to bypass anachronism, gospel scholars often speak of the `Jesus movement" and "Matthew's community" or `John's community." Paul's audiences are called "Christ communities." All of these names emphasize that the people who followed, remembered, and revered Jesus formed communities of common identity and mutual support. However, these phrases also subtly place either a text (like Q or Matthew) or Jesus himself at the center of the group's identity. Reconstructing one community for each gospel text has been criticized by scholars across the theological spectrum. But most of us usually take for granted that the Jesus movement was somehow about Jesus, that a Jesus-community's self-understanding was characterized by its understanding of Jesus.
The study of Q has gone far to disrupt the idea that the self-understanding of the earliest communities was always about Jesus-or, at least about the Christ. Q's lack of death and resurrection stories, its relatively low christology,' and its view of Jesus as an authoritative wisdom teacher all point to a social phenomenon fueled by something other than messianic ambitions or fervor. Indeed it has been tempting to present Q as a kind of un-Christian text, one that proves that the earliest Jesus people were not inspired by the apocalyptic visions or ambitions built into ideas of resurrection and the coming of the final judgment. Of course, a down-to-earth view of Jesus and his followers is inspiring to some of us who believe that religion can and should be compatible with modernity. The study of Q has also done a great deal to diversify our view of early Christianity and thus to make it more historically accurate as well as true to our own experiences of Christianity as encompassing multiple perspectives and traditions.
Clearly Jesus figures prominently in Q. I wonder, however, whether its purpose is to make claims about Jesus the way that the four gospels do. Indeed, on my reading, the Q people may not have been Jesus people so much as they were basileia people. The language and imagery of the basileia (reign, empire) of God appears at least ten times in Q. It is not defined or explained. It is taken for granted that people know what it means. This term is both theological and political-as religious language always is. It also has a local flavor to it as it is speaking of the reign of a particular god, the one connected historically with the peoples living in the vicinity of Judea, who claim Abraham as ancestor.
In Q 11:20, Jesus says, "If I cast out demons by the finger (or spirit) of God, then the basileia of God has come upon you." Interpreters often isolate this resounding statement as highly christological and eschatological.2 If Jesus really said this - and it is commonly assumed that he did3 - then we have a window into his own understanding of the basileia of God and his relationship to it. However, others have suggested that there is more to learn here about how the Q community understood itself than how Jesus did. What we see in Q is a group of people making sense of and negotiating their world. The Jesus tradition becomes a way for the community to think about their conflicts with others who have rejected them and to establish themselves as true carriers of the Jewish tradition. But, in a way, even this focus on the Q community and their relations to other Jewish groups assumes that the conflict between the communities is marked out along christological lines. In response to critique and rejection, the community boldly asserts the superiority of their own teacher.
Is this text primarily concerned with defending Jesus or the community's view of him? Although a long history of interpretation says that this passage is about defending Jesus against charges of devilry and deviance and asserting him as a unique and singular conduit of God's power, I do not think that the passage in Q 11:20 is about messiahs and madmen. Rather, it is about kingdoms and houses. The community seems to me less anxious about asserting their (or Jesus') difference as they are about the disastrous effects of divisiveness within the basileia or house of the God of Israel. Thus the Q people do not here claim higher ground, so much as they plead for common ground.
The Problem of Divisiveness
Because there is a great deal of overlap between Luke 11:14-26 and Matthew 12:22-30, 43-45, there is not much to debate about the text of the Beelzebul controversy in Q:11:14-20:
(14) And he cast out a mute demon. And once the demon was cast out, the mute person spoke and the crowds were amazed. (15) But some said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of demons!". .. (17) But knowing their thoughts, he said to them "Every basileia divided against itself is laid waste, and every house divided against itself will not stand. (18) And if Satan is divided against himself, how will his basileia stand? (19) And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore, they shall be your judges. (20) But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the basileia of God has come upon you
A compact story about a successful exorcism provides the backdrop for Jesus to refute the charge that he gets his power from demons, indeed the ruler of the demons. The sayings that follow cluster around keywords-as sections of Q often do-such as demons, basileia, and "cast out." While the argument seems to reach its height in 11:20, the sayings that follow repeat the imagery of warfare, kingdoms, households, demons:
(21) [When the strong man, fully armed guards his own palace, his possessions are in peace. (22) But when one stronger than he ... conquers him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoil.]' (23) The one who is not with me is against me, and the one who does not gather with me scatters. (24) When an unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through a waterless place seeking rest and finds none. Then it says, I will return to my house from which I came. (25) And on coming it finds it swept and put in order. (26) Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that person becomes worse than the first.
Despite the links between vocabulary and themes, the logic of this whole section of Q did not satisfy most twentiethcentury gospel scholars who tried to explain how such disparate sayings might have come together. Many interpreters-theologians and historical Jesus scholars-see a tension between verse 19's acceptance of other exorcisms and verse 20's claim that Jesus' exorcisms signal the coming of the basileia of God.
The great German scholar Rudolf Bultmann thought that verse 19 and 20 simply had nothing to do with each other and were originally independent sayings. Others thought that 11:20 was added to correct the potential misreading of 11:19 as including the work of other exorcists in the basileia of God. I think a lot of the tension between 11:19 and 11:20 is generated by our own assumptions about the text. In fact, this part of Q holds together as well as, if not better than, other units. And if we read the passage a little differently, we can see our way to a logical coherence not focused on making claims about Jesus but on the fate of the basileia of God.
The scene opens in 11:14 with Jesus performing an exorcism that heals a mute person. Some in the crowd are suspicious of this potent display. Unlike modern skeptics who debunk miracles with science or investigation, even the doubters in the scene accept that something extraordinary has happened. It is the crowd's amazement they reject, calling into question their positive evaluation of the event. They grumble, or maybe whisper provocatively, that this is actually the power of demons being unleashed. We are used to reading this as a religious and social challenge to Jesus: that he is evil, mad, or sick. Indeed there are other places in the tradition where Jesus and John are accused of being dangerous, rude, or just nuts (see Q 7:31-35). But here, this challenge also questions Jesus' communal identity and loyalty. If Jesus wields the power of Beelzebul, then he wields the power of a foreign deity, Baal, an ancient enemy of the God of Israel. To charge Jesus with madness or demonic possession is also to accuse him of collaborating with foreign powers.
As he often does in Q Jesus offers a bit of common knowledge in response: "every basileia divided against itself is laid waste, and every house divided against itself will not stand" (11:17). He adds, "if Satan is divided against himself, how will his basileia stand?" We might be jarred by the fact that Jesus' sayings in 11:17-18 do not directly address the charge that he is one of Satan's minions. Instead he goes after the basic logic of the charge itself, implying that the charge of colluding with demons is absurd because everyone knows that a divided kingdom cannot last. However, Jesus' response actually does counter the charge if we look at it in terms of the effects on the community of such slander. The accusers charge Jesus with being on the side of the enemy. Jesus answers that being divisive like that has disastrous consequences for the community. When we read 11:17 from this perspective, we see that the basileia that is endangered by internal division is God's, not Satan's.
The sayings that follow solidify the argument thatJesus and his accusers are on the same side and that it is dangerous for the community to be so divided. This story about Jesus gives us a glimpse of a community thinking about the well being not of their own group alone but of the larger basileia or household of God.
Claiming the Common Ground
An interest in the common ground between the Q community and other Jewish groups is most apparent in the rhetorical question in v. 19. "And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out?" Here Jesus plays logic games with his accusers. If I concede your point, he says, then a question inevitably follows: If I cast out demons by Beelzebul, then whose side are your sons on when they cast out demons? Thus Jesus and the sons of the accusers share common ground-they both stand against Satan when they perform their exorcisms. If the listeners will grant that Jesus and the sons are the same, then they cannot claim that Jesus is on the wrong side. If Jesus is on the same side as the sons, then it must follow that Jesus' exorcisms also wield the power of God and manifest God's basileia. This is precisely what he then says about himself in 11:20: "If it is by the finger of God that I cast out demons, then the basileia of God has come upon you."
It is interesting to see what happens to interpretations of this story when we get to 11:20. Even though the focus all along has been on communal imagery of kingdoms and houses, and Jesus' argument rests squarely on a positive evaluation of the accusers sons, Jesus' claim in 11:20 sounds so special-probably through the filter of Christian doctrine-that those aspects of the passage fall out of view or must be reconfigured. This can be seen in a sample of positions from eminent scholars.
- Heikki Raisanen has said, "Indeed, those scholars who interpret 11:20 as a forceful statement by Jesus on the presence of God's kingdom only in his own activities (and not in that of other Jewish exorcists as well) are forced to separate the verse from its context and to regard it as an isolated saying.5
- Ernst Kasemann argued that the original juxtaposition of verses 19 and 20 was questionable because "the eschatological uniqueness of Jesus is not preserved if one compares him to Jewish exorcists."6
- F. W. Beare said that verse 19 and 20 could not go together because it would be illogical to say that Jesus was like other Jewish exorcists.7
- Rudolf Bultmann concluded that verse 19 was Church polemic and verse 20 was an authentic saying of Jesus because "it is full of that feeling of eschatological power which must have characterized the activity of Jesus. "8
Not all scholars are convinced that verse 19 and 20 are so awkward or incompatible in Q. The argument of verse 19 is crucial to the whole unit. You need a positive evaluation of the sons and the claim that they and Jesus share the same ground in order to make the case that Jesus is on the right side and not Satan's side. Both verses use the vocabulary of the accusation in 11:15, and the verses form a pattern of argument often used in Q: two rhetorical questions (w. 18 and 19) followed by a declarative statement (v. 20). In fact, when Matthew and Luke included Q in their gospels, they did not seem to be bothered by the juxtaposition of 11:19 and 20, because they both repeat the two verses almost verbatim. It seems that the tension between the two verses depends on some theological assumptions about Jesus that are not crucial to the logic of the passage.
Some interpreters deal with their perception of a (theo)logical tension between 19 and 20 by arguing that 11:19 does not mean what it seems to mean. In his homily on Matthew 12:25 (the parallel to Luke 11:17), the fourthcentury church father John Chrysostom suggested that Jesus was talking about his own disciples when he said "your sons" (Homily 41). Thus the common ground is not between Jesus and other Jewish exorcists but between Jesus and his own disciples. Chrysostom's interpretation of "your sons" is periodically championed. One biblical scholar in 1992 said that Chrysostom's interpretation of "your sons" made the best sense of the passage, but in the process of making his case, he also reveals his underlying assumptions. He asks: "What are the implications of putting in the mouth of Jesus words with which he vindicates his own person and work by means of a comparison with contemporary Jewish exorcists?" He answers that Jesus would be comparing his own Spirit-led work to Jewish magicians who "operated in a conventional fashion by use of herbs and magical formulae" and resembled "witch-doctoring."9 The Christian bias here is obvious. Although verse 19 creates common ground between Jesus and other exorcists, Q must mean that Jesus' activities are different in their quality. Those who exorcise apart from Jesus are only magicians, while he and his followers are miracle workers. It is very ironic that Christian interpreters read this passage as distinguishing between the right religion of Jesus and the magical practices of other Jews who oppose him. As Dale Allison, a prominent historical Jesus scholar, rightly says, "When faced with explaining the exorcisms of their opponents, Christians have ironically often responded just like those whom Jesus rebukes in [this passage], that is, by saying that exorcists outside their circle must be in league with demons. "10
One problem is that we often read these controversy stories about Jesus facing off against opponents as conflicts over the identity of Jesus-between those who claim he is The One and those who do not believe it. We assume that Jews evaluated and rejected Jesus and that the first Christian-Jews got angry at this rejection and responded with apocalyptic ire. This section of Q 11:14-26 is interpreted not as affirming common ground between Jesus and his accusers, but as a place where the Q people turn the tables on their opponents and offer a polemic against outsiders. One scholar notes: "Insofar as [the accusers] refuse to recognize the power of the kingdom in his exorcisms, they find themselves in danger of standing outside the kingdom.... The exchange between Jesus and his accusers constitutes a battle over who represents the legitimate expression of Israel."" Once again Jesus' claims for common ground are muffled by the interpreters who insist that Q's Jesus could not say what he says-that he and the accusers share the same basileia and house and to divide it is disastrous.
It is interesting that the fourth-century church father Tertullian uses this same story to argue for common ground with Jews-specifically, that Jesus' God was the Creator God of the Jews. He says, "what does he otherwise mean than that he ejects the spirits by the same power by which their sons also did" (Against Marcion 4.26.10). Tertullian needs to minimize the distance between Jesus and the Jewish tradition in order to counter Marcion's view of an ideal Christianity purged of its Jewish aspects .12 Tertullian's interpretation can co-exist with his christology because he is interested in the links between the Christian and Jewish traditions. Some contemporary Q scholars have also argued that Q asserts that Jesus is a genuine representative of the basileia, but not that he is the only one. In their view, the exorcisms of fellow Jews are also affirmed as evidence of the presence of God's spirit and basileia. The issue in view throughout this passage is the coherence of the basileia of God, not the uniqueness of Jesus or a singular defense of the One's message over and against other Jews. This text seems to be dealing with a broader problem: divisiveness among members of the same group. The goal here is not social distinctiveness for the Q people, but solidarity in the larger community of Israel. As we will see, Q 11:21-26 continues the argument that Jesus does not cast out demons by Beelzebul by asserting that there are only two possible sides in the battle and victory depends upon the strength and unity of the winning side.
Unity is Necessary for Victory
All three of the sayings in 11:21-22, 23, and 24-26 depend on making a clear division between the basileia of Satan and the basileia of God. Although some read this mosaic of sayings in light of Jesus making special claims for himself (11:20) , I read them in light of his making a claim for common ground with other Jewish exorcists (11:19). What we have here is an extended argument for solidarity and against internal division.
As mentioned above, the story of the strong man is difficult to reconstruct. Luke's version may be our best guess at the text of Q: "when a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his possessions are in peace. But when one stronger than he conquers him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoil" (Luke 11:21-22). Jesus interprets his and the sons' successful exorcisms as victories in a war between two kingdoms. The little parable of the strong man echoes this imagery of two sides and warns the audience that the stronger side in a battle divides the spoils of the defeated side. We might be tempted to read "stronger man" as Jesus, who conquers Satan through exorcism. However, although there are multiple exorcists in this passage, there are only two sides. Thus the strong men are more likely God and Satan. The parable leaves open which one will prove to be stronger, thus challenging the audience once again to consider the potentially disastrous effects of divisiveness. The focus of the parable remains where it has been throughout the passage, that is, on proving that Jesus is on the same side as his opponents, the side of the basileia of God. It does not, as is so commonly said, place Jesus' opponents on the side of Satan. Indeed the focus of this whole unit is on community cohesiveness within the basileia of God.
But with 11:23 Jesus seems to get personal, challenging his opponents with a stark dichotomy: "The one who is not with me is against me, and the one who does not gather with me scatters." The first half of the saying is a general saying about allegiances and the second half repeats the same challenge but with imagery of a gathered and scattered herd. Gathering and scattering a flock is common imagery used in Jewish tradition to depict the effects of war on Israel." Now that Jesus has said "I" in 11:20 and then "me" in 11:23, most interpreters are sure that this is all about Jesus, that it is allegiance to him that is now being demanded of those who accused him of being an outsider. If they are not on his side, it is now they who are on the side of Satan.
What fails to convince me of this interpretation is that it must bypass Jesus' open affirmation of other exorcists recognized by his accusers in 11:19, and his emphasis throughout this passage not on himself as The One, but on the crucial importance of the solidarity of The Many in the basileia or house of God. The imagery and argument of the entire unit sets up a difference not between Jesus (or the Q people) and other Jews, but between Satan and God. Since Satan cannot be divided against himself and exorcisms are clearly against Satan, it is absurd to say that Jesus is on the side of Satan, as absurd as it would be to say that other Jewish exorcists are on the side of Satan. Thus those who question the source ofJesus' power are on the same side, God's side. I think that verse 11:23 simply presents a memorable bit of everyday wisdom on the subject: those who win wars-or successfully protect sheep against wolves-require a group that is unified against the common enemy.
Given that the maxim is generic and appears in other versions in non-Christian texts, perhaps we should not assume that Jesus' audience heard the word "me" to mean Jesus himself. Maybe we are hearing God or Satan declare the two-sided nature of reality and the need for unambiguous allegiance. Here is how one scholar puts it:
As the sentence says, there are two possibilities: If we are for someone, then we make a common cause with that person. If we are against someone, we scatter in opposition to that person. With Jesus one can see that he scatters in opposition to Satan-hence, Jesus is not for Satan.... Accordingly, the sentence does not concern gathering with Jesus. The `I' in the sentence is not Jesus but Satan!14
In this interpretation, Jesus' exorcisms, like those of other Jewish exorcists, scatter Satan's kingdom.
This approach to the "me" in the saying about allegiance (11:23) is possible because it is preceded by the parable about the strong man (11:21-22) and followed by the story of the wandering demon (11:24-26). Jesus is not the subject in those stories either. And all three of the sayings in 11:21-26 have the generic flavor of proverbial teachings. The saying in 11:23 does not exclude the accusers or their sons, but rather attempts to include Jesus on the side of the basileia of God and exclude him from the side of Satan. A version of this saying functions in a similar way in Mark 9:38-40 when a disciple tells Jesus that they had tried to stop another exorcist who was using Jesus' name but was not a disciple. Jesus replies: "Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. Whoever is not against us is for us." This version is also concerned with the validity of exorcisms. In Q it is Jesus' actions that are suspect. In Mark, it is an anonymous exorcist. In both Q and Mark, the saying serves to include other exorcisms on the side of Jesus and the disciples. This saying appears in both versions-and also in the context of warfare-in a speech by the Roman orator Cicero:
Let the maxim stand that won your victory hold good today. For we have often heard you assert that while we held all men to be our opponents except those on our side, you counted all men your adherents who were not against you. (Pro Q. Ligario Orat. 33)
This flexible saying about allegiance thus could either assert strong borders between two sides or promote the wisdom of casting a wide net to include a variety of positions on one side. The more we explore the possibility that this unit is not about asserting Jesus' unique position in the basileia of God, the more the theme of solidarity and unity across differences within Israel comes into view.
However, it is also easy to see how and imagine why later Jesus followers would come to understand the saying in 11:23 as making special claims for Jesus. Even as the Q tradition moved from loosely connected units of sayings or speeches to a full blown gospel, the generic voice of popular wisdom sayings would recede in favor of individual characters, especially Jesus, speaking about themselves and others. But this specificity still eludes us in Q. In fact, the generic language and the lack of framing narrative make a story like the one in 11:24-26 about the unclean spirit particularly difficult to understand. Because most interpreters hear Jesus making exclusive claims about himself in 11:23, they usually see in 11:24-26 a similar demand for recognizing Jesus.
The problem with that interpretation is that the main character of 11:24-26 is obviously a demonic force:
When an unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through a waterless place seeking rest and finds none. Then it says, I will return to my house from which I came. And on coming it finds it swept and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that person becomes worse than the first.
Many interpreters read this odd little story as comparing the exorcisms of Jesus with those who recognize the work of the other Jewish exorcists or with people who lapse from following Jesus. However, the story has no interest in either the exorcized person or the exorcist. An interpretation that makes more sense is the following:
The possession by the demon and seven others worse that it is not described as the fault of the man; rather, this enormous destruction' is caused by the demon's evil desire to destroy what had been made clean and put in order.... Not only is there no compatibility between Jesus' work and the demon's work; the demon hastens to destroy what Jesus has achieved-and seems willing to call this destruction rest."
The story relates something about demons: they "do not contend with one another but often establish alliances for the purpose of resisting an opposing power more effectively."' This interpretation falls in nicely with the entire passage. Those on the side of Satan gather together, they do not scatter one another. They prosper in alliance. Indeed, any house or kingdom that divides against itself will fall (11:17-18) . Jesus and his fellow exorcists do not stand on the side of Satan because exorcisms scatter the demons and heal the victim.
In this way, all three sayings in 11:2126 may be understood in the context of Jesus' argument from common ground between himself and the sons of his accusers. The message is not that Jesus' activity alone represents the basileia of God, but that Jesus stands with other successful exorcists on the side of God. It is important to see as well that these sayings linger around issues of divisiveness and alliance. Q uses a story about a challenge to the legitimacy of Jesus' activities to make a plea for solidarity among the members of the basileia/household of God. Thus it is the interests of The Many, of the community, of the movement, that are at stake. Here we see the Q people using Jesus' self-defense not as christology or counter-stigmatization but as an example of the "reaching across the aisle" needed to ensure victory.
There are two reasons why the Beelzebul controversy in Q is usually read as making a case for the uniqueness of Jesus. First, we tend to think that all gospel controversies are about Jesus. Second, we imagine the earliest Jesus people telling these stories to explain the difference between them- his communal vision. selves and Jews who do not revere Jesus. Either way, it is all about The One. While Jesus is certainly the main character in 11:14-20, this does not mean that asserting his uniqueness is the point. This text makes better sense as reflecting internal Jewish debates over the values and vision of the basileia of God. The text appeals to all Jews to avoid divisiveness and to stand together against the basileia of Satan.
The stark language of warfare, clashing kingdoms, and divided houses likely points to the historical experience of Jews under the dehumanizing and divisive effects of foreign rule. The solidarity of God's people on the side of healing, wholeness, and liberation from demonic rule is envisioned by the text as necessary to the victory of God's basileia. The extent to which people remembered the basileia movement as embodied in the message of Jesus testifies not to his singular charisma-though surely he had some-but to the many men and women who shared his struggles and concerns, cultivating and contributing to, and then passing or), his communal vision. 4R
Works Cited
Allison, Dale C. The Jesus Tradition in Q Trinity, 1997.
Beare, F.W. The Gospel According to Matthew. Blackwell, 1981.
Bultmann, Rudolf. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by John Marsh. German original, 1921. Harper & Row, 1963.
Humphries, Michael L. Christian Origins and the Language of the Kingdom of God. Southern Illinois University Press, 1999.
Kasemann, Ernst. "Lukas 11:14-28." in Exegetische Versuche and Besinnungen. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960. Pp. 242-48. Killagen, John. "The Return of the Unclean Spirit (Luke 11, 24-26)." Biblica 74 (1993): 45-59.
Raisanen, Heikki. "Exorcisms and the Kingdom: Is Q 11:20 a Saying of the Historical Jesus?" In Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q Edited by Risto Uro. Finnish Exegetical Society; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Pp. 119-42.
Shirock, Robert. "Whose Exorcists are They? "Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 46 (1992) : 41-51.
Notes
1. "Christology" refers to religious beliefs about the status or nature of Jesus. Scholars distinguish "high" christologies, which believe Jesus to be divine, from "low" christologies, which understand him in human terms (for example, as a prophet or faith healer). [Ed.]
2. "Eschatology" (from Greek eschaton, "end") refers to beliefs about the End Times. [Ed.]
3. The Jesus Seminar voted this saying pink.
4. Because of the strong parallels among Luke 11:21-22, Matt 12:29, and Mark 3:27, it is difficult to say whether this group of sayings begins with the small story about the strong man's house or not. If it was in Q which I think is likely, it is equally difficult to make a reasonable proposal about the wording. The Critical Edition of Q leaves that part of the passage in brackets to indicate the difficulty.
5. Raisanen, "Exorcisms and the Kingdom," 127. 6. Kasemann, "Lukas 11:14-28," 244.
7. Beare, Gospel According to Matthew, 270.
8. Bultmann, History, 162.
9. Shirock, "Whose Exorcists are They?" 51. 10. Allison, Jesus Tradition, 126.
11. Humphries, Christian Origins, 33.
12. For an exposition of Marcion and his teaching, see Joseph Tyson, "Marcion," The Fourth R 22.3 (May Jun 2009).
13. See 2 Sam 22:17; Ps 17:15 and 143:6; Wis 17:3; Zech 13:7-9; Sir 48:15; Tob 13:5; and the Didache 9.
14. Klaus Berger, as quoted in Humphries, Christian Origins, 36. 15. Killagen, "The Return of the Unclean Spirit," 56. 16. Humphries, Christian Origins, 38.
Melanie Johnson-DeBaufre is Associate Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at Drew Theological School, Madison, New Jersey. A graduate of Harvard Divinity School, Johnson-DeBaufre is the author of Jesus Among Her Children (2005) and Mary Magdalene Understood (with Jane Schaberg, 2006).
The Fourth R 22-5 September-October 2009
|
