Another Exorcist

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Another Exorcist

Post by Peter Kirby »

Huon wrote:
GMark 9:38 John said unto him, Teacher, we saw one casting out demons in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followed not us.
9:39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man who shall do a mighty work in my name, and be able quickly to speak evil of me.
9:40 For he that is not against us is for us.
GLuke 9:49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out demons in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. 9:50 But Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against you is for you.
Nothing in GMatthew
These quotes show that at the time when the two Gospels were written, an "exorcist" preached Jesus, and did not follow John and his friends.

Who could be this exorcist ? Note that the gospels do not mention his name.

Very early, there were different groups of "christians".
There are lots of bits like this in the gospels. There may be another group behind this story, yes. Or there may be a reason for this story getting into the gospels that don't postulate another group being behind it.

mountainman quickly followed up this post saying, "The name of Apollos is mentioned in Acts and the name of Apollonius is made explicit in Codex Bezae."

Toto added, "Apollos in Acts is often identified with the heretic Apelles whose followers were absorbed into the mainstream church. Look up Roger Parvus' work"

And Jay Raskin gives us this very well-thought-out contribution:
Hi Solo and Huon,

Good catch. This has nothing to do with real exorcists, but with writers messing up simple maxims in the retelling.

The saying about "He who is not with/again me" is easily reversible and probably a pair of complimentary commonplace sayings of the day. We still have many such "duelling maxims." Here are a few:

You're never too old to learn."
"You can't teach an old dog new tricks."

"Actions speak louder than words."
"The pen is mightier than the sword."

"The bigger the better"
"Good things come in small packages."

Absence makes the heart grow fonder."
"Out of sight, out of mind."

"Don't micro-manage. Learn to delegate authority."
"The buck stops here."


Duelling Wisdom maxims go back at least 2300 years before the gospels to Egypt. Here are some from Ptah Hotep:

Good advice is rarer than Emeralds
And yet it may be found among Women at the Grindstone
He who is dour throughout the whole day
Will never have a happy moment
And he who is frivolous throughout the whole day
Will never establish a household for himself.
______________________________________________

We can analyze the original maxim to see that both the writers of Mark and Matthew botched the telling of it.

The end maxim of the outsider exorcist story, "He that is not against you is with you." has nothing to do with the story of the outsider exorcist. It does not make any sense because Jesus has not proven that the outsider exorcist is actually for him.

Eliminating the last line, we see that the rest of the story belongs to a teacher correcting his students form of maxim. Here is a typical one from the Talmud:

When his wife was about to embrace him, some of his students, not knowing who she was, sought to restrain her. But Akiva exclaimed, "Let her alone; for what I am, and for what you are, is hers" (Ket. 62b et seq.).

The gospel maxim is probably derived from some rabbinical maxim of the time: Rabbi ___'s students heard a stranger using God's name to cure a patient. The students told him not to do it again. Rabbi ____ told his students not to forbid him because anybody who uses God's name and does good magic will believe in him.

Putting the two maxims different maxims in the story together just shows that the writer of the gospel of Mark didn't understand them very well. The second maxim has nothing to do with the story.

Logically it is equivalent to: Paul couldn't teach his old dog to hunt. Jesus said to him, "You can't teach an old dog new tricks." Jesus added, "Never bite the hand that feeds you."

Luke makes the double maxim even worse by cutting out the original punchline that at least makes some sense and leaving in the second unrelated punchline.

Watching how both writers butcher the telling of a simple maxim is hilarious. It is like a drunk man who adds a packet of sugar to a cup of coffee and then adds ketchup. A second drunk man comes along and corrects him by just adding the ketchup.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin
Thanks, Jay. I didn't know that about "duelling maxims." Learn something new every day.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply