Demons, Medicine and Jesus

Jesus exorcised demons and used the language of exorcism. Many
commentators would say that therefore Jesus believed in demons. However,
it can not be simply assumed that Jesus believed in demons because he used
the language of exorcism. He may have used such language because it was
the language of the day. The question arises therefore as to how this issue
can be settled either way.
1 For a detailed interpretation of Isaiah 13-14 in an Assyrian context, see J. D.
Watts, Isaiah 1-33, (WBC; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 187-188; for a
review of the history of the period see J. Oates, Babylon, (London: Thames
Hudson, 1986), 115-120, J. Bright, A History of Israel, (London: SCM Press,
1977), ch. 7.

The purpose of this article is to show that the language of exorcism was not
the only language of the day available to Jesus. Magic was not the only
medicine; orthodox medicine was critical of magic and sceptical of its claims.
So why is there no record of Jesus’ criticizing the thought-world of exorcism?
The situation of the 1c. was not unlike that today where we have traditional
medicine and “alternative” medicine. The Hippocratic Writings are a
benchmark of orthodoxy and one of these writings, On the Sacred Disease,
1
castigates those who treat epilepsy as symptomatic of demon-possession.
The writer comments,
“I do not believe that the ‘Sacred Disease’ is any more divine
or sacred than any other disease but, on the contrary, has
specific characteristics and a definite cause. Nevertheless,
because it is completely different from other diseases, it has
been regarded as a divine visitation by those who, being only
human, view it with ignorance and astonishment. This theory
of divine origin, though supported by the difficulty of
understanding the malady, is weakened by the simplicity of
the cure, consisting merely of ritual purification and
incantation. If remarkable features in a malady were evidence
of divine visitation,2
then there would be many ‘sacred
diseases’...” On the Sacred Disease 1
3
The natural explanation, (which we need not elaborate), offered by the writer
of this treatise, appears fantastical by today’s measures. However, it is not his
explanation that is of interest to us, but rather his criticism of the magical
tradition. As part of the Hippocratic corpus, this criticism would have been
central to Greek medical training. However, it is the method that it is

1G. E. R. Lloyd, ed., Hippocratic Writings, (London: Penguin, 1978). All
subsequent quotations from the Hippocratic corpus are from this edition.
2The notion of ‘divine visitation’ includes demon-possession as indicated by
the writer’s latter expression, ‘divine visitation and possession by devils’, On
the Sacred Disease 3.
3For an extended discussion of this text, see G. E. R. Lloyd, Magic, Reason and
Experience, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), ch. 1.

important: - look for regular natural causes of disease.1 The method and
theory shows that recourse to the supernatural (demon possession or
possession by the gods) was not the only approach in the ancient world.
The influence of the Hippocratic tradition in medicine can be seen in Jewish
medicine. For example, a positive attitude to medicine is illustrated in the
Jewish book of wisdom – Sirach (ca. 2c. BCE).2 This text (e.g. Sir 38:1-15)
illustrates a dependence on God and a use of natural remedies, along with
prayer and sacrifice. Or again, Josephus reports in his Wars of the Jews3
that the
Essenes researched medicinal roots and properties of stones for the healing
of diseases:
“They also take great pains in studying the writings of the
ancients, and choose out of them what is most for the
advantage of their soul and body; and they inquire after such
roots and medicinal stones as may cure distempers” War
2.135, cf. Ant. 8.1364
We can also see the influence of the Hippocratic tradition in Roman medical
writings of the period, like those of Celsus (14-37 CE) or Galen (129-199 CE).
One scholar comments:
“The idea that human disease is the consequence of divine
wrath does not appear in Greek medicine; Galen mentions it
only to add that so few believe. Similarly rejected is the
concept, which probably originated with the Persians, and
which strongly influenced Judaism in the post-exilic period as

1The same approach can be found in other Hippocratic writings, for
example, in On Airs Waters Places, 22, and in On the Diseases of Young Girls. See
the commentary in Lloyd, Magic, Reason and Experience, 28.
2For an overview, see W. D. Osterley, ed., The Books of the Apocrypha,
(London: Scott, 1914), 321-345.
3 All citations from Josephus are from the edition, W. Whiston, The Works of
Josephus, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987).
4
See also Philo’s comments on the TherapeutÖ in On the Contemplative Life, 2
in C. D. Yonge, ed., The Works of Philo, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993).

well as early Christianity, that sickness is the consequence of
demonic possession.”1
This brief characterization of the Hippocratic tradition illustrates that Jesus
doesn’t stand in this tradition — he has more in common with the language
of Jewish exorcism.
The contrast between magic and medicine shows that disease and illness are
social constructs and diagnosis and prognosis reflect social beliefs. That is,
the description of symptoms and behaviours is determined by belief systems.
Such belief systems condition the message of the “exorcist” or “doctor”.
Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz comment, “Just as social expectations and
patterns of explanation are a constitutive part of the sicknesses and
infirmities, so too social expectations and interpretations play a part in the
charisma of the miracle-worker.”2 Their argument here is that Jesus knew
how to combine his extraordinary gift of healing with a message about the
kingdom of God, which was to some extent cast in terms that the people
understood. In short, there is a symbolic layer of meaning to Jesus’
exorcisms, a symbology to do with the kingdom of God.
The question posed at the beginning of this article can be restated. Does
Jesus employ the language of the day in order to function as a healer? Does
he exorcise demons in order to teach about the kingdom of God, but
without belief on his part in any reality of demons? How can this issue be
settled? Our proposal is that it can only be settled if the records show that
Jesus exorcised demons in such a way as to make it clear that he did not
believe in the corresponding demonology. This question will be investigated
in future issues.

1H. C. Kee, Medicine, Miracle and Magic, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1986), 61.
2G. Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide,
(London: SCM Press, 1998), 312-313.