[1104] . Dio Chrys. Or . 44.2.

[1104] . Dio Chrys. Or . 44.2.

[1101]. E.g., Cic. Fam. 1.1.4; 1.9.9; 11.10.1; 11.11.1; 13.3.1; 13.22.2; 13.25.1; 13.26.4; Pliny Ep. 4.4.2–3; cf. 7.19.10.

[1102]. So Pliny Ep. 7.31.7 (noting that one who begins the process has no further debt till the favor is remunerated), though this is Pliny’s personal rhetorical appeal. Pliny himself describes his seeking a favor from someone as readily becoming indebted to him (2.13.1).

[1103]. E.g., Pliny Ep. 4.1.4–5. On avoiding being outdone by the other, hence speaking as if competing to show affection and give benefit, see Cic. Fam. 12.30.3.

[1104]. Dio Chrys. Or. 44.2.

[1105]. Dio Chrys. Or. 44.4; that the term for “thanks” is also that for “generosity” (“grace”) is not a coincidence.

[1106]. E.g., Xen. Cyr. 5.5.33; 6.1.47; 6.4.7; Rhet. Alex. 1, 1422a.32–38. All humanity included in just behavior the repayment of benefactors (so Rhet. Alex. 1, 1421b.36–1422a.2). While rejecting scholars’ overuse of patronal language, MacGillivray, “Patronage,” 81, readily affirms the widespread use of more general reciprocity conventions in antiquity.

[1107]. Sen. E. Controv. 9.1.intro.; 9.1.9; Pliny Ep. 4.9.7; Fronto Ep. graec. 4.2; Jos. Ant. 19.184.

[1108]. E.g., Statius Silv. 4.9; Marshall, Enmity, 1–13; deSilva, Honor, 99–100; cf. Aune, Revelation, 623. In Mediterranean culture in general, see Herzfeld, “House,” 79–80.

[1109]. E.g., Publ. Syr. 71; Pliny Ep. 1.4.2; 1.19.3; 2.9.5–6; 9.8.1; Alciph. Fish. 7 (Thalassus to Pontius), 1.7.

[1110]. Thus Pliny the Younger implies his willingness to reciprocate by asking for the sort of favor that, he announces, he would gladly have done for the addressee had the situation been reversed (Ep. 3.2.1). The reciprocity had to be in favors, though, not in money (e.g., Apoll. K. Tyre 10).

[1111]. Pliny Ep. 6.32.2; Fronto Ep. graec. 5 (esp. 5.6, 8). Pliny Ep. 5.2.1–2 thanks someone for a gift and apologizes that he cannot yet reciprocate. Caelius complains that Appius could not reciprocate a gift and hence became an enemy instead (Cic. Fam. 8.12.1; on the despicability of betrayed benefaction, see comment on Acts 4:9).

[1112]. Xen. Cyr. 5.5.34.

[1113]. Marshall, Enmity, 18–20.

[1114]. Cf., e.g., Xen. Cyr. 6.4.7; Sen. E. Controv. 9.1.intro.; 9.1.9; Pliny Ep. 5.2.1–2; 9.8.1. Some went so far as to deify great benefactors (Pliny E. N.H. 2.5.19).

[1115]. Cic. Fam. 13.22.2; cf. Pliny Ep. 7.31.1, 7; for the promise of the gratitude of both the recommender and the beneficiary, see Pliny Ep. 3.2.6; promising the requester’s gratitude, 4.13.10. Letters might also attest to gratitude after the favor (as in 7.15.3; Fronto Ad Ant. Pium 9.1).

[1116]. Cic. Fam. 13.22.2.

[1117]. Jos. Ant. 19.361; Lucian Fisherman 5; cf. Philost. Ep. Apoll. 36. On ingratitude, see the more complete documentation in the note at Acts 23:17–18.

[1118]. Sen. Y. Ben. 1.10.4 (also referred to by Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 148). Stoics more generally condemned the “ungrateful” (ἀχάριστον) who was interested neither in returning a “favor” (χάριτος) nor in bestowing one (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11k, pp. 80–81.21–23).

[1119]. Val. Max. 2.6.6; Suet. Claud. 25.1; Buckland, Roman Law, 88. Later, under Constantine, a son’s emancipation from potestas (Buckland, Roman Law, 130).

[1120]. Pliny Ep. 7.18.5; 9.30.1–2. Earlier, Arist. N.E. 8.14.2, 1163b 1–5 also saw the needier party’s obligation as honoring the benefactor (deSilva, Honor, 114). Thus Pliny the Younger cancels a debt of a hundred thousand sesterces as a sign of generosity (Ep. 2.4)—but derives honor from this act of benevolence. But clients could also be expected, when possible, to leave the patron something in their will, at least if they had so promised (Val. Max. 7.8.5, 8); this suggests that they might offer back what they could.

[1121]. Sen. Y. Ben. 2.22.1; 2.23.1; 2.24.1 (cited by deSilva, Honor, 114); for honoring benefactors, see also, e.g., Iambl. V.P. 21.100; also thousands of honorary inscriptions (cf., e.g., Harrison, Grace, 315; Judge, “Rhetoric of Inscriptions,” 815; in a synagogue, e.g., Kroll, “Greek Inscriptions”).

[1122]. E.g., CIL 14.409; ILS 6146 (in Sherk, Empire, 240, §182); Apoll. K. Tyre 17.

[1123]. Engels, Roman Corinth, 87.

[1124]. So Demosth. Cor. 268–69 (but he does, in fact, mention his own benefactions [Cor. 268], while promising not to mention them).

[1125]. So deSilva, Honor, 117–18 (noting [118] that the point was “not perfect systematization but virtuous conduct”). Apollonius wants no remuneration for his benefaction (Philost. Ep. Apoll. 48); on continuing to give to the ungrateful, see, e.g., Fronto Nep. am. 2.9. But against wasting resources on ingrates, cf. Lucian Tim. 35.

[1126]. Pliny Ep. 2.13.9; Sir 3:31.

[1127]. Garnsey and Saller, Empire, 149.

[1128]. Chow, Patronage, 32; cf. Cic. Fam. 8.12.1.

[1129]. Friends help their friends’ friends (Pliny Ep. 3.2.1).

[1130]. Pliny Ep. 10.11.1.

[1131]. Cic. Fam. 13.3.1; Pliny Ep. 2.13.1–2; 4.4.2. The recommender was also obligated, out of sensitivity to the benefactor’s reputation, not to recommend indiscriminately (Cic. Fam. 13.48.1). On letters of recommendation and friendship, see Marshall, Enmity, 91–101; for the reciprocity implied, see 117–20; on letters of recommendation, see also comment at Acts 9:2.

[1132]. E.g., Pliny Ep. 2.13.9. Cicero’s letters of recommendation often ask the recipient to prove to the recommended one how good a recommendation Cicero had written and how effective was his benefaction (e.g., Fam. 13.19.3; 13.20.1; 13.26.4; 13.30.2; 13.35.2; 13.36.2; 13.44.1; 13.45.1; 13.46.1; 13.49.1; 13.58.1; 13.77.2; 13.78.2).

[1133]. Cic. Fam. 13.47.1.

[1134]. Pliny Ep. 2.13.7.

[1135]. Pliny Ep. 3.2.4. “Love” (friendship) is a factor in recommendations. The recipient of a favor might tell the recommender that the benefactor acted only because of the recommender’s love for the beneficiary (Fronto Ad verum imp. 1.5).

[1136]. Marshall, Enmity, 117, notes that such recommendations were meant “to enhance the friendship between the recommender and the recommended.”

[1137]. Cf. Sen. Y. Ben. 1.4.2, who regards reciprocity of favors as the primary social bond (deSilva, Honor, 96).

[1138]. E.g., Pliny Ep. 3.9.25; cf. Malina and Neyrey, Portraits, 164–69. Even to gain a friend, however, one could not join in enmity against another friend (Cic. Handb. Elec. 45). Benevolent-patron ideology helped alleviate exploitation (Oakman, “Countryside,” 159).

[1139]. So Pliny Ep. 10.12.2; 10.13. Others likewise sought Pliny’s friendship because this would bring them honor, a sentiment that Pliny appreciated (6.18.2).

[1140]. See Harrison, Grace, 2, 50–53, 63, 72–84, 166–209; deSilva, “Patronage,” 768; Danker, Corinthians, 117–18; Judge, “Rhetoric of Inscriptions,” 815; Lucian Par. 58 (χαριζόμενοι); Men. Rhet. 2.10, 416.8–9, 15.

[1141]. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 44.4; Harrison, Grace, 40–43.

[1142]. In friendship in general, see, e.g., Isoc. Demon. 1; Val. Max. 4.7; Pliny Ep. 1.17.1; Phaedrus 3.9.1; Char. Chaer. 3.5.7–8; Sent. Syr. Men. 25. It was also praiseworthy toward a patron (a freedwoman in Suet. Calig. 16.4). A client who proved trustworthy might even become the patron’s heir (Cic. Fam. 13.46.1).

[1143]. Cf., e.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 1.23.

[1144]. Dio Chrys. Or. 3.86, 88. Cherishing ties such as of clientage and kinship was a topic of justice (Rhet. Her. 3.3.4). Roman ethics treated fidelity (especially to one’s word) as fundamental to justice (Schiemann, “Fides: Law,” 415, citing Cic. Off. 1.23); naturally, πίστις gained heavy moral connotations in Roman Christianity (Büchli, “Fides,” 417).

[1145]. Dio Chrys. Or. 3.89.

[1146]. Dio Chrys. Or. 3.89, 128.

[1147]. Kent, Inscriptions, no. 265, lines 4–7 (p. 107; πίστεως in line 7). For loyalty (fides) to a client, see Tac. Dial. 10.

[1148]. Lee, “Unrest,” 125–26. Tensions did exist, however, much earlier (e.g., Hor. Ep. 1.7).

[1149]. Chow, Patronage, 31–32.

[1150]. Possibly born in its contemporary form from imperial propaganda in Augustus’s era (Lewis, Life, 196–97, citing Virg. Aen. 6.851–53).

[1151]. Lee, “Unrest,” 126, citing Juv. Sat. 3.151–53; 7 passim; Lucian Salaried Posts in Great Houses.

[1152]. Lucian Slip 1.

[1153]. Lucian Men. 12 (LCL, 4:95). In Nigr. 21, some of the rich require obeisance or let their representatives receive clients in their place; clients may stand for hours. In Nigr. 22, the latter rise at midnight, traverse the city to find themselves locked out by the patron’s servants, and endure being called dogs, all for a dinner they may not like.

[1154]. E.g., Lucian Par. passim (esp. 58, noting that the rich act as their “benefactors”).

[1155]. Brown, “Parasite.”

[1156]. Mart. Epig. 1.112; 2.118. Martial undoubtedly provoked laughter, but presumably he either knew his patron to be a person of exceptionally good humor or knew where to find another patron.

[1157]. Mart. Epig. 2.30.1–5. He pleads for clients’ rights in 10.34.

[1158]. E.g., Juv. Sat. 3.122–25.

[1159]. Juv. Sat. 4.15–18.

[1160]. E.g., Pliny Ep. 1.4.2–3; cf. Pliny Ep. 4.1.6.

[1161]. Comparison with benefactors of cult associations from her social and economic bracket would probably produce closer correspondences.

[1162]. Some scholars argue that Luke, though valuing benefactors (e.g., Luke 1:3; 8:3; Acts 18:7), differs from the usual expectations of benefaction and patronage in that donors cannot count on their gifts buying “influence in the community” (Heen, “Patronage,” 458).

[1163]. See, e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 277 (cf. sexual hospitality, 192); Choge, “Hospitality.”

[1164]. E.g., Cic. Part. or. 23.80; Off. 2.18.64; Epict. Diatr. 1.28.23. For discussions of Greek and Roman hospitality, see Fitzgerald, “Hospitality,” 522–24; Wagner-Hasel, “Hospitality”; Arterbury, Hospitality; Jipp, Visitations, 59–170; Malherbe, Social Aspects, 95, cites also Mathews, “Hospitality”; Riddle, “Hospitality.”

[1165]. Herzfeld, “House”; on its reciprocal value, see esp. 78–79.

[1166]. See Felber, “Hospitality”; Wiesehöfer, “Hospitality”; for current Middle Eastern practice, see, e.g., Eickelman, Middle East, 234–36.

[1167]. Cf. Paul’s granting his hosts the privilege of showing him hospitality (Rom 15:24, 28; 1 Cor 16:5–7); to refuse to accept hospitality was an insult to the host’s generosity (Cic. Att. 12.36).

[1168]. Cf. Diogenes Ep. 37, where Diogenes’s host in Rhodes urges him to come (but this is after Diogenes has shamed him for not meeting him on his arrival).

[1169]. See Reimer, Women, 117–25.

[1170]. See Malherbe, Social Aspects, 66–67.

[1171]. Though not desirable, some in the East, especially in Asia Minor, were better than those in the West (Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 393). For pleasant accommodations, see, e.g., ILS 6036 (Pompeii); for a kind innkeeper, Iambl. V.P. 33.238. On inns, see further Kleberg, Hôtels; Friedländer, Life, 1:290–93; Casson, Travel, 197–218.

[1172]. There were exceptional luxury inns in which people of status might board (see Harris and Schuster, “Lap of Luxury,” on the Agro Murecine near Pompeii; cf. further Stambaugh, City, 179, on other luxury inns in Pompeii).

[1173]. Badian and Spawforth, “Inns,” 759; Stambaugh, City, 179.

[1174]. Rapske, “Travel,” 14–15 (noting that local communities maintained these stations).

[1175]. Ibid., 15; on bad lodging for the poor, see Juv. Sat. 3.190–211; cf. also the bedbugs in Acts John 60–61 (for discussion of the story and its possible background, see, e.g., Plümacher, Geschichte, 171–90). Presumably, hygiene was less predictable at such institutions, where reputation and return visitors were not primary issues; whereas I found hospitality in homes very generous in rural Nigeria, it took a few weeks to recover from the bed in a particular inn infested with voracious bugs.

[1176]. Rapske, Custody, 233.

[1177]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 38; cf. Stambaugh, City, 179–82; Badian and Spawforth, “Inns,” 759 (further noting that one would provide one’s bedding and that safety was also in question).

[1178]. Goodman, State, 61.

[1179]. Moffatt, Hebrews, 224, citing Plato Laws 11.918D; cf. Moffatt, General Epistles, 153.

[1180]. A person of means could avoid them (Gen. Rab. 71:10).

[1181]. Moffatt, Hebrews, 224. Alciph. Paras. 17 (Acratolymas to Chonocrates), 3.53, esp. ¶4, may associate greed with an innkeeper; in Dio Chrys. Or. 72.2, innkeepers wear their belts girded high up. Toner, Culture, 29, cites graffiti complaining that an innkeeper keeps the pure wine, selling an obviously watered-down version to the guests (citing CIL 4.3948).

[1182]. Badian and Spawforth, “Inns,” 759; cf. Reden, “Work,” 743; in the second millennium B.C.E., cf. Hess, “Joshua,” 19. Although aristocratic owners lost no status, people viewed as contemptible all their subordinates (“Inn: Antiquity,” 820).

[1183]. Liefeld, “Preacher,” 13, cites here Apul. Metam. 1.8; cf. also the robbery in b. Taʿan. 21a; the demonized oil in b. Sanh. 101a.

[1184]. E.g., Cic. Div. 1.27.57; Val. Max. 1.7.ext. 10; cf. Hermog. Issues 32–33 (a theme that Heath, Hermogenes, 67, identifies also in Sen. E. Controv. 10.1.13; Calpurnius Flaccus Declamations 40).

[1185]. ILS 7479 in Sherk, Empire, 237, §178E.

[1186]. Cf. Pomeroy, Goddesses, 201; Stambaugh, City, 200; Casson, Travel, 212–15.

[1187]. Appian Bell. civ. 1.8.72.

[1188]. Toner, Culture, 109.

[1189]. Casson, Travel, 212–13, 215–17.

[1190]. See Stahlmann, “Brothels,” 790 (citing CIL 9.2689 = ILS 7478; Dig. 23.2.43.pr.); Casson, Travel, 206–7; Pomeroy, Goddesses, 192, 201; Friedländer, Life, 1:293; Ramsay, “Roads and Travel,” 393; cf. Höcker, “Prostitution,” 60. In the ancient Near East, see Renger, “Inns,” 817 (citing Middle Assyrian Laws §14; Hamm. 110). Speaking of the “lustful tavern” (salax taberna, Catull. Carm. 37.1), one poet threatens to scribble obscene graffiti about the prostitutes’ patrons over the tavern’s front (37.9–10). Some rabbis worried about bestiality in such places (m. ʿAbod. Zar. 2:1).

[1191]. Stambaugh, City, 182, who notes that the graffiti include the claim to have urinated on the bed because there was no toilet (CIL 4.4957). CIL 9.2689 preserves a dialogue (perhaps a joke) in which an innkeeper is settling a bill: one-sixth of an as (i.e., about 1 percent of a denarius) for wine, one as (one-sixteenth of a denarius) for bread, two asses (one-eighth of a denarius) for food, eight asses for the girl, and two for the mule’s hay (the traveler then complains about his feeding the mule so much).

[1192]. E.g., SIG³ 1251 = IG 14.24; CIL 4.1679 (Sherk, Empire, 211, §165).

[1193]. Pomeroy, Goddesses, 140; Ferguson, Backgrounds, 59; cf. Gardner, Women, 132; Mart. Epig. 9.6.7–8; for captives sold into prostitution, see Apul. Metam. 7.9; ʾAbot R. Nat. 8 A.

[1194]. Stambaugh, City, 208.

[1195]. Casson, Travel, 218.

[1196]. Cf. Pliny Ep. 6.19.4 (insisting that one’s claimed locale not be treated as if merely an inn).

[1197]. In Greek novels, cf. Arterbury, “Hospitality.” In general, see the excellent work by Koenig, Hospitality; and, thorough and excellent but discovered too late in my process of writing for me to interact with it adequately, Arterbury, Hospitality.

[1198]. Hom. Od. 9.268–77; Pindar Nem. 5.33; Ol. 8.22; Eurip. Cycl. 355; Ap. Rhod. 2.1131–33; 3.193; Lucian Tim. 1; Gr. Anth. 7.516; Vit. Aes. 139; this is transferred to the Roman Jupiter (Ovid Metam. 10.224). All strangers come from Zeus (Hom. Od. 6.207–8; 14.57–58).

[1199]. Hom. Il. 13.624–25; Mus. Ruf. 15, p. 96.29; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.39 (cf. 1.41); 12.75; Lucian Affairs 7; Heliod. Eth. 2.22. A deity himself appears as a host in Philost. Hrk. 5.5–6; cf. Israel’s God at the eschatological banquet (see Koenig, Hospitality, 46n2).

[1200]. In a well-known fable, when the eagle was human, it failed to be hospitable and hence died of hunger because of its bent beak (Demet. Style 3.157, commenting on Arist. Hist. Anim. 9).

[1201]. Willis, “Banquets,” 144.

[1202]. Hom. Od. 4.26–36; cf. Libanius Maxim 2.2. Among types of friendship, “hospitality” (ξενίαν) is “friendship with strangers” (Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.5 L, pp. 36–37.1). For Greeks, it related to their emphasis on equality and individualism (Engels, Roman Corinth, 86).

[1203]. Hom. Od. 1.118–20, 123–24; cf. Lucian Lucius 1–2. The great lengths to which Telemachus goes in Od. 1.113–35, ignorant that the visitor is Athena, resemble Gen 18:3–8.

[1204]. See Winter, Left Corinth, 135, 186–87 (following Owens, City, 145); deSilva, Honor, 193; contrast the emphasis in Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 150. Tacitus claims that the noble Germans were so hospitable that their doors were open to anyone (Germ. 21).

[1205]. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 38.

[1206]. Hock, Social Context, 29 (citing, for lodging and food, Lucian Lucius 7; Casson, Travel, 209–18).

[1207]. Hock, Social Context, 29 (citing Did. 11.5; Lucian Affairs 8–9; Lucius 3; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.23; 5.10), noting that Paul observed this rule in Acts (Acts 9:9; 20:6; 21:4, 7; 28:14). In Lucian Lucius 3–4, Lucius consents to stay for three days but (Lucius 4) is, in fact, secretly eager to stay longer, if necessary, to satisfy his curiosity; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.23 concerns the hospitality of an Indian king.

[1208]. E.g., Rhet. Her. 3.3.4; Cic. Fam. 13.36.1; 13.73.2. There were even rituals to confirm a relationship established by hospitality (Wagner-Hasel, “Hospitality,” 531).

[1209]. Cf. ties of hospitality to the third generation in Cic. Fam. 13.34.1. A prisoner of war had previously been a guest-friend of Marcius, and so Marcius granted his freedom (Plut. Coriol. 10.3).

[1210]. Such lengthy hospitality continues to be practiced in some regions. After my wife (then my fiancée) was a refugee in the rainforest of her nation of Congo for eighteen months, she spent eight more months outside her country as we awaited a visa for my country. During those eight months a Cameroonian family graciously housed her because we shared a mutual friend who recommended her on my behalf.

[1211]. Hom. Il. 21.76; Od. 4.534–35; 11.414–20; 14.404–5; Hesiod W.D. 327; Eurip. Cycl. 126–28; Hec. 25–26, 710–20, 850–56; Stheneboea frg. 667; Ap. Rhod. 3.377–80; Ovid Metam. 1.144; 10.225–28; Livy 25.16.6; Quint. Curt. 8.2.3; Libanius Speech in Character 10.1. Such betrayal incurred divine wrath (Hom. Od. 21.26–28; Livy 39.51.12; Tac. Ann. 2.65; 15.52). Cf. Acastus’s avoidance of harming his guest directly despite his belief that the guest has wronged him (Stenger, “Peleus,” 695, citing Hesiod Cat. W. E. 209).

[1212]. Eurip. Heracl. 1034–36 (even in subsequent generations); Cic. Pis. 34.83; by seeking the host’s wife, Ovid Her. 17.3–4; Tac. Hist. 3.41. (These sources are fewer than for the host, probably because hosts more often held more power.)

[1213]. Aeschines Embassy 22, 55. For a guest to act unkindly was deceptive treachery (Catull. Carm. 64.176).

[1214]. E.g., Eurip. Cycl. 125 (the Cyclopes prove the antithesis of hospitality, 126–28); Pindar Ol. 13.3; Men. Rhet. 2.3, 384.22, 24–25. Cf. also some interpretations of 2 Kgs 2:23–24 (Gordon, Near East, 200); Luke 11:5 (Bailey, Poet, 122–24; Scott, Parable, 87).

[1215]. See Ps.-Phoc. 24; m. ʾAb. 1:5, 15; 3:12; Fitzgerald, “Hospitality,” 524–25.

[1216]. Jos. War 2.124–25; Hippol. Ref. 9.15.

[1217]. Meeks, Urban Christians, 29 (listing as examples the Jewish sections of Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome; Philo Flacc. 55; Embassy 155).

[1218]. E.g., y. Meg. 3:3, §5; for the archaeology, see Sukenik, Synagogues, 49, 69–70; Koenig, Hospitality, 17; Blue, “Influence,” 476.

[1219]. Van Unnik, “Teaching of Good Works,” 96–97.

[1220]. Cf. Test. Job 10, esp. 10:1–4. Job’s hospitality is probably modeled after that of Abraham in Gen 18 and Jewish tradition.

[1221]. Cf., e.g., Matt 10:42; Eurip. El. 357–63.

[1222]. See Koenig, Hospitality, 15–20. See, e.g., Gen. Rab. 48:9; 50:4; Num. Rab. 10:5; Song Rab. 1:3, §3; Heb 13:2; Jas 2:16, 21.

[1223]. Koenig, Hospitality, 16–17; Safrai, “Education,” 966. Hospitality toward sages appears in b. Ber. 63b (cf. 47b, bar.). A rabbi who was offered hospitality by no one once had to spend the night in a schoolhouse, which was, unfortunately, haunted (b. Qidd. 29b).

[1224]. For more positive roles of the hostess, see Safrai, “Home,” 762–63 (citing b. B. Meṣiʿa 87a; Ber. 10a; Taʿan. 23b).

[1225]. For the hospitality of shared meals in Luke-Acts, cf. also briefly Ashworth, “Hospitality.”

[1226]. Fee, Timothy, 44, adds Aristides Apol. 15; Lane, Hebrews, 512, adds Lucian Peregr. 16.

[1227]. For Paul’s numerous hosts and supporters, see Judge, “Scholastic Community,” 130; for his housing arrangements, see esp. Hock, Social Context, 29–31. On the hospitality theme in the NT, see Koenig, Hospitality; in Luke-Acts, see also Denaux, “Theme,” 255–63. Although I have not found corroboration of the view (in Malina and Pilch, Acts, 215) that a guest held a “quasi-female” status, all favors invited reciprocity; yet hosts who recognized Paul’s spiritual status would likely reckon themselves recipients of the greater favor.

[1228]. Lucian Affairs 9. I have also observed this desire in some traditional African societies emphasizing hospitality, in contrast to Western society (which tends to regard hospitality obligations as burdensome unless the guest is an intimate friend or of peculiarly high status); cf. Choge, “Hospitality.”

[1229]. Jos. Asen. 3:2–3/3:3–4.

[1230]. Eurip. Alc. 1039–41.

[1231]. Cic. Att. 12.36. Cf. comment on Acts 20:16. One could thus request hospitality with confidence (e.g., Pliny Ep. 5.19.7–9) and accept an invitation as if granting an honor (e.g., 6.14.1–2; cf. Rom 15:24; 1 Cor 16:6; Phlm 22).

[1232]. Witherington, Acts, 493, who thinks it would also question the genuineness of her conversion; sharing possessions (and hospitality) shows genuine conversion in Luke-Acts. Gillman, “Hospitality in Acts 16,” rightly notes that both Lydia and the jailer demonstrate the reality of their initiation by hospitality (cf. Luke 10:7–8, 10–11; Matt 10:40–42; though we should not assume that this never happened in the period depicted in Acts 13–14, a narrative less detailed than here).

[1233]. That some disciples retained their homes is clear (Acts 12:12–13; see Kim, Stewardship; Tannehill, “Ethics,” 119–20).

[1234]. With Hintermaier, “Grundlage.”

[1235]. For sample applications, see, e.g., Rakotojoelinandrasana, “Gospel in Adversity” (for an African context, especially in Madagascar).

[1236]. See Witherington, Acts, 487n68.

[1237]. Stamps, “Children,” 197.

[1238]. Of course the contrast is limited: the Jerusalem apostles, including Peter, later cast out demons (Acts 5:16), as did Philip (8:7).

[1239]. In a Roman colony under Roman law, these Romans (Acts 16:21) would distinguish the property of husbands and wives (Plut. Rom. Q. 7, Mor. 265E; Gardner, Women, 74; cf. even in Judea for a woman of means in Cotton and Greenfield, “Property”; despite ideals in Mus. Ruf. 13A, p. 88.13–14; 14, p. 94.8–9; Plut. Bride 20, Mor. 140F). But this distinction would prove inconsequential in the practical sense of commanding slaves.

[1240]. Jewish law recognized cases (possibly theoretical) of persons who were half free and half slave or jointly owned by two persons (m. ʿEd. 1:13; Giṭ. 4:5; Pesaḥ. 8:1; t. Ker. 1:17; b. ʿArak. 2b; B. Qam. 90a; Giṭ. 43a; Ḥag. 2a; Qidd. 90a; Yebam. 66a); divisions of estates at inheritances could encourage such situations (cf. P.Grenf. 1.21; for divided estates, see, e.g., Quint. Decl. 264 intro.). For joint ownership of objects in Roman jurisprudence, see Schiemann, “Communio”; Wallace-Hadrill, Houses, 105.

[1241]. The Aramaic use of “mammon” (see Black, Aramaic Approach, 139–40; Hengel, Property, 24; Jeremias, Theology, 6n2; Flusser, Judaism, 153; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:643) probably suggests authenticity in this Q saying (Matt 6:24). In the few cases where slaves were shared, their situation could be uncomfortable (Klauck, Magic, 65), and apparently, they did prefer one master to the other (Groenewald, “Mammon”; Beare, Matthew, 183); see esp. Dio Chrys. Or. 66.13–14, with a saying similar to Jesus’s; Philost. Ep. Apoll. 15. Keeping two patrons pleased could also prove difficult (Cic. Fam. 7.29.1–2; deSilva, Honor, 116).

[1242]. Reimer, Acts, 153.

[1243]. For a similar conflict reported in Cicero, see Klauck, Magic, 65.

[1244]. Keener, Acts, 2:1906–42.

[1245]. Rapske, Custody, 119.

[1246]. See Salles, “Pythies et sibylles.”

[1247]. Barrett, Acts, 785. He follows Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 252, who cite, e.g., P.Lond. 906.6; P.Fay. 93.7.

[1248]. See Aune, Prophecy, 30.

[1249]. With, e.g., Boring, Sayings, 41.

[1250]. Her titles were πρόμαντις (Hdt. 6.66; 7.111, 141; Thucyd. 5.16; Lucian Hermot. 60; Paus. 3.4.4) and προφῆτις (Plato Phaedr. 244A; Eurip. Ion 42, 321; Aune, Prophecy, 28). Other cult staff included two permanent prophetic priests (probably the προφῆται of Plut. Gk. Q., Mor. 292D) and five ὅσιοι (Aune, Prophecy, 28).

[1251]. Deut 18:10; 1 Sam 28:8; 2 Kgs 17:17; Mic 3:11; Jer 34:9 (27:9 MT); Ezek 12:24; 13:6, 23; 21:26, 28, 34; 22:28. Cf. also Jos. Ant. 6.330.

[1252]. See Nock, “Vocabulary,” 134. Apollo himself was sometimes a μάντις (Epict. Diatr. 3.1.18; Plut. E Delph. 2, Mor. 385B; 6, 387B; cf. PGM 6.11–13); but Hermes appears as “the prophet” in PGM 5.410. We could also translate τέχνη (“art”; Plut. E Delph. 6, Mor. 387B) as “skill” or “craft” or “expertise.”

[1253]. See Kauppi, Gods, 29–33, esp. 29 (for “late” sources, including the Vulgate for Lev 20:27), 30 (citing Plut. Obsol. 9, Mor. 414E; later, Ps.-Clem. Hom. 9.16.3; Rec. 4.20.4), arguing (30–32) very tentatively against Reimer’s link (Women, 154–56) to the Delphic oracle. I believe that Kauppi’s more specific alternative of “necromantic women” (Gods, 33), however, rests on evidence far too slender to bear its weight (30, citing the later scholiast on the first-century grammarian and lexicographer Erotianus).

[1254]. E.g., Bruce, Acts¹, 315; idem, Commentary, 332; Reimer, Women, 154–55. For Delphi’s immediate association with Apollo in ancient thought, see, e.g., Lucian Sacr. 10; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.43.

[1255]. Whether because snakes were often negative (see comment on Acts 28:3–4; Keener, “Brood of Vipers,” 6–8) or because it called to mind an earlier rhetor who betrayed Greece to the king of Macedon (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.37).

[1256]. Weaver, Epiphany, 256–58, suggests that mention of a python spirit may evoke Apollo’s conflict with Python here. Evocation of such a power encounter is attractive here and could serve a function similar to the inversion of such a myth in Rev 12:1–9 (see, e.g., Apollod. Bib. 1.4.1; Men. Rhet. 2.17, 441.14–442.1; Caird, Revelation, 147–48; Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 192; Schüssler Fiorenza, “Revelation,” 111). But it should be noted that the spirit is identified here not with Python but with Apollo, who took his title, an approach quite different from Rev 12.

[1257]. Apollod. Bib. 1.4.1 (alleging that he then took control of the oracle); Ovid Metam. 1.438–44; Lucan C.W. 5.80; Lucian Dance 38; Men. Rhet. 2.17, 441.14–15; 441.32–442.1; on Pytho, see further 441.15–442.1, esp. 441.19–20, 25–26; Prop. Eleg. 4.6.5; Orph. H. 34.4; cf. further van Henten, “Python,” 669–70; Geroussis, Delphi, 10. Varro L.L. 7.2.17 alludes to Python’s tomb at Delphi. On this event, cf. also Junk, “Python”; for the dragon-slaying myth more generally, see Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 192–94; Benson, “Dragon”; Keener, Revelation, 315–16.

[1258]. For the games, see also, e.g., Soph. El. 49; Pindar Pyth. passim; Ovid Metam. 1.448–67; Strabo 9.3.4; Dio Chrys. Or. 8.15; Epict. Diatr. 3.4.11; Suet. Nero 25.1; Lucian Anach. 9; Book-Coll. 8–10; Max. Tyre 1.4; 34.8; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 5.43; Iambl. V.P. 10.52. For the “Pythian melody” honoring Apollo at the games in classical times, see Casson, Travel, 79.

[1259]. E.g., Aristoph. Wasps 869; Pindar Ol. 14.11; Cic. De or. 1.45.199; Leg. 1.23.61; 2.16.40; Livy 23.11.3; Val. Max. 7.1.2; Pliny E. N.H. 7.31.119; Paus. 3.15.4; Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 34–35, §11D; Strabo 9.3.2; Min. Fel. Oct. 26.6; Orph. H. 34.3; Heliod. Eth. 2.26–27; Sib. Or. 11.315–18. His shrine is associated with the “Pythian” (Isaeus Dicaeog. 41–42); so also his Delphic priests (Lucian Phal. 1.1). Locational epithets rarely spread, and so this connection with an old title for Delphi is significant (cf. Davies, “Pythios”).

[1260]. E.g., Hermes (PGM 5.410, 419–21; Orph. H. 28.4); Dionysus (Eurip. Bacch. 298–99); Orpheus (Philost. Hrk. 28.9–11; Vit. Apoll. 4.14); fauns (Fronto Eloq. 1.13); see excursus on prophecy at Acts 2:17–18 (Keener, Acts, 1:886–909, here esp. 909). Cf. also the worship of Athena (Geroussis, Delphi, 27–28) and Dionysus at Delphi (Plut. E Delph. 9, Mor. 388E [LCL, 5:221]; Parke, Oracle, 335–46), though Apollo was paramount (Parke, Oracle, 325–28). Associating a particular deity with divination fits a polytheistic system (e.g., the traditional Yoruba deity Orunmila; Mbiti, Religions, 232), though many spirits can be used to divine (Beattie and Middleton, “Introduction,” xxiii).

[1261]. E.g., Hom. Il. 1.72; Aristoph. Birds 716; Cic. Tusc. 1.30.73; Epict. Diatr. 3.1.18; Val. Flacc. 1.5–7, 228–34; Plut. E Delph. 1, Mor. 384EF; 6, 387B; Artem. Oneir. 2.35; Apul. Metam. 2.25; Men. Rhet. 2.4, 390.23–24; 2.17, 441.1; 442.9–23; Heliod. Eth. 2.26–27; cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 1.10; 13.9. For his association with musical inspiration, see, e.g., Dion. Hal. Epid. 1.256; Men. Rhet. 2.17, 437.20–21; 442.24–443.12; Gr. Anth. 2.266–70; he is linked with the Muses in, e.g., Pliny E. N.H. 37.3.5; Statius Theb. 6.355–56; Dio Chrys. Or. 1.10; 32.56–57; Marc. Aur. 11.11.

[1262]. Nor did early Christians; see Chrys. Hom. Acts 35.

[1263]. Philo Embassy 109–10. It is false prophecy in Sib. Or. 4.4–6.

[1264]. Jos. Ag. Ap. 2.162; cf. Ant. 3.139; Ag. Ap. 2.131; Philo Embassy 69; Posterity 113.

[1265]. Jdt 16:7; Sib. Or. 1.307–23; 3.121–25; cf. Delcor, “Mythe” (among Greeks, see, e.g., Hesiod Theog. 717–19). Likewise, many Jews were familiar with Eastern paganism such as “Ishtar” (Incant. Text 43.6–7; cf. 53.12).

[1266]. Jos. Ag. Ap. 1.255, 263.

[1267]. Artapanus in Euseb. P.E. 9.27.3. Josephus also compares Essene beliefs with Greek myths (War 2.155–58), though this would likely have horrified the Essenes.

[1268]. Job 42:14 LXX; Test. Job 1:3 (both reading the Hebrew term for “horn,” קרן, in light of Greek conceptions). Cf. Job’s brother, “Nereus,” in Test. Job 51:2 (OTP 1:867)/51:1 (Kraft, 82).

[1269]. Goodenough, Symbols, vols. 7–8. Goodenough surmises (4:209) that Jews used their symbols as “substitutes for pagan symbols similarly used.”

[1270]. E.g., Isoc. Paneg. 21; Apollod. Bib. 2.4.12; Epict. Diatr. 2.20.27; Plut. Solon 4.2; Thes. 36.1; Gk. Q. 12, Mor. 293E; 19, Mor. 295DE; Borr. 3, Mor. 828D; Paus. 1.22.8; 2.2.7; 2.18.2; 2.29.7; 3.2.4.

[1271]. E.g., Apollod. Bib. 1.4.1; Lucan C.W. 5.86–101. Cf. Geroussis, Delphi, 12–16.

[1272]. E.g., Soph. El. 32; Oed. tyr. 242–43; Tac. Ann. 12.63; Philost. Hrk. 28.8. For further discussion of the oracle, see, e.g., Amandry, Mantique; esp. Parke, Oracle; cf. more recently McGinnis, “Oracles”; on the Pythia, Decker, “Pythia,” 291–93; Frateantonio, “Promantis.”

[1273]. Klauck, Context, 186. The use of virgins was widely known (e.g., Lucian Astr. 23). Delphians appear arrogant in Vit. Aes. 124–42.

[1274]. E.g., Hom. Od. 8.79–80; Hdt. 1.65, 66–67; Cic. Div. 1.37.81; Plut. Demosth. 19.1; Lyc. 6.5; Gk. Q. 19, Mor. 295DE; Strabo 9.3.2, 11–12; Corn. Nep. 1 (Miltiades), 1.3; 2 (Themistocles), 2.7; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.15; Iambl. V.P. 2.3, 5. Cf. the uncomfortable prophecy to Nero, which he received either passively (Suet. Nero 39–40) or with hostility (Lucian Nero 10).

[1275]. Apollod. Bib. 2.4.12; Plut. Solon 4.2.

[1276]. E.g., Aeschines Ctes. 108–9; Livy 5.14.3; 5.15.12; 5.16.8; 23.11.1; Val. Max. 8.15.3; Plut. Thes. 36.1; Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 38, §11D. See Corinthians in Paus. 2.2.7; others in 2.18.2; 2.29.7. Delphi cultivated this reputation yet prioritized some cities’ access (Frateantonio, “Promanteia,” 4).

[1277]. On the need to obey the oracle, see further Plut. Borr. 3, Mor. 828D; Gk. Q. 12, Mor. 293E; for examples of obedience, see also Paus. 3.2.4; 5.13.6; 8.23.7; 8.42.5; 9.23.3; 9.33.4. Heracles once tried to force an answer (Apollod. Bib. 2.6.2).

[1278]. Aune, Prophecy, 30 (following Amandry, Mantique, 81–85; Parke, Oracles, 80–81). Plutarch postulated an overall decline in oracles, partly through the decline in Greece’s population (though he also believed that lesser δαίμονες rather than gods now appeared, Obsolescence of Oracles [Moralia, LCL, 5:348–501]).

[1279]. E.g., Callim. Hymns 4 (to Delos), lines 89–90; Lucian Z. Rants 30 (jesting that Apollo cannot prophesy without his tripod); some people in Iambl. Myst. 3.11 (others claimed a four-footed stool); for a figurative allusion, Lucian Critic 10. Aune, Prophecy, 28, thinks that the tripod probably represented Apollo’s throne.

[1280]. Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 192; Aune, Prophecy, 40–41; cf. Conzelmann, Acts, 131; Fitzmyer, Acts, 586; Witherington, Acts, 494. In this period, people typically attributed ventriloquism to divine or demonic inspiration (van Henten, “Python,” 670, citing Origen Princ. 3.3.5). Apollo’s voice comes from the cavern in Val. Max. 7.1.2. For strange voices in possession accounts today, see discussion below.

[1281]. Plut. Or. Delphi 7, Mor. 397C; for Apollo using the priestess’s body to reveal his thoughts, see Or. Delphi 21, Mor. 404E. Plutarch has some specialized knowledge of Delphi because of his priesthood there (see Jaillard, “Plutarque et divination,” esp. on Mor. 438AB).

[1282]. Val. Max. 1.8.10 (Wardle, 60). Other sites also provided subterranean encounters with a δαιμόνιον (e.g., Max. Tyre 8.2); cf. the oracular chasm for Orpheus in Philost. Hrk. 28.9.

[1283]. For lack of memory in spirit trances today, see, e.g., Gelfand, Religion, 166, 169; Field, “Possession,” 3, 6.

[1284]. Iambl. Myst. 3.11.

[1285]. Cic. Div. 1.36.79 (cf. Iambl. Myst. 3.11: at Colophon, the prophetess drinks water from a sacred fountain). Some ancients believed that the subterranean exhalations that once inspired the Pythia no longer worked (Cic. Div. 2.57.117), although, in the first century C.E., Pliny the Elder compares them with other unusual vapors supposed to arise from the earth (N.H. 2.95.207–8). Many scholars doubt the claims of “mephitic vapours” (Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 317); cf. Pytho’s association with the “earth” (Men. Rhet. 2.17, 441.16–17).

[1286]. For δαίμονες and other oracles, see, e.g., Plato Symp. 202E; Apul. De deo Socr. 6.133 (Trapp, Maximus, 69n1). On Clarus, see Robert and Robert, Décrets; Potter, “Claros”; Klauck, Context, 193; archaeological reports summarized in Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 148–49; note also the Apollo oracle at Korope in Thessaly (Klauck, Context, 193–95).

[1287]. This is Lucan’s dramatization, and Lucan himself claims that this was an unusual event (C.W. 5.166–67; see Klauck, Context, 187–88). Yet even some magical divination practices may have sought to generate altered states of consciousness (Quack, “Efficacy”).

[1288]. Firth, “Foreword,” xii, notes cases of faked trances but also notes that genuine trances (those that the “possessed” person genuinely believes) are common (cf. also Verger, “Trance,” 64–65; Beattie, “Mediumship,” 166–67).

[1289]. E.g., Alexander, Possession, 98–99 (citing Eurip. Bacch. 241; Plato Phaedr. 47), 115 (specifically on the Pythia); cf. Mbiti, Religions, 227. A few people opined that deities were not localized in their temples and hence did not need to be approached there (Lucian Dem. 27).

[1290]. Graf, “Ecstasy,” 800; on Delphi and other oracles, cf. also Huffmon, “Oracular Process.” Alexander the false prophet seems to imply that his own prophecies are more accurate than these more famous cult centers (Lucian Alex. 43); Lucian himself was unimpressed with any of them (Dial. G. 244 [18/16, Hera and Leto 1]).

[1291]. Graf, “Ecstasy,” 800.

[1292]. Keener, Acts, 1:886–909.

[1293]. 1 Cor 14:32; Chrys. Hom. 1 Cor. 29.2 (Bray, Corinthians, 118); Severian of Gabala in Pauluskommentare 262 (ibid.), 270 (ibid., 144).

[1294]. See Witherington, Corinthians, 54–55 (following Fontenrose, Oracle); cf. Maurizio, “Pythia’s Role.”

[1295]. Klauck, Context, 189–90.

[1296]. Proclus Poet. 6.1, K147.7–10, 21–25. Proclus used this claim to distinguish the immoral actions of some Apollo figures in Homeric poetry from the genuine deity, who was perfect.

[1297]. Reimer, Women, 156, cites Plut. Or. Delphi 17 for a Pythia uttering oracles outside oracular shrines.

[1298]. This was its ancient title, in Hom. Il. 2.519; 9.405; Od. 8.80; 11.581.

[1299]. Reimer, Women, 152; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 156 (noting esp. Elliger, Paulus in Griechenland, 50). On the worship of Apollo in Greece, see, e.g., Furnish, II Corinthians, 15–16; esp. Burkert, Religion, 143–49; on Bendis in Thrace, see Parker, “Bendis.” Apollo was one of the few Olympian deities to retain his Greek name in the Roman pantheon.

[1300]. See, e.g., Aristoph. Birds 716 (Ammon, Dodona); Strabo 17.1.43 (among the Branchidae); Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.6 and Iambl. Myst. 3.11 (Colophon). For consultation oracles’ connections to local shrines, see further Aune, Prophecy, 24. On Apollo, including associations with music, prophecy, and healing, see further Graf, Apollo.

[1301]. Grant, Gods, 63; see also Potter, “Didyma” (who also notes that Constantine closed it and executed its priests); Lact. De mortibus persecutorum 11.7; Euseb. P.E. 4.2.11; Life of Constantine 2.50. For the Apollo sanctuary at Didyma, see Tuchelt, “Didyma” (OEANE), 160; cf. idem, “Didyma” (BrillPauly); Yamauchi, Cities, 129–34; on a popular level, Stark, Ionia, 158–70; for a survey of archaeological reports, Mitchell, “Archaeology,” 154–55.

[1302]. Apollo was associated with Delos from an early period (Hom. Od. 6.162) and in the first (Pliny E. N.H. 4.12.66) and second (Lucian Sacr. 10) centuries. On Delos, see, e.g., Catling, “Delos”; Kalcyk, “Delos”; on Delphi, see, e.g., Morgan, Hornblower, and Spawforth, “Delphi.” Jews lived there (Jos. Ant. 14.213), and educated Diaspora Jews knew the myths (Philo Eternity 120–21; cf. Sib. Or. 3.363; 4.92).

[1303]. Maass, “Delphi: Topography,” 216–21; cf. more generally Rocchi, “Delphi: Organization”; for Delphi’s location and history, cf. McGinnis, “Center.”

[1304]. Aune, Prophecy, 37 (following Nikiprowetzky, Sibylle, 4). On pagan Sibylline oracle collections, see Klauck, Context, 200–204.

[1305]. Keener, Acts, 1:883 (and briefly 901); note also sources cited there.

[1306]. E.g., Sen. Y. Troj. 34–37; Dio Chrys. Or. 11.153–54.

[1307]. Sen. Y. Troj. 34.

[1308]. Pilch, Healing, 99, citing Luke 4:38 (not explicit); 8:2–3; and 13:11, 16 (and an impossible connection with 8:58 [sic: 8:55]).

[1309]. Tac. Ann. 2.54, contrasting Apollo’s oracle at Delphi; in contrast also to Zeus’s oracle at Dodona (Aune, Prophecy, 28, following Buresch, Klaros, 36, against Iambl. Myst. 3.11). Dodona’s was traditionally the other most prominent sanctuary (Philost. Hrk. 28.8; cf. Hom. Od. 14.327–28; 19.296–97; Justin 1 Apol. 18; for its association with Zeus, e.g., Hom. Il. 16.233; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.24; Philost. Elder Imag. 2.15; more extensively, 2.33); see further Strauch and Höcker, “Dodona”; Graf, “Dodona.” Lucian Icar. 24 portrays Zeus of Dodona complaining about the successful Delphic competition. Paul may have been near Dodona if he stayed in Nicopolis (Titus 3:12), but (pace McRay, Archaeology, 340) it is unlikely that he would have gone 40 mi. north simply to visit a pagan sanctuary.

[1310]. Aune, Prophecy, 28 (contrasting the oracular male μάντις, titled προφήτης, used for responses to inquiries). In myth, a woman (“Manto,” daughter of Tiresias) also founded this oracle (Epigoni frg. 4, from scholiast on Ap. Rhod. 1.308b; cf. also Käppel, “Manto,” citing Eurip. Phoen. 834ff.).

[1311]. Sourvinou-Inwood, “Delphic Oracle,” 445.

[1312]. Ibid.

[1313]. E.g., Klauck, Context, 189; Iamblichus Letter 5.7–8 (Stob. Anth. 2.2.5).

[1314]. Cf. Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 317. Certainly, a few ancients thought so; see esp. Lucian Dial. G. 244 (18/16, Hera and Leto 1); Alex. 48; most entertainingly, Z. Rants 28–31.

[1315]. Keener, John, 856–57. “Ambiguity” was “the idiom of prophecy” (Sourvinou-Inwood, “Delphic Oracle,” 445, doubting the “hedging of bets”). See comment on Acts 21:4.

[1316]. Isoc. Paneg. 31 also counts it the most trustworthy of authorities; Cic. Tusc. 1.47.114 claims that Delphic Apollo has the gift of prophecy beyond all other gods.

[1317]. Lucian Z. Rants 43; Alex. 48.

[1318]. Some cited the Pythia’s claim that Socrates was the wisest man (e.g., Paus. 1.22.8; Pliny E. N.H. 7.31.119–7.34.120). Cf. the Delphic maxim “Know yourself,” commonly repeated (Plato Alcib. 1.129A; Charm. 164E–165A; Lovers 138A; Xen. Mem. 3.9.6; 4.2.24; Diod. Sic. 9.10.2; Epict. frg. 1; Plut. Flatt. 25, Mor. 65F; Profit by Enemies 5, Mor. 89A; Dinner 21, Mor. 164B; E Delph. 17, Mor. 392A; 21, Mor. 394C; Hippol. Her. 1.15) and alluded to (Antisthenes in Diog. Laert. 6.1.6; Epict. Diatr. 1.2.11; 1.18.17; Cic. Fin. 3.22.73; Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 35). Many viewed it as one of life’s most basic truths (Epict. Diatr. 3.1.18; Plut. Apoll. 28, Mor. 116CD; E Delph. 2, Mor. 385D; Or. Delphi 29, Mor. 408E; R. Col. 20, Mor. 1118C); see further discussion in Keener, John, 236–37.

[1319]. An early to mid-second-century B.C.E. inscription from Delphi mentions both Pythian Apollo and some Jews (CIJ 1:512, §709), though it is difficult to know what, if anything, to make of this connection.

[1320]. Sib. Or. 4.4–6 (OTP 1:384). Pagans viewed the Sibyl as inspired by Apollo (Paus. 10.12.6; OTP 1:384 n. a; Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” 320). Sib. Or. 3.441 also seems to oppose Apollo, but 11.315–18 seems to appeal to “Pytho” for oracular verification. According to myth, Apollo took the epithet “Phoebus” when the Titan Phoebe transferred the Delphic oracle to him (Antoni, “Phoebe,” 146).

[1321]. Sipra Qed. pq. 9.207.3.3. Cf. similarly m. Sanh. 7:7; Sipre Deut. 172.1.2–4. Demons could foreknow the future (Test. Sol. 5:12; 20); Satan could inspire speech (Test. Job 41:5).

[1322]. Justin 1 Apol. 18; Min. Fel. Oct. 26.6.

[1323]. Conzelmann, Acts, 131, cites Ps.-Clem. Hom. 9.16.3.

[1324]. With Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 140; see esp. Brenk, “Exorcism,” on the divergent perspectives.

[1325]. On this kind of oracle, Aune, Prophecy, 257; in the ancient Near East, see Ross, “Prophecy,” 9; Hayes, “Prophetism,” 404–5; ANET 281; in Egypt, 446–48; cf. Wilson, “Prophecy,” 10. Thus, e.g., many followed Apollonius because Apollo’s oracles had praised him (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.1). Contrast the often “banal” forms of questions offered many oracles in Klauck, Magic, 67.

[1326]. Bede also favored the Apollo connection (Comm. Acts 16.16, probably following Isidore of Seville Etymologies 8, 9, 21), though he also notes another view (from Jerome De nominibus hebraicis/Liber nominum [Lagarde, 148, 22]).

[1327]. Such sentiments may inform the approach of Luke’s first audience; cf. Stogiannos, “Πνεῦμα Πύθωνα” (also surveying and classifying ancient divination methods).

[1328]. Once the Pythia was allegedly bribed to prophesy falsely, but a snake immediately killed her (Diog. Laert. 5.91); Plut. Mal. Hdt. 23, Mor. 860CD, protests Herodotus’s implication that the Pythia was persuaded to deceive; for bribing the Pythia, see also Paus. 3.4.3–5. Mart. Epig. 9.42.4 wishes them not to speak falsely. The oracle of Apollo in Miletus could tell falsehood (Apul. Metam. 4.32–33).

[1329]. Witherington, Acts, 494, cites Lucian Alexander the False Prophet; Apul. Metam. 8.26–30. Lucian Alex. 9 mocks the superstitious easily taken in by charlatans who divine with sieves and the like.

[1330]. Aune, Prophecy, 30. From an Israelite perspective, this was normally negative (Mic 3:11), though perhaps acceptable if the fee was voluntary and modest (1 Sam 9:7–8); for many Christians, it marked a false prophet (Did. 11.12).

[1331]. I have adapted and greatly expanded some material from Keener, Matthew, 283–86, and addressed this material briefly in “Comparisons,” 3–4; much more fully in Keener, “Possession”; and at greatest length in appendixes A and B of idem, Miracles, 769–856. For more-detailed studies, see also Yamauchi, “Magic?”; Ferguson, Demonology.

[1332]. Hom. Il. 17.210–11.

[1333]. Epict. Diatr. 1.14.14.

[1334]. For a survey of Greek views on demonology and daimones, see esp. Ferguson, Demonology, 33–67 (beginning [33–35] with the three views in Plut. Obsol. 10–15, Mor. 415A–418D); cf. more briefly Ferguson, Backgrounds, 184–86; Alexander, Possession, 259–65. On the Greek term δαίμων, see further Sánchez, “Daimones”; Burkert, Religion, 179–81; LSJ.

[1335]. See Rives, Religion, 18 (citing Apul. De deo Socr. 13–16); Riley, “Demon,” 236. In Heraclitus, the daimon shapes the person’s character (Darcus, “Daimon”) or generates one’s ordered speech (idem, “Logos”); for Empedocles, the divine mind parallels the human daimon (idem, “Phren”). Following Plato more closely than did Neoplatonists, Plutarch viewed the daimon as a higher component of the soul (Brenk, “Doctrine”); Franz, “Daimons,” shows how Stoic and Middle Platonic views of spirits developed and how spirits related to “self.” For a collection of relevant texts, see Cotter, Miracles, 75–105.

[1336]. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 3.54; Max. Tyre 9.6; Apul. De deo Socr. 152–53 (or even the human mind of a living person, 150); Men. Rhet. 2.9, 414.25–27 (when consoling the bereaved); PGM 4.1965–69; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 3.38; perhaps Dio Chrys. Or. 25 (but this appears more novel and may be a rhetorical exercise); see further discussion in Bolt, “Daimons,” 76–96. Platonists expected more matter-bound souls to hover around tombs (Proclus Poet. 6.1, K119.16–23 [esp. 20], citing Plato Phaedo 81D). Even many intellectuals believed stories of ghosts (Pliny Ep. 7.27.1–14), though others lampooned them (Lucian Lover of Lies 29–32). Lucian doubts spirit stories generally (Lover of Lies 16–20, 29–31), including those explicitly concerning daimones (Lover of Lies 13, 16, 29). Although the Furies often appear (e.g., Ovid Tristia 4.4.70), Cicero attributes them to one’s feelings of guilt (Pis. 20.46–47) or employs them figuratively (Att. 10.18).

[1337]. Pythagoras was thus a daimon (Philost. Ep. Apoll. 50), as were Achilles (Max. Tyre 9.7) and Protesilaus (Philost. Hrk. 43.3). The deceased golden race had become benevolent daimones (Hesiod W.D. 121–23). Divinized heroes with oracular or healing sanctuaries could be so described (Apul. De deo Socr. 154, including Amphiaraus, Osiris, and Asclepius).

[1338]. Dio Chrys. Or. 23.6; Char. Chaer. 6.2.9; Philost. Hrk. 12.1 (cf. Burkert, Religion, 180). The application to ill fortune (e.g., Men. Rhet. 2.11, 419.18, 32) lent itself to the increasingly pejorative sense of the term (Ferguson, Backgrounds, 134).

[1339]. E.g., I. Eph. 1255 (ἀγαθοῦ δαίμονος, the “good daimon,” linked here with Artemis); Men. Rhet. 1.1, 342.6–9 (personified jealousy).

[1340]. E.g., Dio Chrys. Or. 76.5; Epict. Diatr. 3.22.53; for “supernatural,” see, e.g., Philost. Hrk. 25.4; 48.19; 55.4. Socrates was accused of having introduced new “divinities” to Athens (e.g., Philost. Vit. Apoll. 7.11, δαιμόνια καινά; see comment on Acts 17:18); his own spirit-guide is also called a daimon (Plut. Alc. 17.4; Sign Soc. 10, Mor. 580C; Apul. De deo Socr. 157; Apol. 27; Socrates Ep. 1; for modern views, see, e.g., Kleve, “Daimon”; cf. Brickhouse and Smith, “Sign”), which was a deity (Xen. Mem. 1.1.2; 1.4.2, 10, 13; 4.8.1, 5–6).

[1341]. Lucian Lover of Lies 32 (meaning “supernatural” but in the context of a ghost story).

[1342]. See Nilsson, Piety, 170–72; Sánchez, “Daimones.” This was especially true in Middle and later Platonism; see, e.g., Max. Tyre Or. 8.8; Apul. De deo Socr. 132–37; Apol. 43; Flor. 10.3.

[1343]. E.g., PGM 4.1965–69; Ps.-Callisth. Alex. 1.5; Aune, Prophecy, 45; Nilsson, Piety, 171; Smith, Magician, 97–99; Yamauchi, “Magic?,” 140–41; perhaps Philost. Hrk. 25.13; for use of a spirit guide occasioning accusations of magic, see Apul. Apol. 27 (on Socrates). From a (hostile) Jewish perspective, see 1 En. 9:6–7; L.A.B. 34:2–3; Test. Jud. 23:1; b. Sanh. 67b; cf. Gaster, Scriptures, 85 (on CD XII, 2–3, if we take האוב as “ghost”; cf. Jastrow, Dictionary, 21). Those who used demons magically sometimes had trouble getting rid of them afterward (Klauck, Context, 229).

[1344]. See Solomon in Test. Sol. 22; b. Giṭ. 68ab; Eccl. Rab. 2:8, §1. It was said that a demon helped God’s people (b. Meʿil. 17b if, as is very likely, this is a demon; Gen. Rab. 63:8) and that one spirit sought local people’s help driving away an evil spirit (Lev. Rab. 24:3); later rabbis sometimes learned from and cited demons (e.g., b. Pesaḥ. 110a), and some considered particular categories of spirits, whether in the house or in the field, to be benevolent (Gen. Rab. 24:6). Cf. the Watchers coming, like the Greek Prometheus (cf. Ach. Tat. 3.8), to teach (Jub. 4:15). Jewish magical texts (or syncretistic texts employing Jewish motifs?) appealed to angels and deities (Goodenough, Symbols, 2:153–295).

[1345]. E.g., Hom. Il. 1.561 (Hera); Orph. H. 17.8 (Poseidon); 50.2 (Dionysus); 73.1–2 (Zeus). Nilsson, Piety, 172, notes that the definition shifted between Homer and Plato.

[1346]. E.g., Plato Epin. 984DE; Isaeus Menec. 47; Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.31.1; Plut. Isis 26, Mor. 361A; Obsol. 10–22, Mor. 415B–422C (e.g., 13, Mor. 416E); Sign Soc. 24, Mor. 593D; Arius Did. Epit. 2.7.11s, p. 98.18–19; Artem. Oneir. 2.40; Paus. 9.22.7; Max. Tyre 8.6; 9.2; Men. Rhet. 1.1, 333.21–24; 341.1–4; Ach. Tat. 3.10.1; Diog. Laert. 8.1.32; Philost. Hrk. 48.15; Iambl. Myst. 1.5, 20. Sometimes one could translate the term in more than one manner, e.g., in Char. Chaer. 3.1.4; 6.2.9; cf. Circe in Philost. Hrk. 25.13; a sea daimon who loved a mortal in Hrk. 45.2 (on uses in Philostratus, see Puiggali, “Démonologie”).

[1347]. Epict. Diatr. 1.14.12, 14; Plut Mor. 564F (in Betz, Dirkse, and Smith, “Numinis,” 225); Apul. De deo Socr. 151; the LCL translation of Diog. Laert. 8.1.32; cf. the popular view that everyone had either a good or a bad daimon (Dio Chrys. Or. 23.6; he notes [23.9] that this is not his own view; cf. again 4.79–80, 83). A daimon could be a beneficial guardian spirit (as in Iambl. V.P. 2.10). On the genius (often as an individual’s tutelary deity), see Maharam, “Genius”; Belayche, “Actors,” 279; the view was widespread (as noted in Sen. Y. Ep. Lucil. 110.1).

[1348].  E.g., Apul. De deo Socr. 145–46.

[1349]. Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.77.3. Such intermediate powers contributed to the “demonizing of religion” (Ferguson, Backgrounds, 134).

[1350]. Isaacs, Spirit, 33–34 (though noting that Josephus also applies it to demons more strictly in War 7.185).

[1351]. Klauck, Context, 424; see categories of daimones in Dillon, Middle Platonists, 317–19; daimones as among “superior classes” of souls (with heroes) in Iamblichus (Finamore and Dillon, “Introduction,” 15). Some Stoics also allowed that the soul rose to the heavens (Sen. Y. Dial. 11.9.3) before its ultimate resolution back into the primeval fire (Marc. Aur. 4.21).

[1352]. Max. Tyre 8.8; 9.2 (see further Trapp, Maximus, 67, on 9.1–7); Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 424, §144D (citing Plato); Apul. De deo Socr. 133. Maximus believed that there were many of them (Max. Tyre 8.8, citing Hesiod W.D. 252–53 for thirty thousand). Iamblichus believed that all apparitions were daimones (Myst. 2.10).

[1353]. Max. Tyre 8.1 (Trapp, Maximus, 69n1, cites also Plato Symp. 202E; Apul. De deo Socr. 6.133; Plut. Face M. 944cd and esp. Obsol. 415a ff.); Apul. De deo Socr. 134–37.

[1354]. E.g., Val. Max. 1.7.7 (switching here from Latin to the Greek κακὸν δαίμονα; it tormented one at night as a portent of impending death).

[1355]. E.g., P.Grenf. 2.76.3–4 (from 305 to 306 C.E.); Philost. Vit. Apoll. 3.38; 4.20; Porph. Marc. 11.201–2; 19.322; 21.331–33, 336–39; Xen. Eph. Anthia 1.5.

[1356]. Much later, Iambl. Myst. 2.3 classifies angels as benevolent, demons as unpleasant, and heroes as kinder than demons.

[1357]. Lucian Lover of Lies 16–17 (not using the term but depicting possession and exorcism); for Egypt and exorcism, 31 (cf. 33).

[1358]. Olmstead, Persian Empire, 18, 96, 195, 232. Many have assumed that Judaism simply adopted the Persian perspective (e.g., Foakes-Jackson and Lake, “Teaching,” 287); as we note, however, the phenomena are fairly transcultural.

[1359]. Yamauchi, “Magic?,” 118. Among the Persians, “demon” could involve one touched by madness (cf. Olmstead, Persian Empire, 53).

[1360]. Ps 106:37 (esp. LXX); Bar 4:7; 1 En. 19:1; Jub. 1:11; 22:17; 4Q243–245 line 18; Sib. Or. 8.43–47; Test. Job 3:3; Test. Sol. 5:5; 6:4; Sipre Deut. 318.2.1–2; cf. perhaps 4Q560 I, 5; 4Q491 A 15 8–10; 2 Bar. 10:8. In the early Christian movement, e.g., 1 Cor 10:20 (cf. Deut 32:17); 2 Pet 2:4 (if it associates fallen angels with Titans); Rev 9:20; Justin 1 Apol. 5; Athenag. Plea 26; Tert. Apol. 23.5–6.

[1361]. Gordon, Civilizations, 246–47; Alexander, Possession, 19; for fallen angels, cf. the fallen gods of Enuma Elish, the Greek Titanomachy (see, e.g., West, “Introduction,” 27), and the Hittite account in Gurney, Aspects, 15.

[1362]. Cf. Char. Chaer. 3.1.4; 6.2.9, though these may be divine.

[1363]. For a fuller survey of early Jewish demonology, see Ferguson, Demonology, 69–104, who treats especially “intertestamental” texts (74–81), Philo and Josephus (who employ the full range of the Greek δαίμων) (81–86), and rabbinic sources (86–93). Briefly, e.g., Kotansky, “Demonology,” 270–71. Naturally, the conceptions are more diverse than the summary here allows me to detail; even the Qumran scrolls and Jubilees, which reflects a similar worldview, may have some differences (Noack, “Qumran and Jubilees,” 200; Ibba, “Spirits”), though Jubilees was probably authoritative at Qumran (see Hopkins, “Status”).

[1364]. Akkadian and Arabic cognates do confirm the LXX interpretation of Lev 17:7 (cf. Deut 32:17; Ps 106:37) as referring to demons (as my colleague Emmanuel Itapson persuaded me). An experience resembling other accounts of possession by a hostile spirit appears in 1 Sam 16:14. But such references are rare.

[1365]. Cf. Propp, “Demons” (attributing it to disillusionment with the covenant’s control over ill fortune; it could also be attributed, however, to a wider acquaintance with alternative paradigms).

[1366]. Jos. War 7.185. In Josephus, they are usually souls of the dead (Ferguson, Demonology, 85).

[1367]. 1 En. 15:9; 16:1; cf. the spirits that impregnated their mothers in Philo Giants 6, 16; the Greek Titanomachy (e.g., Hesiod Theog. 717–19; Men. Rhet. 2.17, 438.31–32), of which various Jewish sources show awareness (e.g., Sib. Or. 3.121, 155; cf. Jdt 16:7). For demons in Jewish apocalyptic sources, see the collection of material in Cotter, Miracles, 106–19 (also noting the absence of exorcisms in these texts, probably due to their genre, 119).

[1368]. Lev. Rab. 5:1; their idolatry rendered them susceptible to demons (Gen. Rab. 23:6).

[1369]. So Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:3; b. ʿErub. 18b; Gen. Rab. 24:6.

[1370]. God also sends demons as agents of destruction in later texts, e.g., Tg. Onq. on Deut 32:24; Tg. Ps.-J. on Deut 28:24.

[1371]. 1QM XIII, 11–12; perhaps y. Šebu. 6:6, §3. (On the angelology of the War Scroll [1QM], see Yadin, Scroll of War, 229–42.)

[1372]. Cf. Dillon, Middle Platonists, 317–19.

[1373]. Philo Giants 6, 16; Gen. Rab. 7:5 (in this case, simply nonembodied because the Sabbath prevented God from completing creation). But angels, too, could be viewed as bodiless (Test. Ab. 3:6; 4:9; 9:2; 15:4, 6; 16:2 A).

[1374]. E.g., 4Q510 1 5 (singular, but listing various kinds of demons); Incant. Text 1.6, 8; 3.14; 6.11; 10.2; 11.1–3, 9; 12.2, 8; cf. Isa 34:14; 2 Bar. 10:8 (among the desert spirits); a modern Yemenite amulet in Hes, “Role,” 376; in older Canaanite religion, see Kaiser, “Pantheon,” 131. For headless demons, cf., e.g., PGM 2.11; 5.98, 125, 145–46; 7.233, 243, 442; 8.91; 102.5; Test. Sol. 9:1; Dickie, “Headless Demons.” For satyrs (cf. Lev 17:7; 2 Chr 11:15), see Sipra A.M. pq. 9.188.3.6 (demythologized). Modern cults also sometimes delineate types of spirits—e.g., in Umbanda (Pressel, “Possession,” 335) and others (Colson, “Possession,” 70–72).

[1375]. Test. Sol. 3:7; cf. Jub. 10:1; Mark 1:23; Luke 8:29; see comment on Acts 5:16; cf. Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 134–38. “Unclean” might signify “evil,” as perhaps in 1QpHab VIII, 13.

[1376]. See Eve, Miracles, 174–216. In other cultures, see discussion below.

[1377]. E.g., Test. Reub. 2:1–2; 3:3ff.; Test. Jud. 16:1–4; earlier, in the Qumran scrolls, see Tigchelaar, “Names of Spirits.” Cf. specializing spirits in the Middle Platonic tradition in Max. Tyre 8.8; 9.7; Apul. De deo Socr. 133–34; πνεῦμα can, however, include psychological dispositions (Chevallier, Ancien Testament, 39). Angels, too, could specialize (e.g., the angel over repentance in 1 En. 40:9). In one modern discussion, see Instone-Brewer, “Psychiatrists,” 142. They appear in the Zoroastrian Dēnkard (Yamauchi, Persia, 439–40), but this was probably not compiled before the ninth century C.E. (410). The association appears in both Hinduism and contemporary Indian charismatic Christianity (Bergunder, “Miracle Healing,” 290). This is probably not the point of 1 Cor 2:12; 2 Tim 1:7.

[1378]. Test. Jud. 23:1.

[1379]. Test. Sim. 2:7; Test. Dan 1:6.

[1380]. Test. Dan 5:6.

[1381]. Test. Dan 5:6.

[1382]. Test. Dan. 2:1; 5:5.

[1383]. Test. Dan 2:1; cf. Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:3. Cf. also destroying demons against Israel, “Wrath,” “Anger,” etc. (Tg. Ps.-J. on Deut 9:19).

[1384]. 4Q560 1 I, 4; Penney and Wise, “Beelzebub”; Penney, “Devil,” 41–51; cf. Mark 5:9. See the possible incantation against Resheph (pestilence?) in 11Q11 V, 5, on some readings, but the Hebrew may read “heavens.” On the origin of many demon names, see, e.g., Barton, “Origin” (though he omits Mastema). Other traditional religions also may have named demons, spirits, or malevolent forces (e.g., Umeh, Dibia, 197–200; in bori cults, see Echard, “Possession Cult,” 71–80), although most are not known by name in some cultures (Shorter, “Spirit Possession,” 117).

[1385]. See 4Q510 1 5; some identify with her the evil figure in 4Q184 (Baumgarten, “Seductress”; White Crawford, “Folly”). In late talmudic and especially medieval texts, “Lilith” becomes a frequently mentioned demon, eventually queen of the female demons (see Morel-Vergniol, “Ève . . . et Lilith?”; Gaines, “Lilith”; lilin were night spirits). Cf. the demoness Agrath in b. Pesaḥ. 112b (Eve, Miracles, 290–91).

[1386]. Test. Sol. 1:1–4; 18; Midr. Pss. 17:8; Luke 13:11; Kotansky, “Demonology,” 271–72. Schwab, “Psychosomatic Medicine,” suggests that the demonological explanation for sickness in medieval times reduced psychosomatic treatments; still, one would expect exorcism, at least, to have worked in many of these cases. Curses invite sicknesses in various societies, later cured by exorcism (see MacNutt, Power, 74–75, in this case a Christian exorcism in Colombia). Many traditional South American societies affirm possession illness (without possession trance), which is thought to be cured only by exorcism (Bourguignon, “Spirit Possession Belief,” 20–21); see fuller comment at Acts 10:38.

[1387]. Tob 3:8 (Sarah’s first seven husbands); Jos. War 7.185; Num. Rab. 12:3; for regular demonic attacks against humans, not necessarily lethal, see 1 En. 69:12; cf. Tr. Shem 2:9. Satan is an “angel of destruction” in y. Šebu. 6:6, §3.

[1388]. Alexander, Possession, 32.

[1389]. 2 Bar. 27:9; perhaps relevant to their prevalence in the Gospels as the kingdom is at hand (cf. Alexander, Possession, 249; Hultgren, “Stories,” 133). For the possible linking of exorcism with eschatology, cf. perhaps Test. Sim. 6:6; with the kingdom, 4Q510 1 4 (Vermes, Religion, 130).

[1390]. Gen. Rab. 56:6.

[1391]. B. Pesaḥ. 111a, bar.; 111ab.

[1392]. B. Pesaḥ. 111b.

[1393]. B. Sanh. 101a, bar.

[1394]. B. Ber. 3ab. For spirits haunting abandoned places, cf. also Lewis, “Possession,” 191.

[1395]. T. Ber. 6:25 (by implication); b. Ber. 62a; Qidd. 39b–40a; Šabb. 67a; Eccl. Rab. 2:8, §1 (Solomon heating his baths with demons); Song Rab. 3:7, §5.

[1396]. See, e.g., sources in Alexander, Possession, 29; cf. Mark 5:2–3; the association may refer simply to madness or lack of sense in t. Ter. 1:3; b. Ḥag. 3b. One could hear spirits of the dead talking in graveyards at night (b. Ber. 18b). Because of their association with the dead, spirits remain associated with burial grounds even in some cultures today (Schmidt, “Psychiatry,” 147). Antisocial behavior, such as running through the forest, appears in other cases of possession behavior (e.g., Kaplan and Johnson, “Navajo Psychopathology,” 227).

[1397]. ʾAbot R. Nat. 35 A if the translator has correctly construed the original.

[1398]. B. Pesaḥ. 110ab.

[1399]. Perhaps obtained by interrogation; cf. Fuchs, “Techniques,” 135–36.

[1400]. B. Giṭ. 66a; Satan in Test. Job 23:2. Others resembled Greeks’ monsters (e.g., the late Apoc. Zeph. 4:2–4; for pagan monsters, see, e.g., one of the Furies in Statius Theb. 1.103–9).

[1401]. Pesiq. Rab. 6:5; cf. ʾAbot R. Nat. 40 A.

[1402]. B. Meʿil. 17b; Gen. Rab. 24:6; 63:8.

[1403]. Jub. 49:2; CD VIII, 2–3; 1Qap Gen^ar XX, 16–17; 1QM XIV, 9–10; Test. Adam 1:1; Num. Rab. 14:3; cf. VanderKam, “Traditions,” 245; Pr. Jos. 7. Cf. Islamic Somali tradition in Lewis, “Possession,” 192.

[1404]. Test. Sol. 11:3 (if not modeled after Mark 5:9 or Eph 6:12, this may be modeled after angelic ranks; 1 En. 69:3; 75:1; 2 En. 21:1; 22:2, 6 J; 33:10; 3 En. 5:2; 3 Bar. 11:4, 6, 8; Gr. Ezra 1:4, 7; perhaps 2 Kgs 6:15; 4Q529 lines 2–3). One could host multiple spirits (Mark 5:9; Luke 8:2; four in Lewis, “Possession,” 212; seventeen in Abdalla, “Friend,” 38; multiple spirits in Rahim, “Zar,” 144; Last, “Bori,” 51; a medium could host multiple spirits in succession in Firth, Ritual, 306). For hierarchies of spirits in some Islamic cults, see Abdalla, “Friend,” 41–42.

[1405]. Graf, “Ecstasy,” 800 (citing, e.g., Virg. Aen. 6.77–80); Dion. Hal. Ant. rom. 1.31.1. Thus one might think Dio mad, but he warns that the alleged madness may be (prophetically) inspired by a daimon (Dio Chrys. Or. 34.4).

[1406]. Suet. Aug. 6.

[1407]. Strelan, Strange Acts, 103, citing Diod. Sic. 4.11.1; see Eurip. Herc. fur. passim.

[1408]. Ach. Tat. 4.17.4; but contrast Dan 4:36. Lack of recollection also characterizes many of those described as “possessed” today (e.g., Gelfand, Religion, 166, 169; Field, “Possession,” 3, 6).

[1409]. Nilsson, Piety, 172. Chrys. Hom. Acts 17 also cites similarities between the possessed and the intoxicated (referring to their eyes but perhaps also alluding to a lack of personal motor control).

[1410]. Xen. Eph. Anthia 5.7. Many ancients believed that epilepsy involved (divine) possession (though Hippocratics ascribed it to physical causes; see Capps, Village Psychiatrist, 92). Epilepsy is now understood to be neurologically based. It is distinguished from demonization in Matt 4:24 (though if Matt 17:15 presupposes Mark 9:17–18, Matthew might allow the view that spirits could sometimes cause symptoms that appeared similar; he has redacted the spirit out even there but mentions a “demon” in Matt 17:18). For one African query about the relation between the two, cf. Ikeobi, “Healing,” 67–70.

[1411]. Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 317; Klauck, Context, 187; now esp. Lehoux, “Drugs”; contrast McGinnis, “Faults” (citing ethylene); on the ancient view, Green, “Possession and Pneuma.”

[1412]. As some appear to do: Klauck, Context, 187–88, noting that it depends solely on Lucan C.W. 5.116–20, 161–74, 190–97 and that Lucan himself claims that this possession was more powerful than ever before (C.W. 166–67). Also others (e.g., Witherington, Corinthians, 278–79).

[1413]. Val. Max. 1.8.10; Max. Tyre 8.1; see further comment on Acts 16:16.

[1414]. Plut. Dial. L. 16, Mor. 759B (regaining tranquility afterward); Ael. Arist. Def. Or. 34–35, §11D.

[1415]. Sipre Deut. 318.2.1–2.

[1416]. Keener, Acts, 1:886–89, and esp. 897–902.

[1417]. For Tobit, see the discussion in Eve, Miracles, 218–32. Foul odors against demons (Tob 6:17; 8:3) also appear in some traditional cures of more recent times (e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 196, though this is not exorcism). Cf. also fumigation in Ferdinando, “Demonology,” 118; Colson, “Possession,” 71; Lewis, “Possession,” 199.

[1418]. For medicines to protect against demons, see also Jub. 10:1–14.

[1419]. MacMullen, Enemies, 103–4; in pre-Hellenistic Egypt, Frankfurter, Religion in Egypt, 275; for numerous examples of Jewish prophylaxis against spirits, see, e.g., Alexander, Possession, 34.

[1420]. Varro L.L. 7.6.107.

[1421]. Nilsson, Piety, 167; cf. Greek magic against demons in Betz, “Fragments.”

[1422]. Gordon, “Incantations,” 231.

[1423]. B. B. Meṣiʿa 86a; Qidd. 29b; Pesaḥ. 110a, bar.

[1424]. Virg. Ecl. 8.75; Plut. Rom. Q. 102, Mor. 288D.

[1425]. PGM 4.3007–86 (e.g., 3039–40).

[1426]. E.g., Rahmani, “Amulet.”

[1427]. Incant. Text 17.1–2; 19.2; 34.1, 6; 47.1; earlier, see 4Q510 1 4–7; 11Q11.

[1428]. B. Ber. 6a; Num. Rab. 11:5; 12:3; Deut. Rab. 4:4; Pesiq. Rab. 5:10; Midr. Pss. 17:8. Demons often could fly (b. Giṭ. 68b; Num. Rab. 12:3; Deut. Rab. 6:6).

[1429]. Pythagoras (Diog. Laert. 8.1.32) and Heraclitus (9.1.7) both reportedly believed that the air was filled with daimones and souls of the deceased; so also Philo Giants 9; the powers in Conf. 174; angels in Wolfson, Philo, 1:366–85. In Middle Platonism generally, see Dillon, Middle Platonists, 288. Cf. spirits in the air in PGM 1.179–81; 4.3043–44; 12.67.

[1430]. 1 En. 69:12; Tr. Shem 2:9.

[1431]. ʾAbot R. Nat. 37 A; b. Pesaḥ. 110a; 111b; Lev. Rab. 24:3; perhaps Jub. 10:5; cf. Alexander, Possession, 33. Cf. the Titans in Sib. Or. 3.156–58, but here they were just humans anyway.

[1432]. Jub. 10:10–13.

[1433]. B. Ber. 6a.

[1434]. Song Rab. 3:7, §5; Pesiq. Rab. 15:3.

[1435]. B. ʿAbod. Zar. 12b, bar. For special dangers at night, see, e.g., Lewis, “Possession,” 191.

[1436]. B. Pesaḥ. 112b, bar.; cf. unlucky days in, e.g., Aul. Gel. 5.17; Ovid Fasti 1.8, 45–48; Plut. Alc. 34.1; Cam. 19.1; Dion. Hal. Epid. 3.266–67; Iambl. V.P. 28.152 (see Keener, John, 496; Rüpke, Religion, 108–12).

[1437]. Num. Rab. 12:3.

[1438]. B. Qidd. 29b.

[1439]. Num. Rab. 12:3; Pesiq. Rab. 5:10.

[1440]. Gen. Rab. 36:1.

[1441]. 11Q5 XIX, 13–16; cf. songs for warding off demons in 11Q11 II–V; cf. Jub. 19:28. God was protecting his people, who kept his covenant, against such demons (1QM XIV, 9–10).

[1442]. E.g., Sipre Num. 40.1.5; Num. Rab. 11:5; Tg. Ps.-J. on Num 6:24. This is an intertextual reading employing Ps 91:11.

[1443]. Cf. Eph 1:20–2:3; 6:12; Col 2:15; discussion in, e.g., Adeyemi, “Θέσεις”; Paige, “Demons,” esp. 211; see also Adewuya, “Reading”; Darko, “Response.”

[1444]. The majority of magical papyri do stem from the later period.

[1445]. Cf., e.g., Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 6. Thus Abrahams, Studies (1), 110, doubts, on the basis of Tannaitic literature, that possession and exorcism were common in first-century Palestine, despite acknowledging the demonology of 1 Enoch (which is, in fact, much earlier).

[1446]. E.g., Pliny E. N.H. 7.27.7–11; Lucian Lover of Lies 31; cf. a haunted schoolhouse in b. Qidd. 29b. One African scholar reports a (disembodied) spirit that attacked anyone who tried to live on the property that a deceased man had left to his widow (Mbiti, Religions, 113). Cf. also the Chinese exorcism from a haunted house in Währisch-Oblau, “Healthy,” 89–90; another Asian account in Yung, “Case Studies,” 142; exorcising a curse from a house in India in Bergunder, “Miracle Healing,” 293.

[1447]. Lucian Lover of Lies 16 (LCL, 3:345); cf. Mark 9:20 for foam.

[1448]. Lucian Lover of Lies 16. Someone claims to see hundreds of spirits, and to see them all the time, by means of a ring secured from an Arab (Lover of Lies 17).

[1449]. Origen Cels. 1.68 (noted in Eve, Miracles, 347).

[1450]. Blackburn, “ΑΝΔΡΕΣ,” 192. The commonalities are often observed (e.g., Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 121–25; Strelan, Strange Acts, 103, citing Philost. Vit. Apoll. 2.14; 3.38; 4.10, 25, 40).

[1451]. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.20 (probably dependent on earlier models from the Gospels despite differences).

[1452]. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.10.

[1453]. Philost. Vit. Apoll. 3.38. Cf. Asmodaeus, who killed Sarah’s first seven husbands, in Tob 3:8; 6:14; homosexually inclined spirits in PGM 2.55–56; PDM 14.68, 287 (cf. also PGM 1.86; 5.376–7.544). In traditional religions, the supposed correlation between possession and male homosexual behavior may appear but is not common (see Beattie and Middleton, “Introduction,” xxv), sometimes appearing in societies that associate possession with women (e.g., Lee, “Possession,” 143–44).

[1454]. Elsewhere Apollonius combats a phantom vampire who had seduced a young philosopher so that she could kill him (Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.25). On the sexual interests of spirits in early Judaism, cf., e.g., 1 En. 6:2; 16:2; 69:5; 106:5–6, 13–14; Jub. 4:22; 5:1; 7:21; CD II, 16–18; 4Q180 1 7–9; 1Qap Gen^ar II, 15–16; Test. Reub. 5:6; 2 Bar. 56:12; Test. Sol. 4; 5:3; 6:3; Apoc. Ab. 14:6; 2 En. 18:5; Gen. Rab. 24:6; Incant. Text 1.12–13; Wolfson, Philo, 1:384–85; Alexander, “Sons of God”; Delcor, “Mythe.” Cf. also Greek deities raping or seducing mortals, e.g., in Soph. Searchers 212–15; Eurip. Antiope 69–71; Pirithous 22–24; Alope frg. 107; Antiope frg. 223.72–77; Archelaus frg. 228a.15–16; Danae frg. 1132.26–34; Andromeda frg. 136 (Stob. Ecl. 4.20.42); Menander Heros frg. 2 (Stob. Ecl. 5.20a.21); Apollod. Bib. 1.5.1; 1.7.8–9; 1.9.3; 3.1.1; 3.2.1; 3.4.3; 3.5.5; 3.7.6; 3.8.2; 3.10.1, 3; 3.12.2, 5–6; 3.15.2, 4; Epit. 1.9, 22; Thebaid frg. 11 (from scholiast D on Iliad, 23.346); Cypria frg. 10 (from Athen. Deipn. 8.334b); frg. 11 (from Philod. Piety B 7369); Varro Lat. Lang. 5.5.31; Ovid Metam. 2.714–47; 3.1–2, 260–61; 4.234–44; 5.391–408; 14.765–71; Sil. It. 13.615; Lucian Dial. G. 250 (23/19, Aphrodite and Eros 1); Paus. 8.25.7–8; Parth. L.R. 15.3; Ach. Tat. 1.5.5–7; Apul. Metam. 6.22; Libanius Speech in Character 27.3; Narration 1; 4.1–2; 17; 31; 32; 39; 41. Cf. one type of medieval incubus, in Lugt, “Incubus,” 177. For spirit spouses and intercourse today, cf. Mbiti, Religions, 111; Firth, Ritual, 319–21; Horton, “Possession,” 35, 38–40; Crapanzaro, “Mohammed,” 162–64; Rosny, Healers, 185; spirits “riding” their “horses,” their “spouses,” in Montilus, “Vodun,” 3 (cf. spirits mounting persons as “horses” also in Michel, Bellegarde-Smith, and Racine-Toussaint, “Mouths,” 82); spirits that entice shamans sexually (Sandner, “Psychology,” 281); sexually excessive spirits in Stoller, “Change,” 277–80.

[1455]. Eunapius Lives 457; the event probably occurs in Syria. Like Philostratus, Eunapius (late fourth century) and Porphyry (234–ca. 305 C.E.) are both much later than the first century.

[1456]. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 185, cites, e.g., Plut. Table 5, Mor. 706E; Lucian Lover of Lies 16.

[1457]. E.g., Jos. Ant. 8.46–48 (on Josephus, see further Eve, Miracles, 339–43); in Qumran sources, see, e.g., 4QPrNab (4Q242) 1–3 4; perhaps 4Q243–245; 4Q552–553; 4Q560 (see Wise, “Introduction to 4Q242,” 266); cf. Leicht, “Mashbia‘”; on the limited Qumran evidence, cf. Kirchschläger, “Exorzismus”; Eve, Miracles, 343–45; Lichtenberger, “Spirits,” 19–21. Some apparently used “healing” as appropriate language for exorcism (11Q11 II, 7; 1Qap Gen^ar XX, 21–29; cf. Tob 12:3, 14; 4Q242 4 1; Jos. Ant. 8.45). See further sources and discussion in Koskenniemi, Miracle-Workers, 290 (who includes also 11Q11; L.A.B. 60:1–3; and what he views as related ideas in Jub. 11:15–22; Apoc. Ab. 13:4–14; Liv. Pr. 4:10).

[1458]. On the Middle Eastern origin of exorcism stories, see further Williams, Miracle Stories, 23–25 (noting [24] that exorcism stories appear in Greco-Roman setting only later, for which he cites Plut. Table 7.5.4; Lucian Lover of Lies 16; Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.20); McCasland, Finger, 65–82 (on the rareness of Greco-Roman accounts, 65–70).

[1459]. Eve, Miracles, 244. Eve argues (255–59) that early Judaism exhibited little interest in forming narratives about exorcists, but this verdict could also reflect the limitations of our evidence. See the broader early Jewish context of Gospel exorcisms in Eshel, “Exorcist.”

[1460]. On early Christian attestation of other exorcists, cf. also Grelot, “Démonologie,” 63 (citing also Acts 19:13–16); Dakin, “Belief,” 38; Best, “Exorcism,” 1; Rollins, “Miracles,” 45 (adding Matt 7:22).

[1461]. Tob 6:7–8, 16–17; 8:2–3; cf. Test. Sol. 5:13; Parshall, Bridges, 85.

[1462]. Incant. Text 3.8–9; 50.7–8; Test. Sol. 2:4; 5:5; 8:5–11; 18. Eve, Miracles, 347, notes that the names used for invocation in Orig. Cels. 1.24 are Persian or Egyptian (suggesting Gentile usage); but in 5.45, they submit to the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (presumably a Jewish formula).

[1463]. 1Qap Gen^ar XX.

[1464]. Later, Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.20. See more fully Theissen, Miracle Stories, 66–67 (who also cites Lucian Lover of Lies 16; still relevant but less so, Philost. Vit. Apoll. 4.10). In traditional Navajo exorcism, the moth flying inside the mentally ill person may be expelled, in part, by vomiting (Kaplan and Johnson, “Navajo Psychopathology,” 211).

[1465]. Jos. Ant. 8.48; in modern times, Hes, “Role,” 376; Bergunder, “Miracle Healing,” 293 (Hindu and Christian exorcism in India); an old Russian Jewish account in Oesterreich, Possession, 209–10.

[1466]. 11Q11 II, 2–12; Jos. Ant. 8.45–49; CIJ 1:394, §534; 2:374, §1448; PGM 4.850–929, 3039–41; Test. Sol. Greek title; 2:1–7; 5:10; 6:11; Incant. Text 47.1–3; 48.4–5; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:3 (before he sinned); b. Giṭ. 68ab; Eccl. Rab. 2:8, §1; Song Rab. 3:7, §5 (before his sin); Pesiq. Rab. 15:3 (before his sin); cf. y. Ketub. 12:3, §11; Betz, “Miracles in Josephus,” 220–21; Duling, “Introduction,” 948. That 2 Bar. 77:25 relates to this tradition is not impossible.

[1467]. L.A.B. 60; cf. 1 Sam 16:23, the closest precedent for exorcism in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Kotansky, “Demonology,” 269–70, comparing a Greek conception).

[1468]. 1Qap Gen^ar XX, 19–29. As in analogous examples in ancient literature, the physicians’ and magicians’ failure highlights Abraham’s superiority all the more (XX, 19–20).

[1469]. Sanders, Figure, 149, 154; Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:646–77; Dunn, Jesus and Spirit, 44; Michaels, Servant, 174; Twelftree, “ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ”; idem, Miracle Worker, 281–92, esp. 282–83; idem, Exorcist; Achtemeier, Miracle Tradition, 140; Miller, Seminar, 56–57 (though doubting individual accounts); Costa, “Exorcisms”; on the lack of departure from sources in exorcism accounts in the Gospels and Acts, see also McCasland, Finger, 51–53. One Christian writer suggests that possession phenomena peaked in Jesus’s day as part of a demonic counterattack (Alexander, Possession, 249). They are infrequent in the OT; we may note, however, that claims of spirit possession are widespread in numerous cultures (see discussion below).

[1470]. Kee, “Terminology,” 239; Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 23, 65; Twelftree, “ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ,” 383–84; Witherington, Christology of Jesus, 159; Eve, Miracles, 349. A few later rabbis were also said to have exercised authority over demons with commands (b. Pesaḥ. 112b; Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 66; cf. Kee, “Terminology,” 246; but Eve, Miracles, 290–91, notes that Hanina ben Dosa confronts but does not exorcise a demon in b. Pesaḥ. 112b). The form of many exorcism accounts in the Synoptics resembles many miracle stories (cf. Guillemette, “Forme”).

[1471]. Ladd, Kingdom, 47; see further Kallas, View; Evans, “Kingdom”; idem, Fabricating Jesus, 141.

[1472]. More reasonable, in view of relative dates, than the reverse hypothesis; see, e.g., Costa, “Exorcisms,” 138–44.

[1473]. E.g., Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 66; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 135; cf. perhaps Kee, “Terminology,” 246.

[1474]. Edwards, “Exorcisms” (noting also that pagans usually viewed Christian exorcism as trickery).

[1475]. Justin Dial. 85 (ANF 1:241); cf. Dial. 76. Eve, Miracles, 347, notes Justin’s complaint but also presents Iren. Her. 2.6.2 (who mentions Jewish prayers before Christ’s coming).

[1476]. MacMullen, Christianizing, 27–28, 40–41, 60–61; Lampe, “Miracles,” 215–17; Young, “Miracles in History,” 107–8; cf. McCasland, Finger, 55; patristic sources in Martin, “Resisting,” 49–50, 58–59; Sears, “View,” 103–4. Various sources (Ferguson, Backgrounds, 185; Talbert, Acts, 143; Haines in Marcus Aurelius, LCL, 5–6n6) cite, e.g., Just. Dial. 30, 85; 2 Apol. 5–6; Acts Pet. 2; Tert. Test. an. 3; Origen Cels. 1.46. Ferguson, Backgrounds, 185, also thinks that the condemnation of superstitious exorcists in Marc. Aur. 1.5 refers to Christians.

[1477]. Tert. Apol. 23.4–5; MacMullen, Christianizing, 27. Cf. similarly the power encounter in the 350s that is reported in Athanas. Vit. Ant. 80 (MacMullen, Christianizing, 112); reported power encounters of early monks in Eshete, Movement, 23.

[1478]. Tert. Apol. 23.6.

[1479]. Tert. Spect. 26 (LCL, 291).

[1480]. See “Ceremony.” This may reflect the rise in perceived demons in the wider culture.

[1481]. See, e.g., Hillgarth, Paganism, 11–12, 183; Daniélou and Marrou, Six Hundred Years, 313; Casiday, “Sin,” 503, 514; Frank, “Devotion,” 539; Frankforter, History, 60; Spinks, “Growth,” 603, 610; Brenk, “Art,” 706; MacMullen, Second Church, 4–5. Scholars (esp. here Talbert, Acts, 143) provide an extensive list of examples (including Lact. Div. Inst. 2.16; 5.2; Apost. Const. 8.1; Euseb. H.E. 5.7.4; 6.43.11; 8.6.9; Cyril Jer. Catechesis 16.15–16; Athanas. Inc. 48; Vit. Ant. 63; Greg. Nyssa Greg. Thaum. [PG 46:916A]; Jerome Vit. Hil. 22). Talbert, Acts, 143, also cites early Christian novels (Acts Pet. 11; Acts John 56; Acts Thom. 5; 7; 8; Acts Andrew [beginning of martyrdom]; Ps.-Clem. Rec. 4.7; 9.38).

[1482]. E.g., PGM 4.3043–44. Acquiring accurate knowledge was necessary for usefully manipulating spirits (Arnold, Power, 18).

[1483]. E.g., in the haunted house in Lucian Lover of Lies 30–31 (claiming satirically that Egyptian curses are the best, 31).

[1484]. E.g., 4Q560; cf. 4Q510 1 4–7.

[1485]. E.g., PGM 101.38–39. The higher ones are angels in Test. Sol. 2:4; 5:5, 9; 8:5–11; 11:5; Incant. Text 3.8–9; 50.7–8.

[1486]. Theissen, Miracle Stories, 57; cf. the slaughter of a sheep in modern Yemenite exorcism in Israel (Hes, “Role,” 376); the account I received in an interview with a Chinese informant reported in Keener, Miracles, 815 (and comparisons with other sources noted there, esp. Turner, Healer, 115).

[1487]. Jos. Ant. 8.47; the exorcist also bound the demon by oath (ὥρκου); cf. Mark 5:7. Smoking the demon out also appears in Tob 6:17–18; 8:3; also an account attributed, probably fictitiously, to Johanan ben Zakkai and noting the use of the roots, as in paganism and Josephus (Num. Rab. 19:8; Pesiq. Rab. 14:14) and apparently later in some Islamic folk practice (Parshall, Bridges, 85, following Jones and Jones, Women, 349–50, for a case of smoking the jinn out, then beating the boy unconscious, in this case with tragic consequences). Perhaps the roots idea was originally related to the prophylactic herbs of Jub. 10:12–13. Fumigation for exorcism appears in some traditional African societies (Ferdinando, “Demonology,” 118; Colson, “Possession,” 71; Lewis, “Possession,” 199); in Somali tradition, fragrant incense can protect from or exorcise malevolent sprites (Lewis, “Possession,” 192–93, 199).

[1488]. E.g., Lucian Lover of Lies 17 (the source being an Arab); Jos. Ant. 8.47; b. Giṭ. 68a.

[1489]. 1Qap Gen^ar XX, 21–29. Theissen, Miracle Stories, 62n18, thinks that this laying on of hands works for an illness caused by a demon, but notes that it is not attested for possession, perhaps because the possessed would not allow it.

[1490]. Test. Sol. 3; 6:11. Some early Jewish sources also portray Solomon as a prophet (see Embry, “Solomon”).

[1491]. Cf. threats in Theissen, Miracle Stories, 63–64; exorcistic texts commanding “wandering wombs” (Faraone, “New Light”); and behavior resembling that involved in exorcisms in Soranus Gynec. 3.4.29. Barrett, Documents, 34, thinks (from an occurrence in PGM) that “come out” (cf. Luke 4:35) was probably a frequent command of exorcists; yet its occasional occurrence in the vast corpus of PGM (PGM 4.1243, 1245, 3013; 5.158) does not suggest its frequency (cf. Aune, “Magic,” 1531), and its context there differs (with incantations; Yamauchi, “Magic?,” 133).

[1492]. Test. Sol. 2:6. A minority of scholars, however, attribute Testament of Solomon to a Christian author (Albrile, “Sigilla”); at the very least, it contains Christian interpolations.

[1493]. Test. Sol. 2:4; 5:5, 9; 8:5–11; 11:5. Learning demons’ names was also crucial; e.g., Test. Sol. 5:2, 6–7.

[1494]. Test. Sol. 5:13.

[1495]. See Wrede, Secret, 26–27.

[1496]. E.g., Robinson, “Challenge,” 323–25; Yamauchi, “Magic?,” 142–47; Wenham, Bible, 64; cf. Borg, Vision, 62, 72n16. See a much more complete survey of Western theological skepticism and the suggested problems with it in Twelftree, Triumphant, 135–70. While most postmodernists remain inclined toward skepticism, they are more open to spirits being actual than modernists were (Hoffman and Kurzenberger, “Miraculous,” 84).

[1497]. Ladd, Theology, 51. For several different approaches to NT language of spiritual powers, see, e.g., Wink, “Model”; Powlison, “Model”; Boyd, “Model”; and Keener, “Warfare.”

[1498]. E.g., Borg, Vision, 62 (citing Lewis, Ecstatic Religion); Crossan, Jesus, 315–17; idem, Jesus, 149–50; Loubser, “Possession”; more extensively Davies, Healer (introducing spirit possession, 22–42); see further Keener, “Possession.” My doctoral student Joy Ames is also now undertaking work in this area.

[1499]. Prince, “EEG,” 127–29. For example, persons in altered states of consciousness fall in the theta range during an EEG, found in children but not normally in awake adults (Davies, Healer, 141–42, following Goodman, Ecstasy, 39). For various studies on the brain and consciousness relevant to “anomalous experiences” (visions, etc.), see McClenon and Nooney, “Experiences,” 48; Keener, Miracles, 871–72.

[1500]. Goodman, Demons, 126; cf. Ladd, Theology, 51. For comparison with multiple personality disorder, cf., e.g., Firth, “Foreword,” ix–x (also noting [xiii] suggestibility); Bourguignon, “Multiple Personality”; Field, “Possession,” 3. Those who recognize the existence of possession disorder do not always concur on its presence in given cases; contrast, e.g., Goodman, Michel, xvii, with Duffey, Lessons.

[1501]. Goodman, Demons, 1–24, 126.

[1502]. See, e.g., Keller, Hammer, 107, citing Ong, Spirits, 204, 209 (though interpreting the incident differently than does Ong); Edwards, “Possession,” 220; Smith, “Possession,” 442; Sharp, “Power of Possession,” 3; earlier, Rosen, “Psychopathology,” 245.

[1503]. Illnesses are often “oriented to and shaped by” cultural conceptions (Kaplan and Johnson, “Navajo Psychopathology,” 203); cf., e.g., a form of possession associated with initial encounters with overhead airplanes (Colson, “Possession,” 79, 85). Groups can experience revelatory trance states that they distinguish from possession (cf. Surgy, Église, 216–17).

[1504]. Tippett, “Possession,” 143–44; Bourguignon, Possession, 14. Although many anthropologists lack a specific conceptual metanarrative with which to frame them, seeking to deny phenomena such as possession and trances has been regarded as the anthropological equivalent of “being a ‘flat-earther’ ” (Burridge, New Earth, 4n2, as cited in Lewis, Healing, 321–22n15). For a brief historical overview of anthropological approaches to spirit possession, see Prince, “Foreword,” xi; Crapanzaro, “Introduction,” 5–7; more thoroughly for recent studies, Boddy, “Spirit Possession,” 410–14.

[1505]. Crapanzaro, “Introduction,” 7 (emphasis his; cited also by others, e.g., Davies, Healer, 23); cf. Bourguignon, Possession, 7; Lewis, “Spirits and Sex War,” 627.

[1506]. Thus Keller, Hammer, 39–40, notes that earlier anthropologists tended to explain possession in psychosocial terms, not commenting on possessing agents, but more-recent research “does take seriously the agency of possessing ancestors, deities, and spirits.”

[1507]. See Boddy, “Spirit Possession,” 408, 410–14, 427.

[1508]. Bourguignon, “Spirit Possession Belief,” 18; cf. also idem, “Introduction,” 17–19; idem, “Self”; Boddy, “Spirit Possession,” 409; Firth, “Foreword,” ix; Morsy, “Possession,” 189; on belief in spirits being found in most cultures, Turner, “Reality,” 30 (distinguishing this from mere “energy,” ki or chi). For the geographic distribution of cultures practicing trance, possession trance, and spirit possession, with maps, see Bourguignon, “World Distribution,” 18–32; most occur in every geographic region (though some more in some regions than others). Lewis, Ecstatic Religion, 100–126, shows that negatively perceived spirit “possession” occurs in a wide range of societies, as do efforts to contain or exorcise it. In addition to anthropologists, missionaries widely report the phenomena (Mooneyham, “Demonism,” 210–14). I have heard many examples orally from African scholar friends, who sometimes have firsthand or secondhand experiences with these phenomena.

[1509]. Bourguignon, “Spirit Possession Belief,” 19–21; idem, “Appendix”; followed also in Kaplan and Sadock, Psychiatry, 259, 1237. It occurs in the West, though often interpreted less benignly (Macklin, “Yankee,” esp. 42).

[1510]. Bourguignon, “Spirit Possession Belief,” 21, noting that possession trance is rarer in the Americas (5 percent in North America, 12 percent in South America); more have possession without trance (27 percent of North American societies; 34 percent of South American societies). Possession trance is common in African tradition (Ferdinando, “Demonology,” 120; Turner, Experiencing Ritual, 183).

[1511]. For samples of those studied, see, e.g., Crapanzaro and Garrison, Case Studies; Goodman, Demons, 1–24, 126; Lewis, Ecstatic Religion; Alexander, Possession, 105–6. In addition to those that I have surveyed directly, some of the following samples come from the bibliography in Boddy, “Spirit Possession,” 428–34 (with 221 sources, it provides a useful starting point for further research); for zar, tumbura, and bori cults, see Makris and Natvig, “Bibliography”; Lewis, Al-Safi, and Hurreiz, Medicine, 283–91.

[1512]. E.g., Mbiti, Religions, 106, 111 (noting an “epidemic” of possession among the Akamba in the early twentieth century), 113, 249–50; Beattie and Middleton, Mediumship, passim. In Africa’s early western diaspora through slavery, see Raboteau, Slave Religion, 10–11, 17, 19, 27–28, 35–37, 63–73.

[1513]. In Egypt, Saunders, “Zar Experience”; Natvig, “Zar Cult” (including early history, 178–80); in Ethiopia, Somalia, and the Sudan (including the zar cult there), see Leiris, Possession; Lewis, “Possession”; Morton, “Dawit”; Messing, “Zar Cult”; Natvig, “Zar Spirits”; Tubiana, “Zar”; Makris and Al-Safi, “Spirit Possession Cult”; Boddy, “Spirits and Selves”; idem, Wombs; Kahana, “Zar Spirits”; Kennedy, “Zar Ceremonies”; Constantinides, “Zar” (for history); Kenyon, “Zar”; Luling, “Possession Cults.”

[1514]. E.g., Smith, “Possession”; Harris, “Possession ‘Hysteria’ ”; Noble, “Possession”; Giles, “Possession Cults”; idem, “Possession”; Gomm, “Spirit Possession”; Beattie, “Mediumship.”

[1515]. Among Shona peoples, see, e.g., Gelfand, “Disorders”; Fry, Spirits; Garbett, “Mediums”; among the Valley Tonga of Zambia, Colson, “Possession”; Luig, “Worlds”; in Zambia generally, Haar and Ellis, “Possession” (e.g., 204); Binsbergen, Change, 75–99; in Madagascar, Sharp, “Possessed”; idem, Possessed; Mayotte in the Indian Ocean, Lambek, Knowledge; idem, “Disease,” 40–45.

[1516]. E.g., in Morocco, Crapanzaro, “Mohammed”; in Mali, Colleyn, “Horse”; in Tunisia, Ferchiou, “Possession Cults.”

[1517]. E.g., among the Wolof of Senegal, Zempleni, “Symptom”; in Ghana, Field, “Possession”; in Niger, Echard, “Possession Cult”; Stoller, “Change”; Masquelier, “Invention”; in Hausaland, Abdalla, “Friend”; among traditional Yorubas, Prince, “Possession Cults.”

[1518]. E.g., the zar cult in Iran, Modarressi, “Zar Cult”; in Kuwait, Ashkanani, “Zar”; see also northeast Africa.

[1519]. E.g., in Nepal, Gray, “Exorcism”; Peters, Healing in Nepal; Hitchcock and Jones, Spirit Possession; in India, e.g., Chandra shekar, “Possession Syndrome”; Basso, “Music”; Indo-Tibetan Buddhism in Wayman, “Meaning”; in Sri Lanka, Kapferer, Exorcism; Obeyesekere, “Possession”; Yalman, “Healing Rituals,” 128; Halverson, “Dynamics” (esp. 334–42); Oesterreich, Possession, 216–17; Pieris, “Humour”; in Hong Kong, Yap, “Syndrome”; in the Philippines, Guthrie and Szanton, “Diagnosis”; in Malaysia, Kessler, “Conflict”; Ackerman and Lee, “Communication”; Lee, “Self-Presentation” (esp. 253–57); Keller, Hammer, 106–7; in Indonesia, Stange, “Configurations”; in Japan, Lebra, Patterns; McVeigh, “Possession.”

[1520]. E.g., in the pre-Christian Solomon Islands, see Tippett, Solomon Islands Christianity, 14, 250–51; in Fiji, Hoare, “Approach,” 124–26; among traditional aboriginal Australians, see Berndt, “Role,” 269; in New Guinea, Salisbury, “Possession.”

[1521]. In New England, Macklin, “Yankee”; in Puerto Rico, Koss, “Spirits”; Garrison, “Syndrome”; Harwood, Spiritist; in Montserrat, Dobbin, Dance; some groups in St. Vincent, Henney, “Belief”; Raboteau, Slave Religion, 63–64; in a group in Yucatán, Goodman, “Disturbances”; in Haiti, Douyon, “Examen”; Kiev, “Value”; in the Brazilian cult of Umbanda, Pressel, “Umbanda”; idem, “Trance”; idem, “Possession.”

[1522]. Eliade, Shamanism, 6 (cf. possession in 346); Tippett, “Possession,” 165; Peters, Healing in Nepal, 10–11. Guardian spirits are essential for shamanism (Harner, Way of Shaman, 43). Shorter, Witchdoctor, 177, notes that those most susceptible to dissociation after initiation may become shamans themselves. Krippner, “Perspectives,” surveys a variety of proposed models and data, including the traditional Christian model of shamans’ “demon possession” (963–64; noting [964] that shamans sometimes make these claims about rival shamans), which he rejects, and the various attentional states of different kinds of shamans (967).

[1523]. Mbiti, Religions, 225–26 (in most other situations, spirit possession can be harmful, p. 106); cf. Firth, Ritual, 298. In some societies, only the medium will enter a trance (e.g., Colson, “Possession,” 76).

[1524]. For drumming, see Mbiti, Religions, 106; Peters, Healing in Nepal, 46, 49; Pressel, “Possession,” 344; Shorter, “Spirit Possession,” 114; Firth, “Foreword,” xiii; Beattie and Middleton, “Introduction,” xxvi; Horton, “Possession,” 19; Verger, “Trance,” 55–59; Southall, “Possession,” 233, 236, 240–42, 248, 269; Constantinides, “Zar,” 89, 91 (for bori, but not tumbura, possession); Luling, “Possession Cults,” 173 (Somalia); Field, “Possession,” 4, 7 (Ghana); Gelfand, “Disorders,” 156, 162; idem, Religion, 166–67 (traditional Shona culture); in the Dionysus cult in antiquity, Plut. Table 1.5.2, Mor. 623B. Music aids possession in Basso, “Music”; for music and trance, see Alcorta, “Music,” 243–47; for drumming and dancing to induce altered states of consciousness in South African churches, see Edwards, “Healing,” 340–42; for sacred dance and healing in a contextualized South African church, see Mthethwa, “Music,” 253–55; dancing and spiritual power in South African African Independent Churches (AICs), Oosthuizen, Healer-Prophet, 55–56; shamanic dancing in Hultkrantz, Healing, 63–65; possession dance in Stoller and Olkes, Shadow, 85. Music aids in exorcism in L.A.B. 60:2–3; cf. drumming in an exorcism ceremony in Gray, “Cult,” 177–79; Lewis, “Exorcism,” 206; music to set the tone for exorcism in a São Paulo (Brazil) Pentecostal service in Miller and Yamamori, Pentecostalism, 154.

[1525]. See Johnson, “Authority,” 15–65, including a careful table of the belief structures of the different groups (p. 64, table 2) and beliefs about possession in these groups (65, table 3); I use esp. p. 65 here. Claims to “see” spirits also appear elsewhere (McNaughton, Blacksmiths, 11). Spiritists are highly influential in Brazil and undergo formal training; see Lotufo-Neto, “Influences,” 201.

[1526]. Using sacrifices, drums, singing, dancing, tobacco, prayer, and often drinking. (Such means are not at all universal; see, e.g., Field, “Possession,” 7.) In Candomblé, an African-oriented cult in Brazil, the Orixás that are invoked “are assumed to dwell in Africa and are summoned from there” (Johnson, “Authority,” 32).

[1527]. Field, “Possession,” 3–4.

[1528]. Ibid., 8.

[1529]. Garbett, “Mediums,” 105 (noting that mediums, unlike members of possession cults, had to remain in the vicinity belonging to their possessing spirit).

[1530]. See, e.g., Platvoet, “Rule”; Keener, “Possession,” 221–24; also common cultural characteristics in some features of traditional African spirit possession and patterned responses to religious activity in the African diaspora, including many African-American churches (e.g., Jules-Rosette, “Spirituality”). For traditional Japanese spirit possession (and other patterns) in their cultural context, see, e.g., Lebra, Patterns. Some societies lack even dissociation in some cases, so that the common element in possession in these societies tends to be the belief that a spirit is overpowering one’s personality (Shorter, Witchdoctor, 180).

[1531]. See, e.g., Verger, “Trance,” 64; Southall, “Possession,” 243; Firth, Ritual, 313–14 (noting the possessing spirits’ use of “conventional Tikopia concepts and . . . ordinary Tikopia norms of etiquette and morality”).

[1532]. E.g., among the southeastern Bantu in Gussler, “Change,” 123–24, to at least some degree apparently reflecting traditional beliefs; loss of eye control in Navajo mental illness (Kaplan and Johnson, “Navajo Psychopathology,” 206).

[1533]. Luling, “Possession Cults,” 175.

[1534]. Leonard, “Spirit Mediums,” 176 (also noting that most remaining possession trance is among elderly).

[1535]. Nevius, Possession, 46, noting wild activity, apparently normal activity except in a different voice, or speaking for a deceased relative or a fox (although all these reactions may have been accepted as stereotyped responses within the culture; on fox spirits, see, e.g., Matsuoka, “Fox Possession”).

[1536]. Bourguignon, “Assessment,” 337.

[1537]. See, e.g., Shorter, “Possession and Healing,” 47 (on coastal beliefs reaching the interior of Tanzania through one Kipakulo in the mid-twentieth century); idem, “Spirit Possession,” 122. The same system collapsed in 1970 (“Possession and Healing,” 49). Scholars have tried to reconstruct the spread of the zar cult (e.g., Morsy, “Possession,” 192–93). Spirits today naturally claim more global connections (Behrend and Luig, “Introduction,” xiii; Krings, “History,” 53).

[1538]. E.g., Natvig, “Zar Cult,” 181; and often in the literature. Syncretism is common (e.g., Constantinides, “Zar,” 91; between African tradition and Sufism, Ferchiou, “Possession Cults,” 213), and other factors (such as Islam) have forced a measure of change (e.g., Last, “Bori,” 57), though elements of continuity also appear to exist (Echard, “Possession Cult,” 67).

[1539]. Cf., e.g., Last, “Bori,” 49–50; Hurreiz, “Zar,” esp. 154; Sellers, “Zar,” esp. 156–57, 163.

[1540]. Tippett, “Possession,” 162 (following Herskovits; elaborated further [162–64], with thorough documentation from anthropological literature). See, e.g., Greenfield, Spirits, 40 (new persona), 83 (voice); Oesterreich, Possession, 19–22 (offering many examples), 97, 208; Mbiti, Religions, 225–26, including (225) a case that he witnessed; Dayhoff, “Guiva” (a girl speaking in a deep, unnatural voice before exorcism); Gelfand, Religion, 169 (regarding Shona examples); Shorter, Witchdoctor, 177; McClenon, Events, 134–35, 226; Ising, Blumhardt, 104–5, 168, 169, 171–72, 174–75, 178, 183; Grof, “Potential,” 144 (change in voice and superhuman knowledge); Wilson, “Miracle Events,” 275 (two male voices from a woman); Instone-Brewer, “Psychiatrists,” 140 (a case that he witnessed while studying psychiatry).

[1541]. E.g., Field, “Possession,” 3, 6; Horton, “Possession,” 23; Gelfand, Religion, 166, 169; Bourguignon, “Self,” 53, 56; Grof, “Potential,” 145; Rosny, Healers, 185–86; cf. Singleton, “Spirits,” 477; but contrast Shorter, “Spirit Possession,” 113. Some claim to know little about the spirits that possess them, claiming to be “powerless in their hands” (Shorter, “Possession and Healing,” 48).

[1542]. Firth, “Foreword,” x (adding his own shock when first encountering spirit mediumship among the Tikopia four decades earlier). Possession typically displaces the normal personality (Mbiti, Religions, 106); for the possessed acting like the spirits believed to possess them, see, e.g., Verger, “Trance,” 50–51, 53.

[1543]. E.g., Kaplan and Johnson, “Navajo Psychopathology,” 208; Murphy, “Aspects of Shamanism,” 58; Field, “Possession,” 5; cf. Borg, Vision, 62; Mark 5:4 (but more positively, Judg 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Sam 11:6–7; Test. Jud. 2:1–7); on other occasions, though, a “possessed” person could be tied up (Gray, “Cult,” 182). See further comment at Acts 19:16.

[1544]. Eliade, Rites, 71; Gelfand, “Disorders,” 165, 170; Schmidt, “Psychiatry,” 145; Kaplan and Johnson, “Navajo Psychopathology,” 227; Matt 8:28; for possession yielding threats and aggression, see Obeyesekere, “Possession,” 251. When possessed persons become unmanageable, they might be confined to a cave (where they would die of dehydration) or (more often) be driven into the woods (Gelfand, “Disorders,” 170). For spirits cursing and berating the possessed, see, e.g., Morton, “Dawit,” 221.

[1545]. Fox, “Witchcraft,” 185; Ising, Blumhardt, 174, 326–27; cf. Evans-Pritchard, Witchcraft, 162; Mark 5:5; 1 Kgs 18:28. For various maladaptive responses, see Ludwig, “Altered States,” 86 (including voodoo death).

[1546]. Lee, “Sociology,” 41–42, 47 (though they believed that fire would not burn them, 43). One may also run headlong into a tree; on occasion, one has been known to violently attack a dog or to engage in despised sexual behavior (Lee, “Sociology,” 42).

[1547]. Mbiti, Religions, 225–26.

[1548]. Ibid., 106 (noting that sometimes the victim also hurts others); cf. “wandering through the bush” with danger of injury in Gray, “Cult,” 178. In antiquity, cf. Mark 5:5; 9:18; Acts 19:16; cf. also the Galli, who were said to emasculate themselves in frenzy (discussed at Acts 8:27). For throwing themselves into the fire, see also, e.g., Kaplan and Johnson, “Navajo Psychopathology,” 211 (noting multiple cases); cf. Mark 9:22; Southall, “Possession,” 234.

[1549]. Shoko, Religion, 125, recounting the report from within a Karanga AIC in Zimbabwe. Some Kenyan members of AICs experiencing ASCs are able “to run along the road for hours beating drums” or perform exorcisms and the like (Harries, “Nature,” 403).

[1550]. Jochim, Religions, 154. Although Ghanaian possession examples lack cases of self-injury noted in many cultures, they appear to lack hunger and many other normal sensations (Field, “Possession,” 6). For cases of immunity to pain or heat, see McClenon, Events, 97–100; idem, Healing, 71–74.

[1551]. Field, “Possession,” 5. In other cases as well, exhaustion commonly follows ecstasy (e.g., Lewis, “Possession,” 202). A Tikopia medium might not feel tired after his spirit control entered, yet feel exhausted through the coming of other spirits (Firth, Ritual, 311).

[1552]. E.g., Mbiti, Religions, 233; Evans-Pritchard, Religion, 96, 303; Field, “Possession,” 6; Middleton, “Possession,” 224; Southall, “Possession,” 242–43; Fitzgerald, “Speech.” For familiars used for witchcraft, see Turner, Drums, 206; in old Shona tradition, various kinds of spirits can possess mediums (Gelfand, Religion, 166), and possession gives the medium powers (see 177–78).

[1553]. Ohnuki-Tierney, “Shamanism,” 194–96; cf. Mbiti, Religions, 233.

[1554]. Mbiti, Religions, 249–50; Field, “Possession,” 9.

[1555]. Mbiti, Religions, 111; Beattie and Middleton, “Introduction,” xxi–xxii, xxvii; cf. Shorter, Witchdoctor, 188–89; idem, “Possession and Healing,” 48–49, 52; on the amorality of fetishes in Nuer religion, see Evans-Pritchard, Religion, 100; on the neutrality of Ga possession, see Field, “Possession,” 13; on neutral Maya mountain spirits, Garrard-Burnett, “Demons,” 218. On spirits in African tradition, see Ferdinando, “Demonology,” 110–20 (on their ambiguity between good and bad, esp. 114). For one chart comparing Western worldviews (both secular and Christian) with NT and traditional African ones, see Loewen, “Possession,” 128–33.

[1556]. E.g., Shorter, Witchdoctor, 188–89; cf. Achebe, “Ogbanje Phenomenon,” 35–36. Cf. the nominally Islamic Segeju identification of shetani with Quranic demons in Gray, “Cult,” 173–75. Most of the newer churches do view all spirits as harmful (Ranger, “Religion,” 352, complaining about “Apostolic and Pentecostal churches in Southern Africa”); Korean Christians also treated all the older spirits as demons (Kim, “Healing,” 268–69).

[1557]. One important discussion missed in appendix B of my Miracles was Gatumu, Concept, 60–92.

[1558]. Nevius, Possession. Other scholars have also compared Nevius and biblical portraits to various accounts of possession behavior today (e.g., Heth, “Demonization”). On a more popular level, early twentieth-century Chinese Christians also report some encounters with demons in Baker, Visions (2006), 101–4 (also noting their relationship with indigenous folk beliefs, 106).

[1559]. Nevius, Possession, 46–47, 58; some are also noted in Tippett, “Possession,” 153. Nevius, Possession, 140–43, defends the reliability of his Chinese informants, especially noting (143) that the reports cohere with those received from other cultures and eras. Nevius himself was persuaded of the reality of spirit possession only gradually, through his field experience (ix, 9–13), as others have also pointed out (e.g., Ramsay, Teaching, 105–6).

[1560]. Nevius, Possession, 58, noted in Tippett, “Possession,” 153, also noting that some spirits bargained over the price of their departure. (The entire section in Nevius, “Circular Letter and Responses,” is Possession, 41–59.) Cf. also Horton, “Possession,” 29; Dayhoff, “Guiva”; Shorter, Witchdoctor, 183 (following Robert, Croyances, 152–53); Bourguignon, “Self,” 50; Oesterreich, Possession, 208; Wilson, “Miracle Events,” 275; Freston, “Transnationalisation,” 211; Krings, “History,” 55–58; Naipaul, Masque, 121; earlier, Kreiser, “Devils,” 63–64; Rosen, “Psychopathology,” 231; Rack, “Healing,” 148; Ising, Blumhardt, 181.

[1561]. Tippett, “Possession,” 154. Cf. also MacPhail, “Path,” 190; Isaacs, “Disorder,” 269; Allison, “Doubt,” 117–18; Wilson, “Miracle Events,” 275. For inexplicable knowledge, see, e.g., the eyewitness experience of Instone-Brewer, “Psychiatrists,” 140–41 (where the apparently possessed person knew the psychiatric student’s thoughts); Earle, “Borders,” 3 (as cited in Turner, “Advances,” 50); McClenon, Events, 137–38; Krippner and Achterberg, “Experiences,” 353–54; Emmons, Ghosts, 193–96, 198–207; Koch, Zulus, 143, 146 (cf. 294); a possession state described in Grof, “Potential,” 144–45; but this does not appear to be always the case (cf., e.g., Firth, Ritual, 310). For possessing spirits complaining about Christian conversion, see, e.g., Field, “Possession,” 8.

[1562]. Thus, e.g., Smith, Magician, 9, reports his own eyewitness encounter with possession behavior but does not genuinely regard it as demon possession. Cf. similarly Peters, Healing in Nepal, 47, of his own “possession” state.

[1563]. E.g., Wendl, “Slavery,” 120, criticizes psychoanalytic (Crapanzaro), sociological (Lewis), and feminist approaches for imposing grids instead of analyzing indigenous functions for possession experience. For one historical survey of modern Western readings, see Tippett, “Possession,” 144–48.

[1564]. Lewis, Ecstatic Religion, 39. This may be described as “mental dissociation” (44); but not all “possession” involves trance, and so the two should not be identified (45). Possession is not inherently “mentally dissociated” but is a particular culture’s construction of the person’s state in terms of an invasive spirit (46).

[1565]. Worldview affects dissociation’s description in various societies, though the degree of acculturation is often a common factor (Maquet, “Shaman,” 3; Peters, Healing in Nepal, 11–16, 46–47, 50; Frey and Roysircar, “Acculturation and Worldview,” citing other studies, most relevantly Castillo, “Possession”; Hollan, “Culture”; Krippner, “Disorders”; Leavitt, “Trance”; Prince, “Variations”; Schumaker, “Suggestibility”; Roysircar-Sodowsky and Lai, “Variables”; for variations in posttraumatic stress responses, Marsella, Friedman, and Spain, “Aspects”; Oquendo, Horwath, and Martinez, “Ataques”). Lack of suggestibility may render “possession” difficult (cases in Last, “Bori,” 52–53).

[1566]. Lewis, Ecstatic Religion, 64.

[1567]. Bourguignon, “Introduction,” 14; cf. also examples in Finkler, “Religion,” 52; Johnson, “Neurotheology,” 223.

[1568]. Prince, “EEG,” 122–24.

[1569]. Ibid., 124–25; cf. Field, “Possession,” 4–5.

[1570]. Prince, “EEG,” 125–27.

[1571]. Ibid., 129–30. (Against Sargent, Prince thinks [130, 132] that the convulsions during Wesley’s preaching on June 15, 1739, represent suggestion rather than emotional collapse.) Drumbeats at the right intervals, like photic driving, can produce emotional and neurological shifts (133–34). For religious ecstasy in Wesley’s meetings, cf. also Cragg, Reason, 144.

[1572]. Although familiarity with local traditions of possession offers the primary factor for it in one study in Trinidad, stress or emotional conflict provides the immediate trigger (Ward and Beaubrun, “Psychodynamics,” 206); stress as a precipitating factor appears in numerous studies (cited by ibid.), e.g., Douyon, “Examen”; Freed and Freed, “Possession”; Leiris, Possession; Pressel, “Trance”; Warner, “Witchcraft.” Case 2 in Ward and Beaubrun, “Psychodynamics,” 203, lends itself especially readily to psychological explanations (at the least, in terms of susceptibility). Some exorcisms probably prove effective by correcting hysterical disorders (Instone-Brewer, “Psychiatrists,” 134–35), although this explanation proves inadequate for some of the phenomena recorded in the NT and other sources (see the analysis by Instone-Brewer, 135–40).

[1573]. Tippett, “Possession,” 148–51; often in the literature, e.g., Gray, “Cult,” 171. In antiquity, cf. perhaps Pers. Sat. 5.185–89 on demons related to the Cybele cult.

[1574]. See Tippett, “Possession,” 155–56; Douyon, “Examen”; in Haiti, Kiev, “Value.”

[1575]. Tippett, “Possession,” 157–58; Pressel, “Umbanda”; idem, “Possession,” 333–35. Cf. also the Spiritist Church in Puerto Rico (Garrison, “Syndrome,” 393–94; for mediums, see 398–403), Spiritualism in New England (Macklin, “Yankee”), and elsewhere.

[1576]. Modarressi, “Zar Cult.”

[1577]. Prince, “Possession Cults.”

[1578]. Henney, “Belief.”

[1579]. Wayman, “Meaning.”

[1580]. A Chinese report in Nevius, Possession, 47 (the reporter seems skeptical about the supernatural element). Cultic contexts often produce social pressure on particular persons to enter possession trance (Firth, “Foreword,” xiii; Horton, “Possession,” 24, 25, 35; Verger, “Trance,” 52).

[1581]. Shorter, “Possession and Healing,” 48 (Maji-ya-Soda viewing the water spirits as neutral and adapting the ritual to fit his various clientele’s religious sensibilities). Water spirits are frequent in discussions of African spirits (e.g., Horton, “Possession,” 15, 17, 45).

[1582]. E.g., Prince, “Possession Cults.”

[1583]. Cf., e.g., Hollenbach, “Demoniacs”; Crossan, Jesus, 318. While affirming anthropological observations regarding intrafamily conflicts and possession (Davies, Healer, 81–84), Davies views Hollenbach’s approach (emphasizing a sociological response to pervasive Roman oppression) as “preposterous” in view of the Galilean context (79–80). In any case, sociological factors seem to influence susceptibility but do not, by themselves, appear adequate to explain the phenomena surrounding the more anomalous cases (i.e., it appears reductionist to appeal solely to such factors).

[1584]. Nevius, Possession, 58. For their greater frequency among the uneducated, see Field, “Possession,” 4.

[1585]. Bourguignon, “Spirit Possession Belief,” 22. In idem, “Introduction,” 22, she notes that it is more common in stratified slave societies, but she thinks (23) that rigidity also affects its occurrence (relating possession behavior to release from societal strictures without changing the strictures [31, 33]). The data do not seem to fit readily a single consistent model, and correlation might reflect common factors (rather than causation); but they might also reveal some conditions most conducive to possession states. In some settings, some trance states might perform a cathartic function (though Prince, “Foreword,” xiii, warns that this approach fails to account for societies where the healer, rather than the patient, “becomes dissociated”).

[1586]. Greenbaum, “Societal Correlates,” 54; idem, “Possession Trance,” 84.

[1587]. Bourguignon, “Assessment,” 339. But mediums who are, initially, uncontrollably possessed may learn to control the impulses (Horton, “Possession,” 36, 41; Verger, “Trance,” 51).

[1588]. On revelatory claims among early Methodists, see, e.g., Noll, Shape, 46; for popular “enthusiasm” among them, see, e.g., Wigger, Saint, 58–59, 78, 81–83, 166–67, 170, 307, 311–12, 320, 322. Marginalized Christian groups experiencing such phenomena (cf., e.g., Ghanaian “Holy Spirit” movements in Field, “Possession,” 9–10) could view it as God’s favor toward the marginalized, picking up two Lukan themes (the Spirit and the marginalized). Lewis, Healing, 293, notes that most of the charismatic participants in his study on healings were middle-class professionals and that many did experience some ecstatic phenomena, such as “shaking or falling over.” But he also observes (268) that healings seem to have occurred more often among those of “lower social classes” present, suggesting perhaps divine bias for the weak.

[1589]. Bourguignon, “Epilogue,” 342–43.

[1590]. Lewis, “Possession,” 189–90; Sharp, “Power of Possession,” 4; cf. Rahim, “Zar,” 138–45; Morsy, “Possession,” 204–5.

[1591]. Kessler, “Conflict,” 301–2; Berger, “Women,” 41, 55; Shorter, “Spirit Possession,” 115 (cf. 119); Obeyesekere, “Idiom,” 103; Horton, “Possession,” 41–42; Colson, “Possession,” 90–92, 99–100; Lee, “Possession,” 143–44, 150–51, 154; Southall, “Possession,” 244; Abdalla, “Friend,” 41, 44; Last, “Bori,” 58–59; Hammond-Tooke, “Aetiology,” 57; Oosthuizen, Healer-Prophet, 88; Walker and Dickerman, “Woman,” 539, 554; Stirrat, “Possession,” 138, 151, 154; Oesterreich, Possession, 121; Giles, “Spirits,” 77; Sousa, “Women”; Kenyon, “Case”; cf. Chandra shekar, “Possession Syndrome,” 85; Gray, “Cult,” 171; Lewis, “Possession,” 216–17; idem, “Introduction,” 5; idem, “Deprivation Cults,” 313–25; Constantinides, “Zar,” 89; Ashkanani, “Zar,” 228–29.

[1592]. Cf., e.g., Crawford and Lipsedge, “Help,” 134; Colleyn, “Horse,” 72; similarly, Evans-Pritchard, Witchcraft, 155–56; Tanner, “Theory,” 274 (but cf. also 281).

[1593]. Successful, e.g., in Chandra shekar, “Possession Syndrome,” 88, 91; Bourguignon, “Self,” 50, 53; cf. Ward, “Possession,” 130–32; Sharp, “Power of Possession,” 4; Eve, Healer, 67; Abdalla, “Friend,” 39. In the zar cult, the genie usually asks for something that the adolescent has been wanting anyway, and hence provides a safe outlet for expressing feelings (Modarressi, “Zar Cult,” 154–55; cf. Lewis, “Possession,” 201–4, 210–12, 216–17; Southall, “Possession,” 243); elsewhere, possession may yield eruptions “of forbidden impulses” (Ludwig, “Altered States,” 86; cf. Lewis, “Deprivation Cult,” 315–18; Beauvoir, “Herbs,” 129); or has been used for accusing enemies (earlier, Kreiser, “Devils,” 71–73; Walker, “Propaganda,” 284–94; Walker and Dickerman, “Woman,” 550–51). A “trance attack” or possession in India is described as “essentially a culturally sanctioned mechanism” (Raguraman, Vijaysagar, and Chandrasekaran, “Presentation”).

[1594]. This has been proposed, e.g., for women in Samoan society (Lazar, “Aggression”) and in Sri Lanka (Obeyesekere, “Idiom,” 104–5).

[1595]. Ward and Beaubrun, “Possession,” 201. From the descriptions in the article (esp. case 2, p. 203), the psychological explanations appear more persuasive than others in these cases.

[1596]. Jacobs, “Possession,” 186–87 (focusing on two East African cultures); Shorter, Witchdoctor, 179; Makris and Al-Safi, “Spirit Possession Cult,” 118.

[1597]. See, e.g., Lewis, Ecstatic Religion, 44; cf. also Maquet, “Shaman,” 3; Peters, Healing in Nepal, 11–16, 46–47, 50. Deprivation theories often are reductionistic (cf. Hunt, “Sociology,” 183–84).

[1598]. Bourguignon, “Distribution,” 4–11.

[1599]. E.g., many scholars offer psychological explanations, such as the emergence of repressed subconscious thoughts (e.g., Singleton, “Spirits,” 475); certainly, this appears to be the case in some instances (see, e.g., Lewis, “Possession,” 201–3, regarding suppressed erotic desire; cf. guilt in Ferchiou, “Possession Cults,” 215–17).

[1600]. Bourguignon, “Distribution,” 6. Ivey, “Discourses,” finds evil and possession to be useful metaphors; he explains the basis as an internal “splitting,” a defense mechanism (56), which causes the destructive “spirit” to function “as an autonomous suborganisation of the psyche,” projected onto the mythical demon (57). But he follows Freud in regarding psychoanalytic language as itself no less “mythical” than the older demonic terminology; it is simply a different construction of reality (58–59). (For one attempt to borrow Jungian language for the demonic, see Cook, “Manticores,” 165–74.)

[1601]. Bourguignon, “Distribution,” 7–9.

[1602]. Ibid., 9–12.

[1603]. Lewis, Ecstatic Religion, 64.

[1604]. Peters, Healing in Nepal, 147–48.

[1605]. Bourguignon, “Distribution,” 6–7, 13–15. Thus some societies seek possession whereas others seek deliverance from it (idem, “Self,” 42–43). Some societies have trance without possession; others, possession without trance; and still others, possession trance (18; idem, “Spirit Possession Belief,” 21–22).

[1606]. Bourguignon, “Distribution,” 12. Popular literature also suggests culturally defined conduits for possession behavior, such as the “werewolf” in Argentina (see Bottari, Free, 30–31).

[1607]. Turner, Experiencing Ritual, 182; Obeyesekere, “Possession,” 239; Garbett, “Mediums,” 123; Reynolds, Magic, 62; Bate, “Mission,” 77; cf. ancestor possession in Beattie and Middleton, “Introduction,” xxvii; Field, “Possession,” 9; Lee, “Possession,” 131–32; Keller, Hammer, 131–32, 155; Zempleni, “Symptom,” 92; Barrington-Ward, “Spirit Possession,” 456; Jules-Rosette, “Healers,” 133, 142; Loewen, “Possession,” 121; on spirits of the dead more generally, see, e.g., Beattie and Middleton, “Introduction,” xix–xxii; Beattie, “Mediumship,” 162 (dangerous ghosts, including ancestors); Horton, “Possession,” 15; Southall, “Possession,” 233 (spirits of deceased soldiers), 246–49, 255 (spirits of earlier chiefs); Welbourn, “Spirit Initiation,” 291–92 (on dangerous ghosts). Among the Valley Tonga, possession by ghosts can be fatal (Colson, “Possession,” 71).

[1608]. They provide good things in Turner, Drums, 14; they provide helpful information in Garbett, “Mediums,” 105; also (but normally only for the recently dead) Last, “Bori,” 51; they must be propitiated to be kept neutral rather than harmful in Tanner, “Theory,” 274; Ma, “Veneration,” 168. On ancestor spirits, see also, e.g., Koss, “Spirits,” 372; and numerous other sources. Shona’s “ancestor” spirits effectively include only grandparents and parents (Gelfand, Religion, 173).

[1609]. On the Lares see, e.g., Mastrocinque, “Lares”; Phillips, “Lares.” Reinterpreting Roman tradition in light of Middle Platonism, Apuleius speaks (De deo Socr. 152–53) of a Lar familiaris, a ghost watching over the deceased’s descendants, but also of the Larva, the type of Lemur or ghost of one being punished, which terrorizes good people a little but especially endangers the wicked (cf. the ritual to placate lemures in Ovid Fasti 5.419ff.; Phillips, “Lemuria”).

[1610]. Despite efforts at “value neutrality,” however, social sciences, as typically practiced, presuppose some values that tend to dictate their conclusions (Murphy, “Social Science,” 33–37; using esp. Murphy and Ellis, Nature; Milbank, Social Theory).

[1611]. Of course, a larger number will contend that they are psychologically real from the standpoint of the patient (e.g., Singleton, “Spirits,” 477).

[1612]. A lecturer in anthropology at the University of Virginia and editor of Anthropology and Humanism: Journal of the Society for Humanistic Anthropology, best known for her fieldwork in Africa beside Victor Turner, her late husband.

[1613]. See Turner, “Reality of Spirits” (from a pro-shamanist perspective); cf. idem, “Reality.”

[1614]. Turner, Experiencing Ritual, 3 (for such “compensation,” cf., e.g., Firth, “Foreword,” xii). Turner complains (Experiencing Ritual, 4) that some academics “believe that trained anthropologists . . . understand aspects of a culture better than field subjects.” She notes that today many recognize this approach as ethnocentric, ignoring other logics. Yet she denies (15) using postmodern or neocolonial postures, which often provide a Western grid through which fieldwork subjects’ “traditional religion” is viewed as oppressive to them. After her own experience, she concluded (Turner, “Reality,” 28) that many members of her guild had “perpetuated an endless series of put-downs about the many spirit events in which they participated—‘participated’ in a kindly pretense. They might have obtained valuable material, but they have been operating with the wrong paradigm, that of the positivist’s denial.”

[1615]. Turner, “Reality,” 30. She compares Western psychoanalytic approaches concerning dream figures from the imagination but thinks traditional cultures’ explanations of external spirits even more plausible and certainly no less deserving of respect. But anthropological approaches have become much more open to indigenous categories (see Keller, Hammer, 39–40).

[1616]. Turner, Experiencing Ritual, 3.

[1617]. Turner, “Reality,” 28.

[1618]. Turner, Experiencing Ritual, 149. Although she allows some sleight-of-hand regarding other parts of the ritual (165; on such tricks, see Frank, Persuasion, 44–45), she insists that she knows what she saw and that she was “not in trance” (Turner, Experiencing Ritual, 159). Elsewhere as well she affirms the possibility of genuine spirit entities (idem, Hands, 232). On the ihamba more generally, cf. Turner, Drums, 156–97 (on the ihamba tooth, cf., e.g., 175–83, 298–99).

[1619]. Turner, “Reality,” 28.

[1620]. Ibid., 29.

[1621]. Ibid., 30, comparing this anthropological approach to that of missionaries (whose role she also dislikes). Turner concedes that some anthropologists are more respectful than others, trying to “bend over backward to accord their people a much fuller sympathy,” but announces that “in this paper I really go over the edge” of traditional boundaries for the discipline. One should note that many of our disciplines were formed in an era when positivist (and, more to the point in this case, in my opinion, antisupernaturalist) influence was inevitable.

[1622]. Turner, Healers, 103–40.

[1623]. Ibid., 103.

[1624]. See Strelan, Strange Acts, 51, citing Hume, Ancestral Power; cf. Walsh, Shamanism, 144 (a psychiatrist); respectful discussion of this pedagogic strategy in Barnes, “Introduction,” 19–20. Turner, “Advances,” 45, notes that shamanism is now “the fastest growing field” in anthropology.

[1625]. Turner (“Anthropology,” 203) and others (Winkelman and Carr, “Approach, 177–78; Goodman, “Workshop”; Wilkie, “Imagination,” 137–40, corporately invoking Greek deities; cf. Millay, “Time Travel”; Harner, Way of Shaman, 65–68, 76–85) actually introduce students to shamanic experiences in classes, an approach that many (including myself) find deeply problematic (note voices summarized in Barnes, “Introduction,” 20). Less problematic would be observing rituals of their choice outside class (as in Payne-Jackson, “Magic,” 232–35) or participating in class field trips (Mosher and Jacobs, “Seminar,” 270–71). Some anthropologists now advocate sympathetically entering “witchcraft” experiences as learners, while keeping in mind scholarly obligations (Salomonsen, “Methods”). Although not accepting the indigenous epistemological framework in many respects, Peters, Healing in Nepal, 37–54, also supports an experiential anthropological approach (Peters underwent shaman training).

[1626]. Miller and Yamamori, Pentecostalism, 156 (citing one example of an especially “difficult deliverance of a woman who was well known as a medium,” “who skidded across the floor of the church in a prone position, apparently being propelled by some supernatural force”); cf. Ising, Blumhardt, 175; also, in Moreland and Issler, Faith, 157–59, occult phenomena in which, e.g., objects were moved across the room.

[1627]. Stoller, “Eye,” 110 (as cited in Turner, “Advances,” 41); Kimball, “Learning,” 189–91; cf. Peters, Healing in Nepal, 37–54 (though rejecting personal spirits); McClenon and Nooney, “Experiences,” 51; Steyne, Gods of Power, 14–19; Mbiti, Religions, 253–56.

[1628]. E.g., Peck, Glimpses, 238–41 (cited also respectfully by Borg, Jesus, 322n9); Wilson (professor emeritus of psychiatry at Duke University Medical Center), “Miracle Events,” 268, 275; idem, “Hysteria,” 225–30; Isaacs, “Disorder,” 265–66; Johnson, “Possession,” 152–53; cf. McAll, “Taste”; idem, “Deliverance,” 296–97; White, “Lady,” 75; Van Gelder, “Possession,” 151–58; Betty, “Evidence”; discussion in Walsh, Shamanism, 147–49.

[1629]. E.g., Mchami, “Possession,” 17; Bennett, Not Afraid, 1–96; Kim, “Healing,” 270–74; see also Hiebert, “Excluded Middle,” 43; Escobar, Tides, 86; Neill, “Demons,” 161; Mensah, “Basis,” 176; Johnson, “Authority,” 105–6; Watchman Nee in Kinnear, Tide, 152, 318n10. On power encounters, see discussion at Acts 8:12–13; Keener, Miracles, 843–56. It is important to note, however, the historical evolution of faddish demonologies (catalogued, e.g., in Collins, Exorcism).

[1630]. Keener, Acts, 1:320–82, esp. 363–77.

[1631]. E.g., Lewis, Ecstatic Religion, 100–126; Turner, Experiencing Ritual, 183–87 (including various kinds of spirit healers, 185–87); in popular-level Christian sources, cf., e.g., Schlink, World, 28–53; Williams, Signs, 140; for a study of some popular approaches, see, e.g., Wright, “Interpretations.” See, e.g., shamanistic exorcism among the Aymara in Bolivia (Bourguignon, “Spirit Possession Belief,” 20); other cultures in Kaplan and Johnson, “Navajo Psychopathology,” 211; Fuchs, “Techniques,” 135–37; Mbiti, Religions, 106; a successful Buddhist Sinhalese exorcism in Obeyesekere, “Possession,” 259–89.

[1632]. Tippett, Solomon Islands Christianity, 14.

[1633]. Mbiti, Religions, 106; for an example, see, e.g., Turner, Drums, 204.

[1634]. Gray, “Cult,” 171. For dances used in expelling spirits, see also, e.g., Garbett, “Mediums,” 105; Lewis, “Possession,” 201.

[1635]. Kaplan and Johnson, “Navajo Psychopathology,” 211.

[1636]. A Chinese report in Nevius, Possession, 54. Sometimes demons would leave if given what they demanded; also through “written charms, or chanted verses,” or puncturing “the body with needles” (53).

[1637]. Lewis, “Possession,” 199 (noting the special utility of sura 66), 213; cf. the use of verses of the Qur’an drunk in water (Abdalla, “Friend,” 38). In the Kuwaiti version of the zar cult, the healer also recites suras (Ashkanani, “Zar,” 224–25).

[1638]. Beattie and Middleton, “Introduction,” xxv.

[1639]. Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 196–97, citing especially (197) examples from eastern Siberia; Peters, Healing in Nepal, 14–15; possession for healing in Southall, “Possession,” 237–38; Hien, “Yin Illness,” 307; Licauco, “Psychic Healing,” 95; cf. Obeyesekere, “Idiom,” 108; Katz, “Healing,” 213. On shamans sending spirits to work harm, see, e.g., Peters, Healing in Nepal, 61 (noting [63] that some reject limiting one’s powers to only benevolent acts); on mediums able to work harm (sending dangerous spirits) as well as good, see also Beattie, “Mediumship,” 169; Somali holy men in Lewis, “Possession,” 189; shamans among a people in Guyana, Scherberger, “Shaman,” 57–59. For claims of traditional healers offering relief from spirit forces, see, e.g., Achebe, “Ogbanje Phenomenon,” 34–35; cf. Shorter, “Possession and Healing,” 48.

[1640]. Fuchs, “Techniques,” 135–37. The ritual typically concludes with the patient swooning, after which she is cured (137).

[1641]. E.g., Singleton, “Spirits,” 473; for spirits departing if they get what they wanted, Gray, “Cult,” 181. Likewise, traditional Tanzanian migawo specialists have to “persuade” spirits to depart (Shorter, “Spirit Possession,” 119).

[1642]. Abdalla, “Friend,” 38–39. The Sudanese culture of hospitality applies to treatment of zar spirits, as to people (Kenyon, “Zar,” 108).

[1643]. Cf., e.g., Hes, “Role,” 376, 380. Burning the skin with a heated nail, or extracting blood, provides an aperture for the spirits’ departure (ibid., 380).

[1644]. Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 142, citing Sharp, Possessed.

[1645]. Jenkins, New Faces, 105–7, citing Mchami, “Possession” (esp. 31, citing the case of “Esther” in Tanzania). On exorcism in an African Catholic context, see Ikeobi, “Healing,” 73–75, 78–82; Eneja, “Message,” 164–66; cf. Ukachukwu Manus, “Healing,” 101.

[1646]. Miller and Yamamori, Pentecostalism, 155, for cases in Thailand and especially Brazil (contrasting “curses” with actual “spirit possession” and giving an example of an experience of child abuse dominating one’s life).

[1647]. Ibid., 156 (suggesting that it is “at least as effective as some forms of Western psychotherapy, which, when spontaneous remission is excluded, have relatively low cure rates”). Miller and Yamamori suggest that deliverance is a “form of psychotherapy” significantly effective beyond Western models or at least sometimes genuinely effects a spiritual deliverance (156–57). They believe that it also has positive long-range economic effects (170).

[1648]. Goodman, Demons, 125; for the effectiveness of exorcism in particular kinds of cases, see also Shorter, “Possession and Healing,” 51. For one story of an effective deliverance of an early twentieth-century man detained in an asylum, see John Lake’s diary, cited in Wacker, Heaven, 64–65. Some witchdoctors have complained that other witchdoctors cheat by simply bargaining with witches to remove curses (Evans-Pritchard, Witchcraft, 195, skeptically).

[1649]. Ejizu, “Exorcism,” 14 (on the girl’s experience with the Christ Healing Sabbath Church), noting that “Her case is one out of so many hundreds.”

[1650]. Bush and Pegues, Move, 47–49; they also note (59) the exorcism of a girl in northern India.

[1651]. Eusbarina Acosta Estévez (interview, Aug. 7, 2010). Cf. also the Cuban account of Leonel Camejo Tazé (interview, Aug. 11, 2010).

[1652]. See Frykenberg, “Globalization,” 127. Bergunder, “Miracle Healing,” 288, contends that Tamil Pentecostalism’s demons are largely derived from popular Hinduism.

[1653]. E.g., Maxwell, “Witches,” 325.

[1654]. Bull et al., “Exorcism,” 195, noting the large proportion of Christian clients who affirm the reality of spirits.

[1655]. Shorter, Witch Doctor, 184–85; cf. Ikeobi, “Healing,” 66; zar therapy in Rahim, “Zar,” 145–46.

[1656]. E.g., Martínez-Taboas, “Seizures” (after inability to change the patient’s beliefs about possession, idem, “World,” 18; responding to Castro-Blanco, “Sensitivity,” who prefers challenging “the utility of the belief in spiritual possession” [15]); Singleton, “Spirits,” 478; cf. Ashkanani, “Zar,” 225 (some Kuwaitis more receptive to zar therapy than to modern therapies). Krippner, “Perspectives,” 972, emphasizes that understandings will vary from one culture to another and Western therapists need to be culturally sensitive.

[1657]. E.g., Sung, Diaries, 23, 30, 34 (though Sung reports very few exorcisms compared with other forms of healing); for the principle, 90; also see Hickson, Heal, 65, 70–71 (on events in India and China in 1921); Menberu, “Regassa Feysa” (on events in 1965); cf. Pullinger, Dragon, 210; Storms, Convergence, 69–71; Best, Supernatural, 158–59 (Wimber); Sithole, Voice, 105–6, 132, 160. When visiting a Cameroonian student of mine in summer 2006, Yolanda McCain, one of my American students, was shocked to witness a blind person’s sight restored during exorcism of a spirit partly controlling his nervous system (correspondence, Oct. 3, 2008; confirmed by Paul Mokake, another witness and doctoral student, May 13, 2009).

[1658]. See Keener, Miracles, 815; for other accounts, see Lambert, Millions, 116; Yamamori and Chan, Witnesses, 47.

[1659]. The “we” is not explicit on the day of the event (Acts 16:18), but it also does not apply to any of the action reported there and hence would not have reason to be mentioned. Even assuming that the narrator had taken that day off, it is difficult to suppose that he would not have heard the firsthand report afterward (16:40). For the exorcism’s historical likelihood, see Twelftree, Paul, 252–55.

[1660]. Campbell, “Narrator,” 407, seems right to observe that this notice strengthens the narrator’s credibility.

[1661]. With, e.g., Porter, Paul in Acts, 29–30 (following Plümacher).

[1662]. E.g., Fotis in Apul. Metam. 3; see further comment on Acts 12:13–15.

[1663]. 1 En. 9:6–7 (the secrets turned out to be harmful, 10:7–8); 64:2; 65:6; Test. Sol. 5:12; 20. The angels in the Enoch tradition fill a role here like that of Prometheus in the Greek tradition except that the role of benefactor is reversed from the revealer to the withholder.

[1664]. Bultmann, Tradition, 223, cites esp. b. Pesaḥ. 112b–113a; Lucian Disowned 6. For more-thorough parallels for the Markan exorcisms, see, e.g., Robinson, Problem of History, 84–85; Aune, “Magic,” 1531–32; esp. Twelftree, “ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ,” 368–78, esp. 378; in Jesus’s case, however, the demons’ recognition also indicates supernatural knowledge of Jesus’s secret identity (cf. Chilton, “Exorcism,” 258).

[1665]. For this behavior in possession trance, see Aune, Prophecy, 41, 268 (following Dölger, “Theou Phōnē,” 218–23).

[1666]. Aune, Prophecy, 70, 269 (further on recognition/legitimation oracles, see 68–70).

[1667]. Cf. also the Lord’s “slaves” in parables (Luke 12:37–47; 14:17, 21–23; 17:7–10; 19:13–17; 20:10–11; perhaps Luke 15:22); and Paul “serving” the Lord (Acts 20:19). As the Lord’s (and hence, from a divine perspective, high-status) slaves, they contrast with her status as a slave, though Luke cannot highlight this contrast verbally, since he uses παιδίσκη for her, as a contrast with Rhoda in 12:13 and a connection with Luke 22:56, whereas the apostles are better titled δοῦλοι in light of Acts 2:18.

[1668]. Chrys. Hom. Acts 35 and Hom. 1 Cor. 29.3 (both in Martin, Acts, 203); one might compare the later spiritualist infiltrators at Azusa Street (Robeck, Mission, 168–69). Differently, Bede Comm. Acts 16.17 (Martin, Acts, 203; L. Martin, 136) thinks that fear of the Holy Spirit compelled her to speak truth (cf. similarly Arator Acts 2).

[1669]. Spencer, Philip, 97.

[1670]. Recorded in Koester, Introduction, 1:172. (The significance of this argument assumes that the Claros oracle would have identified IAO with YHWH.)

[1671]. Earlier interpreters also recognize the connection with Jesus’s example; see Origen Hom. Num. 16.7.10; Chrys. Hom. 1 Cor. 29.3 (Martin, Acts, 202–3).

[1672]. The missionaries’ recognition of the spirit might resemble Paul’s teaching on discernment of prophetic spirits, though that is directed toward distinguishing prophecies in church settings (1 Cor 12:10; 14:29) and though Paul’s Jewish monotheism would immediately inform him that the spirit did not speak for God.

[1673]. Cf. 1 Sam 10:16; perhaps Amos 7:14 (depending on the temporal perspective); discussion in Keener, Matthew, 261–63.

[1674]. Though God himself could choose to work through the demonic testimony (as in Acts 19:15–17), just as those opposing God’s servants in Luke-Acts misrepresent their message (e.g., Luke 23:2; Acts 24:5–6). That is, a message’s reception may differ from its authors’ intention.

[1675]. Mere distraction is also possible; while teachers regularly lectured on in the midst of commotion (Dio Chrys. Or. 20.9–10), words directed at their hearers could prove distracting. Perhaps the spirit supposes that by maintaining a positive message, it is less apt to risk confrontation (or simply wants to display its supernatural knowledge).

[1676]. Reimer, Women, 160.

[1677]. E.g., 2 Kgs 9:7, 36; see comment on Acts 3:13.

[1678]. E.g., 2 Sam 3:18; 7:5, 8, 19–21, 25–29; see comment on Acts 3:13.

[1679]. E.g., Exod 14:31; Num 12:7–8; see comment on Acts 3:13.

[1680]. E.g., Lev 25:42, 55; see comment on Acts 3:13.

[1681]. See, e.g., Martin, Slavery, xiv–xvi; comment on Acts 3:13.

[1682]. Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 224–25; Klauck, Magic, 68. Luke usually uses an article with ὁδός (Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 225).

[1683]. Klutz, Exorcism Stories, 263; Parsons, Acts, 231 (citing various texts).

[1684]. See Keener, John, 627–28, for pagan “savior” deities; Witherington, Acts, 821–43; Bruce, Acts¹, 316; see fuller comment on Acts 27:20.

[1685]. With Witherington, Acts, 494–95; one possibility in Green, “Acts,” 756.

[1686]. Spencer, Acts, 166; cf. idem, “Voice”; also separating this narrative from Luke 4 to a degree, emphasizing that the cause of Paul’s command was merely his annoyance, see Levison, Filled, 320–23. If the slave girl was a prophetess as in Acts 2:18, why not use δούλη as there, highlighting a verbal connection, instead of παιδίσκη (though, admittedly, Luke has changed Joel’s wording in 2:18 so that it refers to the Lord’s servants)?

[1687]. See Bar 4:7; 1 En. 19:1; Jub. 1:11; 22:17; further comment regarding Jewish and Christian views of pagan deities in the excursus on demons and spirit possession, above.

[1688]. Cf. Musonius Rufus, who “for women . . . claims the right to be judged by the same moral standards as men” (Lutz, “Musonius,” 30, citing Mus. Ruf. 12, pp. 86.38–88.4); Rev 2:14, 20. Luke provides other negative examples of women as well as of men (Acts 5:2, 5–10; 13:50).

[1689]. See also Johnson, Acts, 11, who emphasizes that this theme carries on the exorcisms of the Gospels.

[1690]. Spencer, Acts, 166.

[1691]. Kauppi, Gods, 28–29. Kauppi does acknowledge that it is a spirit being expelled (noting the parallel expulsion language) and that Luke’s Christian audience may have understood it negatively, yet he does not identify it as a demon.

[1692]. Demonization is linked especially with sicknesses in summaries (Acts 5:16), but more often it sounds as if, though linked as maladies, they were distinguishable (Luke 4:40–41; 6:18; 7:21; 9:1; 13:32; Acts 8:7; 19:12). In the Jesus tradition more generally, see the distinction in Eve, Miracles, 326 (also citing cross-cultural parallels [327–28]; but as noted below, some cultures often link them).

[1693]. We see it at the expulsion in Luke 4:35, as in 9:42, but this need not require us to read it into the demonization in 4:33.

[1694]. E.g., Luke 9:49; 10:17, 20; 11:20–26; Acts 19:13; although one cannot therefore infer its absence, the same could be claimed for Acts 16. In Luke 8:27–29, Luke omits Mark’s “gashing himself with stones.”

[1695]. Kauppi himself (Gods, 40–41) allows that as monotheists, the members of Luke’s Christian audience may have regarded this spirit negatively; he notes (38–40) that its claim appears more ambiguous than Christian prophecies in Acts.

[1696]. Matthews, “Elite Women,” 128–30; idem, Converts, 89–92, esp. here 89.

[1697]. Matthews, “Elite Women,” 133, contrasting Luke’s brief treatment of Philip’s daughters with the tradition in Euseb. H.E. 3.31 (which is much later!). Matthews also compares Luke’s silencing this woman with John’s silencing “Jezebel” in Rev 2:20–23, but this context silences “Jezebel” no more than it silences “Balaam”—a male prophet with the same message—before her (2:14).

[1698]. Supporting women’s ministry roles in Pauline churches, see, e.g., Keener, Paul, passim; on women’s roles being freer in churches in Rome and Macedonia, fitting those local cultures, see Keener, Paul, 243. Distribution may follow cultural patterns; in some traditional African societies, spirit possession characterizes women more often than men (Mbiti, Religions, 106); at least in my very limited experience of a different (Congolese) part of African culture, Christian women tend to prophesy somewhat more often than their male counterparts.

[1699]. See Keener, Acts, 1:597–638 (esp. 638), 882–85.

[1700]. Cf. myths about Cassandra, Daphne, and the Sibyl. Cf. the daphne on the tripod recalling Apollo’s love for Daphne (Aphth. Progymn. 5, “On Refutation,” 28S, 11R). At PGM 1.290–92, Betz cites several texts (the majority patristic) for the Pythia’s sexual union with Apollo (Betz, Magical Papyri, 1:10n53).

↑ Back to top