Amongst the miracles of Jesus, exorcisms appear as the most frequent. In several stories prey of possessions, after rebuking a demon, are said to be healed, as “having a demon” in evangelists’ narrations is often affined to various complaints (e.g. muteness or epilepsy). However, the question I once asked myself concerned unnamed demons with which the New Testamentary world seems to be full[1]. What they are, or more precisely, what were they for the authors of the New Testament [NT]? Are demons other manifestations of Satan? Whom did they attack and why? These questions made me start the research which results I will present in the given paper.  

The structure of the article is as follows: firstly, I will explain the methodology and premises of the project of which this study is part. The next paragraphs aim to sketch the character of exorcisms in the Gospels and comment on it in relation to the received numerical data, then focus on the thing that turned out as the most questionable, which is the nature of supernatural entities [SE]. In the last part, I will summarize the received material and consider the proposal for further research as well as share my own intuition of interpretation of the Gospel’s exorcisms.

Methodology

The study is framed in the Elyonim veTachtonim [EvT] project[2] which is a system of quantitative and qualitative analysis of the traditions involving supernatural entities. The project was started in 2016 and originally focused on the traditions in the Babylonian Talmud and the Hebrew Bible [HB]. The EvT is based on the basic premises of the cognitive science of religion and cognitive linguistics and deploys formal analysis methods and the digital humanities[3]. The main tool of the EvT is the database maintained in the Excel spreadsheet file containing textual units transmitting the traditions about the specific SEs from the examined corpus. The EvT system operates with the tag ontology containing indexes pertaining to different categories, such as SEs’ attitude, type, or literary genre, and these are used to annotate every single tradition about the SEs. All of that allows us to recover numerical data and as a result to read and interpret them from both quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Currently, I am structuring the database for each SE commonly relating to Satan of the NT (e.g. the devil, Beelzebul, evil one, etc.), and at this point, I work on the customization of the categories so as to make them the most helpful and suitable to the research profile. 

The said database is my main project from which the presented here study is derived. I made use of the EvT system towards analyzing the exorcisms of Jesus described in the canonical Gospels of the NT. My main purpose was to collect each passage of the NT that contains a description of Jesus curing a person being possessed by a demon and survey the way in which evangelists wrote about such happenings. The passages are understood as the basic building blocks for the later calculations. Said acts of curing are widely known as Jesus’ exorcisms. According to this, my understanding of an exorcism is a situation in which one person casts a SE out of the other person’s body. Thus, an event in which one is fighting or struggling with a given SE on their own will not be counted as an exorcism because there is no mention of possession which is the crucial element for the definition I apply in this study[4]. The definition of exorcisms was designed in the vein of the theory of family resemblance and the theory of the prototype[5]. I decided to apply such a definition as the stories classified to the analysis have some common elements and disagreements which were substantial for the results. To search passages for the analysis I was using some keywords and phrases I have affixed to the Exorcisms’ Complex [EC] which allows me to ease forming the research field. Thus, with this understanding of possession present in the NT, in the Gospels there are 19 accounts I found suitable for this phasis of the study. 

By the term “suitable” I mean paragraphs describing evident situations in which Jesus banishes individual SEs away, and by “demonic possessions” I mean every single event in which someone is accused of (1) being under the evil spirit’s power, (2) suspected by others to have an evil spirit, or when (3) one is claiming that they have an evil spirit inside of them. Moreover, I highlighted Jesus’ figure not without a reason. The fundamental books of the NT for this study were unquestionably the Gospels which assumedly describe the life, activity, and death of Jesus. Besides that, they are the main source of exorcism stories in the NT – apparently, except for them the only clear mention of exorcising appears in Acts 16,16–21, yet still its course appears differently against those known from the Gospels[6], therefore it seems like exorcising was specifically Jesus’ domain. 

Coming back to the operationalization of the EC, besides categories already present in the EvT, for the sake of this research, I have added several new categories which pertain to exorcisms and aim for a more complete description of each unit. The choice of topics was compiled on the basis of my interpretation of exorcism and its characteristic features which I wanted to point out: 

• entity – a SE recognized in a given paragraph and its name in the Greek text, e.g. the terms pneuma or daimonion figuring in the Greek text of the NT as ones of the most common SE being responsible for possessions (e.g. pneuma in Matt. 8,16; daimonion Luke 11,14);

• prey – a person possessed by a SE [new][7]. The tags signalize prey’s sex, if it is mentioned (#man and #female), or use #people when the text unit mentions a group of people (e.g. man with an unclean spirit in Mark 1,23; many possessed in Matt. 8,16);

• sickness – a medical consequence of being possessed by a SE [new]. #epilepsy is labeled in the case of an epileptic boy, portrayed as being possessed in Luke 9,37–40 and Matt. 17,14–18 or #possession is used when symptoms are not specified (e.g. a possessed man in the synagogue in Mark 1,21–28); 

• method – a technique or formula used by Jesus to banish a SE [new]. #healing is used e.g. in the case of a healed woman in Matt. 15,28 or #legein (from the Greek verb legein meaning “to say” or “to speak”) is used e.g. when a demon is rebuked by Jesus’ words in Mark 5,8)[8];

• topic – a general classification of a SE by the EvT tags’ list[9]. Thus, e.g. #habitation describes a space or a place of SE’s presence (“#habitation: body” is used when a SE possesses and exists in the prey’s body, e.g. demon leaving the boy’s body in Matt. 17,18) or #antagonism describes various negative attitudes of SEs against people (“#antagonism: control” is used when a SE takes control over prey’s behavior, e.g. an uncontrollable behavior of a possessed caused by demons in Luke 8, 26–29). 

The choice of keywords was stated after the close reading of the most popular and somehow prototypical units recounting the New Testamentary practices of casting demons away. From the viewpoint of my study, the fundamental stories were those about Jesus being accused of “having a Beelzebub” (Matt. 12,22–29; Mark 3,22–30; Luke 11,14–20) and about the demon Legion (Matt. 8,28–33; Mark 5,1–19; Luke 8,26–39). The close reading method enabled me to extract the words and phrases such as “evil spirit(s)”, “unclean spirit(s)”, “demon(s)” or “possessed with/by”. Based on those two accounts, I found all text units in the NT that feature them and were suitable to the model and context of the EC. In order to find them I was examining already existing studies on the subject (such as Having the Spirit of Christ by G. B. Bazzana), then I was verifying each story using the keywords I listed above. After that, I searched through the English version of the translation of the NT (online World English Bible) to make sure nothing is missing. As the text units present in the database are in English (following WEB translation), the crucial part of the research was to examine each of them against the Greek iteration[10]. Thus, after analyzing each unit I was able to check if there are any missing fragments that might be not visible in the English translation of the NT. In fact, having the Greek terms specified, I could detect if there are any characteristic tendencies present among authors of the NT in using individual words or phrases. 

Possessions in the Gospels

Amongst the four canonical Gospels there are various differences, even though, theoretically, each of them gives an account of the life of Jesus. However, three of them, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, exhibit an agreement between the general trajectory of events. These three relations are called the Synoptic Gospels, from the Greek word synoptikos which can be understood as “seeing the whole together” or “taking a comprehensive view”. The problem with divergences in the Synoptic Gospels has been attempted to be solved with the method of harmonization which assumes that the authors were describing different (yet similar) events or simply different aspects of the same one. Nowadays this approach is treated skeptically[11]. However, if one accepts this theory, exorcisms cases seem to be surprisingly significant for Synoptics. Finally, there is the Gospel of John which is separated from the already mentioned Gospels due to its outstanding narrative character and its author’s strong focus on the divine nature of Jesus[12]. In the results of my research, its disparateness will be evident as well, as it is the Gospel of John that does not mention casting demons away by Jesus at all, but, ironically, the only one being accused of having an evil spirit is Jesus himself.

With those several general remarks on the Gospels, I will gradually develop them with regard to the tables with the received numerical data. All tables show the results of my attempts to figure out if there is any tendency of the demonic possessions cases, including various factors of the EC. Numbers refer to the individual passages (text units) mentioning SEs. 

The first two SEs, daimonion[13] and pneuma, are the Greek words for “demon” and spirit”[14] present in English translation. Diabolos, translated as the “devil”, is, in fact, a Greek counterpart for the Hebrew satan – “Satan”. Interestingly enough, there is also a transliteration of satan, Satanas[15]. The last SE is Beelzebul[16], the Greek version of the name Beelzebub.  

The first visible thing is that there is an obvious difference in numbers between the Synoptic Gospels and John. As Synoptics generally seem to address the possessions problem correspondingly in John there are only three problematic mentions of having a daimonion and in each of them, it is Jesus who had to have them (7,20; 8,52; 10,20). Most of the stories present in the Synoptic Gospels are possible to find in at least two of them and they occur in the corpus as follows:

• Jesus heals those who are sick and possessed in Galilee (Matt. 4,23–25).

• Jesus heals Peter’s wife’s mother and then helps the sick and those who are possessed with demons (Matt. 8,14–17; Mark 1,29–39).

• Jesus casts away a demon (Legion) and sends it into the herd of pigs (Matt. 8,28–33; Mark 5,1–19; Luke 8,26–39).

• Jesus heals the blind and the deaf-mute (Matt. 9,27–33).

• The Pharisees accuse Jesus of having Beelzebul (Matt. 12,22–29; Mark 3,22–30; Luke 11,14–20).

• Jesus heals a daughter of the Canaanite woman (Matt. 15,21 – 28; Mark 7,24–30).

• Jesus heals an epileptic boy (Matt. 17,14–21; Mark 9,14–29; Luke 9,37–42).

• Jesus casts away a demon on the Sabbath day (Mark 1, 21–28; Luke 13,10–17).

• Jesus casts demons away from Mary Magdalene (Mark 16,9–11; Luke 8,1–3).

There are three stories that are present in each of the Synoptic Gospels: the one about casting out Legion (Legion’s case), the one in which Pharisees accuse Jesus of having a Beelzebul and collaborating with him (Beelzebul’s case), and the one in which Jesus heals an epileptic boy (epileptic boy’s case). However, there are some distinctions between them and in this part I will shortly discuss each of them. 

The first thing that should be explained about these three paragraphs is why the part from Matthew is included while it is the only one in which the demons’ name is not mentioned, although the text described them in a similar way to accounts’ of Mark and Luke: demons are many. The second thing is that the author of Matthewwrites about two possessed men, not one as the authors’ of another two Gospels did[17]. Finally, the description of the story in Matthew is much more detailed in general, while the narrations visible in Mark and Luke are rather compatible. Interestingly enough, the Gospels of Mark and Luke seem to be not consistent about the demon’s strength: Mark 5,2 says about a man who is possessed with an unclean spirit, pneuma akatharton, while in Mark 5,13 text says about the unclean spirits, pneumata akatharta, coming into the pigs. The even more thought-provoking situation is observed in Luke: in Luke 8,26 Jesus is commanding the unclean spirit, pneuma akatharton, but in Luke 8,33 we read about demons, daimonia, leaving the man’s body and going into the pigs. What is more, SEs in every version of this story are acting like they knew Jesus and were afraid of him. Then they are asking them for the opportunity for sending into the pigs even before Jesus says anything.  

The next story is Beelzebul’s case which is dense with the various SEs in each of the Gospel’s narrations. All three accounts speak about Jesus being accused by the Pharisees of having Beelzebul (Mark 3,22) or casting demons out with the help of Beelzebul (Matt. 12,24). Each of them also includes Jesus’ speech about a kingdom divided against itself and it seems to be a parallel reference to Satan being against himself[18]. The speech is Jesus’ response to the Pharisees’ accusation of his union with Beelzebul. However, reading carefully enough, Jesus does not deny the accusation explicitly. In fact, he only confronts it with an anecdotal statement that does not give a clear rejection of the Pharisees’ words but leaves the recipients of the text, as well as the observers present in the biblical narration, with the questions without answers. 

The last case I would like to comment on is the story of the healing of an epileptic boy. Each of the three units describes a boy as someone who suffers due to convulsions, however, despite the authors of the cited Gospels mentioning the SEs as an element of the boy’s illness, in every one of them the occurring SE or SEs are different. Followingly, in Matthew, one can read it is the demon that is rebuked by Jesus (17,18) and soon after it the boy is healed, albeit the fact that the boy’s father does not mention any supernatural force while describing what is happening to his child. Mark, in the beginning, mentions “a mute spirit” (pneuma alalon) as something that attacks a boy (9,17), but the SE which is rebuked by Jesus is the “deaf and mute spirit” (alalon kai kofon pneuma) called by him simply “the unclean spirit” (pneuma akatharton). Finally, in Luke, it is a spirit (pneuma) that possesses a boy (9,39), the demon (daimonion) that convulses him (9,42), and the unclean spirit (pneuma akatharton) that is rebuked by Jesus (further 9,42).

The lack of consequence in the use of each of these terms may lead to one of the founding questions of this research: how can we understand the problem of possessions described in such diverse ways? And the next problem is if these terms were for the authors somehow synonyms, shall we devote our attention? Farther afield, the symptoms of the boy’s afflictions are more-less similar in each description, however interesting is the fact of why does the boy’s father come to Jesus – because his disciples were not able to help in healing his son. Then all three paragraphs give the portrayal of Jesus faulting his disciples for being the faithless generation and then explain that the crucial part of the healing’s efficacy is essentially the faith. The resembling situation was present in the Legion’s case in which I have pointed out variances in operating SEs’ names as well as there were some incoherences in the general narration (such as two prey in Matthew and only one in Mark and Luke). Still, the one thing that is the same in each of them is a SE (or SEs) being effortlessly rebuked by Jesus.

Who’s to blame?

As we already have observed, there are some incoherences among the stories present in each Synoptic Gospel: there are differences in the prey’s description, in the focus on details, and symptoms of the affliction, but the most significant for this paper are the differences concerning SEs which had to be responsible for human’s suffering – at least in the analyzed units. Below I present the table counting the number of occurrences of every SE that was mentioned in the paragraphs from the EC and then, give a short biography of each. After that, I will attempt to give legitimacy to their presence in the context of possessions in the Gospels. 

As I have shown, the SEs’ case in EC seems to be confusing as their names look like they were used synonymously or – if not – as the authors did not pay much attention to which term they used (i.e. already mentioned variations of pneuma or daimonion). Tab. 5. shows the total number of each SE that appears in units included in the EC[19]. 

#daimon 

The term daimonion, rarely daimon, is what stands behind the present in the English translation word “demon”, at least in the paragraphs focusing on the so-called demonic possessions in the NT. However, against the whole NT, the term seems to be popular primarily for the Gospels, as there are only several units that mention it[20]. 

The usage of the term daimonion seems to be compelling for some reasons, but probably the most significant one relates to its complexity and evolution in Greek thought. As the most common understanding of a daimonion is a “divine power” or “deity” ( a SE being lower in the hierarchy than “god”, theos), it was also translated as the individual’s lot or fortune. They are often described as mediators between the worlds of humans and gods[21]. Thus, it were daimones whose role was to help or protect people and bring their prayers to gods, but it were also the daimones who brought illnesses – but only on gods’ command[22]. As the description of daimones’ nature appears as a borderless field, the crucial conclusion should be that they were not unambiguous good or bad. Whereas in the context of the NT, the term daimonion is used only in the negative sense and, interestingly enough, used to describe an active and personified evil force disturbing individuals primarily in the Gospels during the times Jesus is among people. Nonetheless, a similar idea of such understanding of the term daimonion is present in the Septuagint which uses it to replace various terms identified as SEs and having the relatedness with idolatry[23].

#pneuma

Pneuma is not the less complicated term to define due to its fundamental role not only against the language of the NT and Septuagint but as well in Greek philosophical thought. The vital understanding of the term is simply “breath” or “air” as the word itself is a derivate from the verb pneo which may mean “to breathe” or “to blow”. As for this research, the most significant meanings are those that have religious connotations, it is crucial to point out that against the NT, pneuma somehow has two sides: the godly one as it is the term that is related to the divine power, commonly known as the spirit of God (pneuma theos), and the holy spirit (pneuma hagion) and the demonic one as it is also pneuma (already mentioned pneuma poneros for “evil spirit” and pneuma akatharton for “unclean spirit”) being the force that possesses people. The tradition also applies pneuma in the Septuagint as the term treated like a countertype of the Hebrew word ruach[24] (e.g. Gen 1,2 or Exo 31,3 mention ruach elohim which was translated into Greek as pneuma theos). 

In fact, the diversity in usage of pneuma in the NT and Septuagint seems to be even more complex than the problem of the previously presented daimonion. Inasmuch as daimonion was associated only with the negative sense by the New Testamentary authors, pneuma was applied to both good and evil activities, like it was pictured as the divine force foreshadowing a kingdom of God (Matt. 12,28). It was also the SE that Jesus banished out of the man from the tombs (Mark 5,8). New Testamentary units do not, in fact, reveal how exactly evil beings attack humans or if they were sent by some higher and stronger SE than them unlike as is the case in the BH[25]. 

#beelzebul 

Beelzebul is the Greek form of the name Beelzebub (developed below) and is for sure another interesting SE that can be found in the Gospels’ SE relations – and at the same time, one can find him only in the Gospels when it comes to the NT in general. Besides the already mentioned pericope of Pharisees accusing Jesus of being in league with Beelzebul present in all three Synoptics’ accounts, there is one more unit in which his name appears and it is in the Gospel of Matthew when Jesus gives his speech to the already chosen twelve apostles, he uses an allegory in which he compares the master of the house, whose is him, to Beelzebul (Matt. 10,25). 

In the Hebrew Bible, Beelzebul is rather a rare character as well as he is mentioned only four times (2 Kings 1,2–3; 1,6; 1,16[26]). By his name, it is clear that he should be perceived as the Semitic god as the Ugaritic word Baal is translated as “lord” and zebub is the plural noun for “flies”, which allows to read Beelzebul’s name as the “lord of flies”, associated as a god of cures and diseases, what may be a bit ironic or suggestive if considered units in which he is mentioned in the NT[27]. In the units analyzed in this research, Beelzebul may seem to be identified as the “prince of demons” (archonti ton daimonion)[28] that is mentioned by Synoptics, and this as a further result is presumably marking him as one of the most popular SE of the later Christian demonology[29].

#satanas 

Satan’s role in the EC seems to be rather vestigial: his name is mentioned only in the Synoptics’ accounts of the story of Jesus and the Pharisees’ accusation against him, so the story that is dominated by Beelzebul[30]. It is Jesus who mentions Satan in his response to the Pharisees. It feels to be important to emphasize that Satan is not portrayed as an active force or character but rather as Jesus’ anecdotal example, whereas daimones and pneumata are described as the substantial force that may cause the real damages: they are said to be rebuked by Jesus and cause some real injuries to people. In turn, a similar situation is with Beelzebul that had to be the SE that possesses Jesus himself and gives him the power to cast pneumata and daimones. It is true that it is Satan who is known as the greatest antagonist of the NT and the greatest opponent of god and Jesus, yet it must be emphasized that he is not the one who is present in any of the New Testamentary pericopes that give accounts of the demonic possessions. Thus, against the NT, originated in the nonmonochromatic cultural and religious environment, Satan might be understood in the wider context as well. As E. Pagels suggested, Satan may be found as an allegory of the numerous antagonized Jewish communities which, as there is every indication, simply demonized each other for having diverse sets of beliefs[31]. Thus, it may seem that term “Satan” should be read not only as an evil SE but item as a common insult (Matt. 16,23). 

Following this assumption, one can conclude that the New Testamentary Satan is, in turn, the term describing everyone’s attitude identified against God. Greek diabolos, then is the local counterpart but had not had such a strong tradition as the Hebrew, so foreign, and if foreign, then often evil, term. Therefore maybe the reason why Jesus uses the example of Satan is simple: after being accused of being in league with the foreign SE, he also answered back with the foreign SE, presented as the ruler of the kingdom opposed to God’s one, as well. 

At the end of the number analysis, there are two tables showing the general relationships between daimonionand pneuma, prey, and afflictions in the units of the EC. I believe it is interesting to emphasize there is no sharp difference in SEs’ malignance. Yet still, daimonion is mentioned a bit more often in relation to any condition. It also seems to be much more harmful (tab. 7) and it looks like it were men who were more liable for demonic possessions. 

Conclusions and discussion

All units included in the EC are more or less focused on the suffering of the prey which sometimes is described similarly to a regular illness and sometimes the authors omitted physical symptoms, rather emphasizing the prey’s subjection to an evil being. It has been already said that the term daimonion appears as a counterpart of various Hebrew words that refer to foreign cults and idolatry in the HB. On the other hand, daimones original nature might resemble the nature of SEs later known as angeloi (“angels” or more precisely: “messengers”). Daimones, in turn, in the NT are pictured only as the nameless evil demons, even not the “false gods” and by that their meaning seems to be degraded. Inasmuch as the koine Greek was a lingua franca of the Mediterranean region, what can be observed in the text of the NT is an effect of changes occurring in the language due to various Semitic influences. Yet in fact, this explanation is only a pointing out a much broader and fundamental problem of the New Testamentary linguistic studies, as A. Deissmann had written “not every scholar means the same by koine”[32]. One should always remember that it is impossible to talk about language out of its historical context and koine Greek could not be free from its previous Attic variant, as well as from the impact of the local dialects[33]. It cast a different light on understanding and thinking about former cults, religions, and the perception of the world by the ancients which always is related to the language and the case of the rising Christianity is not an exception. 

The research on possessions also may give a clue what is exactly happening with prey. As long as it is clear that the Gospels take their place during the time of Roman dominance, it is not that obvious to think of the general life circumstances in the NT context. Having in mind the fact that prey were regular citizens of Judea living under Roman occupation, one can assume that the reality they lived in was favorable to evince symptoms of behavior that can, as a result, be interpreted as a sort of possession or mental illness. This theory is not new, yet seems not to be this plain in relation to possessions present in the Gospels. Be that as it may, there are many reasons why people might have started to behave like they were possessed[34]: those actions probably were anything but acts of rebellion, attempts of abreaction, or simply defending oneself from the difficult reality. It is not groundbreaking to claim that colonization may lead at some point to feeling like losing own identity and to personality dissociation afterward[35]. According to those geopolitical circumstances, it may be understandable why the men were a larger group being called the possessed ones. Following the propositions given by Hollenbach during a war or any kind of political conflict, men might be more physically devastated due to the various revolutionary activities. Thus, it was an easy way to various cause mental issues. Additionally, a pathological atmosphere was responsible not only for the psychical problems but also for poor physical condition[36] related to both women[37] and men.  

When Jesus casts away daimones, the omnipresent Greek SEs, which in the New Testamentary narrations are always responsible for people’s sufferings, it becomes more visible that it is primarily the Greek language that is being exorcised[38]. If considering the NT through the prism of its literariness, the conclusion seems to be, indeed, apparent: the foreign cults and pagan practices were guilty and responsible for humans’ agony. Therefore it was – in some way – a necessity for someone who would bring the solution to appear in the world, and this figure was Jesus whose mission was to emancipate the people of Judea from foreign occupation in any way and uplift them in the undoubtedly tough times for living. If one looks at the exorcism stories closely, it becomes more visible that reading them only through the prism of manifesting Jesus’ superpowers is not the sole possible interpretation. The Legion’s case already has its tradition of being read in the vein of political satire against Roman dominance[39]) where the demon’s (or demons’) name is a direct reference to the Roman army and the motive of pigs sinking in the waters may recall the flood foreshadowing the covenant (Gen. 6–8). 

In the end, the case of demonic possessions in the Gospels against the presented in this paper’s study may acknowledge at least several things. Firstly, it is not Satan who is responsible for attacking people, but groups of SEs figuring in the NT as demons, unclean spirits, and evil spirits which seem to be not distinguished by the authors. Secondly, Greek names of given SEs (daimones, pneuma) refer to the meaningful SEs from the Greek tradition. Thirdly, various relevancies with the political issues may be treated as a suggestion to read stories from EC like they were metaphors. Certainly, the significant role in these interpretations belongs to Septuagint’s use of Greek and how it determined the language of the NT and early Christianity in general[40] (Frieden 1990, 45). The power of the language seems to be visible also in Beelzebul’s case when the Pharisees accused Jesus, who is technically a new god or a new embodiment of the god of Hebrews, of being in league with the foreign – ergo false – deity. Thus, from this perspective, the identification of possessions with regular illnesses may be not satisfying enough. Healings made by Jesus in the EC’s stories are connected with the religious-cultural sphere, or simply: the identity sphere, rather than just the physical one. Jesus’ fight with the New Testamentary demons is in fact the fight with the Greek deities, guardians, and all-pervading the Greek world’s forces. Therefore, maybe all those pericopes should be understood as Jesus’ attempt to heal the world of the NT from the false gods and faiths.   

Bibliography 

Bazzana G. B. , Having the Spirit of Christ, New Haven and London 2020.

Best E., The Use and Non-Use of Pneuma by Josephus, “Novum Testamentum”, Oct., 1959, Vol. 3, Fasc. 3.

Burkert W., Greek Religion, trans. J. Raffan, New Jersey/Harvard 1985.

Blount B. K. , Charles G. W., Preaching Mark in Two Voices, Westminister 2002.

Brayshaw J. R., Imagine There’s No Satan, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform 2010.

Deissmann A., Hellenistic Greek with Special Consideration of the Greek Bible, in: The Language of the New Testament, ed. S. E. Porter, Sheffield 1991.

Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, eds. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, P. W. van der Horst, Grand Rapids/Cambridge 1999.

Elior R., Dybbuks and Jewish Women in Social History, Mysticism and Folklore, trans. J. Linsider, Jerusalem, New York 2008.

Fanon F., The Wretched of the Earth, trans. C. Farrington, New York 1963. 

Frieden K., The Language of Demonic Possession: A Key-Word Analysis, in: The Daemonic Imagination. Biblical Text and Secular Story, eds. Detweiler R., Doty W. G., Atlanta 1990.

Gasparro G. S., Daimonic Power, in: The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek Religion, Oxford 2016. 

Greenbaum D. G., Porphyry of Tyre on the Daimon, Birth and the Stars, in: Neoplatonic Demons and Angels, eds. Brisson L., O’Neill S., Timotin A., Leiden/Boston 2018. 

Hollenbach P. W., Jesus, Demoniacs, and Public Authorities: A Socio-Historical Study, „Journal of the American Academy of Religion” 1981, vol. 49, no. 4.

Hurtado L. W., How on Earth did Jesus Become a God?, Grand Rapids/Cambridge 2005.

Keener C. S., A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids/Cambridge 1999.

Kosior W., Elyonim veTachtonim. Some Methodological Considerations on the Electronic Database of Angels, Demons and Ghosts in Early Rabbinic Literature, „The Polish Journal of the Arts and Culture. New Series” 2017, vol. 5, no. 1.

Kosior W., The Application of Digital Humanities in Intercultural Studies on the Example of the Project Elyonim veTachtonim, in: Badania myśli pozaeuropejskiej w Polsce: tradycje – stany rzeczy – projekty, ed. A. Czajka, Warszawa 2022.

Kosior W., “Six Things Are Said Concerning Demons” (Hagigah 16a). The System of Topic Tags Used in the Elyonim veTachtonim Inventory to Describe the Features of Supernatural Entities and Their Relationships with Humans, “The Polish Journal of the Arts and Culture. New Series” 2021, vol. 13, no. 1.

Klutz T., Beelzebub, Beelzebul. II. New Testament, „The Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception”, vol. 3, Berlin 2011.

Lewis I. M., Ecstatic Religions, London 2003.

Lütticke L., Weidemann H. U., "He himself was tempted” (Hebr 2:18) The temptation of Jesus in the New Testament, in: Impeccability and Temptation, eds. Grössl J., von Stosch K., London 2021. 

Martin D. B., When Did Angels Become Demons?, “Journal of Biblical Literature" 2010, Vol. 129, No. 4.

Mobley G., Wray T. J., The Birth of Satan, New York 2005. 

Pagels E., The Origin of Satan, New York 1995.

Penney D. L. , Wise M. O., By the Power of Beelzebub: An Aramaic Incantation Formula from Qumran (4Q560), “Journal of Biblical Literature” 1994, Vol. 113, No. 4.

Pawłowski T., Tworzenie pojęć i definiowanie w naukach humanistycznych, Warszawa 1978. 

Porter S. E. , Dyer B. R., The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction to Its Key Terms, Concepts, Figures, and Hypotheses, in: The Synoptic Problem. Four Views, Grand Rapids 2016. 

Rosch E., Mervis C. B., Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories, “Cognitive Psychology” 1975, no. 7.

ABSTRACT

The given paper focuses on Jesus’ exorcisms described in the Synoptic Gospels. It aims to present the results of the research whose main interest concerns supernatural entities being frequently related to demonic possessions. The study framed in the Elyonim veTachtonim Project, the system of quantitative and qualitative analysis of the traditions involving supernatural entities, applies the premises of the digital humanities and cognitive sciences. The chosen method gave an opportunity to examine New Testamentary paragraphs mentioning exorcising by using received numerical data. Besides that, the selected units were analyzed against their linguistic and cultural context which seems to be crucial for biblical studies. The paper is segmented and each section followingly focuses on methodology with its explanation and data analyses with a comment. In the end, there is a segment dedicated to the general conclusions and possible further research on the topic of the New Testamentary exorcisms.  

KEY WORDS

exorcism,  Christian demonology, Synoptic Gospels, New Testament, evil spirits