In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism among Early Christians (review)

With two previous historical works on Jesus as miracle worker and as exorcist, Graham Twelftree now extends his study up through the second-century church. This distinguished professor of New Testament at Regent University in Virginia explores the belief and practice of exorcism in the New Testament world before surveying patristic reception, enhancement, and practice. Although Adolph von Harnack declared that for early Christians, "exorcism formed one very powerful method of their mission and propaganda" (26), a divergence of sources shows a range of priorities placed on the theology and practice of reenacting Jesus' ministry of exorcism.

An important disclaimer on the scope and hazards of the study sets the historical tone for the work. "In order not to torture the [New Testament's] texts to say more than the authors intended" (31), Twelftree seeks assistance beyond the horizons of the canon to extend to the usage of NT writings in the second century. With a terminus ad quem at 200 C.E., he confines the study to a primarily Greek milieu of Christianity. Solely in view are writers that ultimately became incorporated into mainstream or orthodox Christianity, although he believes that any such study including second-century gnostic documents "would be little changed" (31).

The New Testament data that establishes Jesus as an exorcist are essential for understanding how Christians in the first two centuries would see themselves as exorcists. While the synoptic gospels highlight exorcism accounts, the subject receives little attention in the rest of the New Testament. Twelftree argues that the "battle [against Satan] is radically reinterpreted" by a theological change from exorcism as a direct spiritual conflict, shifting to Jesus' whole ministry being an indirect battle with Satan in an attendant worldview without exorcism (205).

Twelftree then proceeds to extract references to exorcism in the writings of apostolic fathers, the apologists, some liturgical manuscripts, the longer ending of Mark tradition, and the critics of Christianity. Backgrounds of writers helpfully establish a context for understanding a citation, but much conditioning seems wasted when the reader learns that no mention of exorcism occurs in a certain author, as in Clement of Rome, Didache, and Aristides. The infrequent references to exorcism in the sources limit the conclusion that Twelftree can comfortably draw. Still, he is able to extract some basic facts and patterns of exorcism beliefs and practices. Assessing an ancient writer's attention to miracles helps this researcher to create a category for closer scrutiny whether the tradition might allow for deliverance from demons.

The earliest second-century sources give little attention to exorcism, probably due to their interest in consolidating communities. The Antiochene tradition tended to merge demonization with false belief, as in the Didachist, Ignatius, and Theophilus. Renewed interest emerged in Roman circles, evidenced by attention to the demonic in the longer ending of Mark, Justin, Tatian, and Irenaeus. In particular, Justin makes exorcism the most important form of Christian healing and part of the proof of truth and superiority of the faith. Irenaeus lists "exorcism" atop a list of charismata, showing its importance as a gift "for the Gentiles' benefit," especially against the gnostics whom he accuses of actually transferring demons to others in exorcism. While works like the Apostolic Tradition evidence the exercise as if it were a mainstream practice, the small attention it receives among other Christian authors, as well as the critics Celsus, Galen, and Lucian, suggests otherwise. Twelftree concludes, "Christianity had not made sufficient impact in terms of its miracles, including exorcism, to warrant their mention" (276).

Several theological trends emerge within early Christianity. Exorcism was unequivocally viewed as part of the larger theater of the divine versus evil. Efficacy lay in the power of Christ transferred to his disciples, so that any words or incantations were incidental to the larger confrontation between Jesus and the demon that the exorcist brought about. Extreme brevity in exorcism techniques reflects the early church's sense of reliance on Jesus' power-authority...