Jesus the Jew. Geza Vermes
or ‘the carpenter’s son’,11 could have acquired such great wisdom. Was he a carpenter himself, or was he only the son of a carpenter? The confused state of the Greek text of the Gospels usually indicates either (a) a doctrinal difficulty thought by some to demand rewording; or (b) the existence of a linguistic problem in the expression in Hellenistic terms of something typically Jewish. Here the second alternative applies. The congregation in the synagogue voices astonishment.
‘Where does he get it from?’ ‘What wisdom is this . . . ?’
‘Is not this the carpenter/the son of the carpenter . . . ?’12
Now those familiar with the language spoken by Jesus are acquainted with a metaphorical use of ‘carpenter’ and ‘carpenter’s son’ in ancient Jewish writings.13 In Talmudic sayings the Aramaic noun denoting carpenter or craftsman (naggar) stands for a ‘scholar’ or ‘learned man’.
This is something that no carpenter, son of carpenters, can explain.14
There is no carpenter, nor a carpenter’s son, to explain it.15
Thus, although no one can be absolutely sure that the sayings cited in the Talmud were current already in first-century AD Galilee, proverbs such as these are likely to be age-old. If so, it is possible that the charming picture of ‘Jesus the carpenter’ may have to be buried and forgotten.16
Jesus the Exorcist
Whatever he did to earn a living before he entered public life, the New Testament record leaves no room for doubt that during his ministry Jesus practised no secular profession but devoted himself exclusively to religious activities. The Synoptists are unanimous in presenting him as an exorcist, healer and teacher. They also emphasize that the deepest impression made by Jesus on his contemporaries resulted from his mastery over devils and disease, and the magnetic power of his preaching. He is claimed to have once defined his mission in the following words:
‘Today and tomorrow I shall be casting out devils and working cures; on the third day I reach my goal.’17
In Galilee, such was definitely his main occupation.
They brought to him all who were ill or possessed by devils . . . He healed many who suffered from various diseases, and drove out many devils.18
So all through Galilee he went . . . casting out the devils.19
In addition to these summary references, the Synoptists list six particular episodes involving exorcism. Four of them, the only ones to appear in Mark, describe as demonic possession what seems to have been mental or nervous illness. The Gerasene demoniac was a dangerous madman who walked about naked, repeatedly wounded himself, and had to be kept on a chain.20 The boy whose devil the disciples were unable to cast out was an epileptic and possibly a deaf-mute.21 The man exorcised in the synagogue of Capernaum shrieked and was seized by convulsions.22 More vaguely, the daughter of the Tyrian woman was tormented whilst possessed, but lay peacefully on her bed after her unclean spirit had been expelled.23
In two other instances, unrecorded in Mark and possibly a double narration of the same story, possession is seen as the cause of dumbness, or of dumbness and blindness combined.24 The twelve apostles of Jesus,25 as well as his seventy (or seventy-two) disciples, are also portrayed as generally successful exorcists,26 and to John’s great indignation, even a non-disciple was once seen to cast out devils in the name of Jesus.27
Contrary to Jewish folk medicine,28 the Gospels know nothing of a ritual of exorcism. The actual expulsion is described four times and, with the exception of the one effected in absentia by a mere declaration,29 always follows a direct command:
‘Be silent!’30
‘Out, unclean spirit, come out of this man!’31
‘Deaf and dumb spirit, I command you, come out of him and never go back!’32
The last example is the only instance in which the devil is ordered to stay away permanently and not to return when its desert exile becomes too unbearable.33 Does this imply that in the other cases, to employ contemporary psychiatric jargon, there was merely a temporary remission? It ought to be mentioned at this juncture that the psychiatrist whom I have consulted on the question whether most of the diseases exorcised or healed in the New Testament could be recognized as hysterical, after giving a qualified affirmative reply, wished to know the success rate of the treatment and the state of health of the patients six months after discharge!
The story of the demon called ‘Legion’ who sought to bargain with Jesus and obtained a comparatively light sentence (a transfer into the local herd of pigs) may sound extraordinary, but is not unparalleled in ancient Jewish literature, as will appear later.34 Another curious Gospel feature deserves to be pinpointed here: the excellence of the demonic intelligence service.35 In the temptation story, Satan challenges Jesus to prove that he is ‘the son of God’;36 his underlings are afraid of Jesus, knowing that he is ‘the holy one of God’,37 ‘the son of God’38 and the ‘son of the Most High’.39
Jesus the Healer
It is not always easy to draw the line between exorcism and healing in the Gospels, but for practical purposes the most reliable distinguishing factor appears to be the treatment adopted by Jesus in dealing with his patients. Exorcism is always effected by word of mouth alone, but with the exception of the verbal healing of a paralytic,40 physical cures entail the performance of a rudimentary or occasionally complex rite.
Not counting allusions to mass healing in Capernaum,41 by the lake-side,42 and throughout Galilee, where people ‘scoured that whole country-side and brought the sick on stretchers to any place where he was reported to be’, and in ‘farmsteads, villages, or towns’, where ‘they laid out the sick in the market-places’;43 leaving aside, also, the interesting remark that despite the unbelief of Nazareth, he still performed a few cures there,44 the Gospels contain twelve particular healing narratives (some of them, however, thought to be duplicates).
Arranged according to illnesses, three refer to cures from blindness,45 two from leprosy,46 one each from fever,47 haemorrhage,48 a withered arm,49 deaf-muteness,50 paralysis,51 lameness52 and dropsy.53
In most cases the Gospels attest that there was some kind of bodily contact between the healer and the sick. Jesus practised the laying on of hands in Nazareth;54 he did the same with the cripple woman;55 he held Simon’s mother-in-law by the hands;56 he touched the leper57 and the blind men,58 and was touched by many sick persons59 and by the woman suffering from haemorrhage.60 In the last case, Jesus is said to have been aware that ‘power had gone out of him’.61
In two accounts a ritual is performed privately. In the first, Jesus puts his finger into the ears of a deaf-mute, touches his tongue with saliva and gives the command, ‘Be opened!’62 In the second, the blind man from Bethsaida is cured after Jesus has spat into his eyes and laid his hand on him twice.63
It is not said how the man with dropsy was healed, or the ten lepers64 – whether by means of contact or without it – but three instances are described in which a cure was performed without any exchange of touch between Jesus and the patient. In two of these the miracle is attributed to faith, namely in the healing of the blind beggar from Jericho65 and that of the servant of the centurion from Capernaum.66 In the second case, contact was physically impossible since the sick man lay paralysed in his home.
The method of healing by command alone – ‘Stretch out your arm!’ – is noteworthy since this is the only cure placed by the unanimous Synoptic tradition on a Sabbath day.67 Speech could not be construed as ‘work’ infringing the law governing the