Tuesday, December 13, 2022

Christopher B. Zeichmann on "Legion" and Mark 5

  

Mark is not alone in using military language to refer to the demonic. Unholy forces are described militarily in other texts of the Second Temple period, such as the kittim of the Dead Sea Scrolls’ War Scroll and the watchers of 1 Enoch. The impulse to read these as inherently anti-occupation must be tempered with the observation that holy supernatural beings are often described similarly in early Christian and Second Temple Jewish literature. The reference to the twelve legions of angels at Jesus’ command (Matt. 26:53) and the heavenly host praising God (Luke 2:13-15) are hardly exceptional, since angels were regularly described in such terms by Second Temple Jewish authors. Not only do Michael and other angels perform military functions in numerous texts (e.g., War Scroll; 1 En.; Sib. Or. 2.214-237; LAE 40; 3 Bar. 4:7), but military terminology is regularly used to describe the hierarchal organization of angels. (Aleksander R. Michalak, Angels as Warriors in -Late Second Temple Jewish Literature WUNT [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012], passim, esp. 86-98) For instance, God commands the angels to “gather before him, each according to his rank” in LAE 38.2. Philo assumes angels are organized into military ranks (Conf. 34.174), and the same can be said of various texts from Qumran (e.g., 4Q405, 4Q503). Arnal and McCutcheon suggest that “the fading presence of God in the early gospel literature must simply reflect the widespread distancing of deity in the Hellenistic and Roman periods . . . corresponding to the imperial distancing of centers of power and governance.” (Arnal and McCuthecon, Sacred Is the Profane, 164) One witnesses an increase in the activity of divine delegates and functionaries during this period—angels, demons, and sons of God in Jewish literature—to mediate for an increasingly distant deity. As Arnal and McCutheon imply, biblical conceptions of divine action are mediated by the author’s experiences with terrestrial authorities, so the theological exchange of deities for lesser angels was partially shaped by similar shifts in administration-by-proxy under Greek and Roman Empires. Thus, while early Jewish literature imagined the Lord directly participating in battle against Israel’s enemies (e.g., Josh. 10; Ps. 18:8-16), late Second Temple Jewish literature largely exchanges the Lord’s personal involvement for his functionaries’ activity (e.g., 2 Macc. 15:22-23, Dan. 10:10-13). To be sure, angels acted as the Lord’s soldiers in earlier Jewish literature, but the shift of emphasis is clear and mirrors the changing role of heads-of-state with respect to warfare in the Near East. It is entirely predictable that the operation of the demonic would be understood similarly.

 

This scheme of otherworldly proxy and delegation sees fruition in the Gerasene Demoniac. The pericope understands Roman legions as the most proximate functionaries of governmental power, and in turn represent the most proximate functionaries of supernatural power. This reading must be nonpolemical, since the Lord had his own legion of angels, as implied in Mark 8:38 and 13:24-27; the former imagines an imperial procession from in the heavens and the latter implies numerous angels at the son of man’s command. Mark made use of the language available to him to describe both demons and the son of man’s angels, doing so via military imagery. The interpretation proposed here, to tweak that of Pheme Perkins, suggests that the passage compares the demons to the Roman army, not vice versa. (Pheme Perkins, “The Gospel of Mark: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections,” in New Interpreters Bible [Nashville: Abingdon, 1995], 8:584-) The present interpretation avoids the problem with garrison placement that comes with anti-military-oppression interpretation. Mark’s word legio need not relate to legio X Fretensis specifically, but probably treats legions in general as a type of power-by-proxy. Thus, as elsewhere in Mark, ordinary people never encounter Satan—the ruler of demons (3:22)—directly, but only his functionaries. (Christopher B. Zeichmann, The Roman Army and the New Testament [Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2018], 56-57)

 

Blog Archive