To accurately evaluate this function of Psalm 91 in the
Temptation, and thereby place its inversion within a larger demonological
construct, it is useful to consider these similar techniques.
3.1.4.1 Inversion Techniques
The “Inversion” in 11QApocryphal Psalms
An important parallel to the inversion of Psalm 91 in the
Temptation is present in 11Q11v 4–7:
4 לרויד ע[ל ל]חש בשם
יהו[ה קרא בכו]ל עת
5 אל השמ[ים כי ]יבוא אליך בלי[לה וא]מרתה אליו
6 מי אתה [הילוד מ]אדם ומזרע הקד[ושי]ם פניך פני
7 [שו]ו וקרניך קרני חל[ו]ם חושך אתה ולוא אור
These lines are instructions to an exorcist on how to use
the incantation (§ 2.2.4.3), and line 5 preserves a directive for the exorcist
to engage the demon verbally ( ואמרתה אליו ). The question “who are you?” ( מי אתה
) in line 6 signals the aggressive tone of the exorcist’s words since gaining
the identity of a demon is an authoritative practice. Line 6 then identifies
the demon as “offspring of man” and “seed of the holy ones”; a description that
suggests an Enochic aetiology of evil spirits which is present elsewhere in the
Qumran literature. Consequently, the “horns” ( קרני ) and “face” ( פני ) are
symbolic of the demon’s power and presence. In lines 6–7 these features are
proclaimed to be “empty” √ ,שוו) שוא ) and an “illusion” ( חלום ). The mocking
of these demonic attributes is, as Alexander describes, a “strategy of
psychological counter-attack” which is a component of the anti-demonic measure
conveyed in the incantation.
The “psychological counter-attack” against a demon in
11Q11v 6–7 can be compared to the “inversion” tool of Satan. In the Qumran
passage an effective technique is for the exorcist to mock the powerful
qualities of the demon, presumably to render the being impotent. In the
Temptation this technique is used against the righteous individual; the result
is an authoritative anti-demonic text invoked by Satan. Here, the psalm is
expressed not to “ward off” Jesus, but rather to display the power of Satan and
to neutralize any attempt to ward him off. Whereas the exorcist in
11QApocryphal Psalms subverts the demon’s weapons of intimidation, Satan adopts
this method by challenging the effectiveness of apotropaic prayer. In both
instances, the tools of influence are mocked. This interpretation not only
serves to demonstrate the “force of the temptation,” as Henze observes, but
also amplifies the hostility of the confrontation. A stronger argument for the
presence of psychological warfare in the pericope is made if Satan’s tactic is
seen as a response to Jesus’ apotropaic quotations of Deuteronomy.
The use of Psalm 91 by Satan is not the only instance of
reverse anti-demonic tactics found in the gospels. The accounts of the Gerasene
Demoniac (Mt. 8:28–34; Mk. 5:1–20; Lk. 8:26–39) and the Demoniac in the
Synagogue (Mk 1:23–28; Lk 4:33–37) also contain dialogue between Jesus and
demonic beings which is relevant to the topic of “inversion techniques.”
. . .
3.1.4.2 Implications of the Satanic Inversion of Psalm 91
There are two main implications attached to Satan’s
inversion of Psalm 91 in his dialogue with Jesus. First, it places elements of
the pericope more firmly within the background of early Jewish anti-demonic
tradition. The apotropaic connotation of Psalm 91 implied in this
interpretation is part of a larger process of development in which the prayer
ensures protection from demonic evil; a purpose that is explicit in 11QApocryphal
Psalms and in later rabbinic literature. The technique of inverting an
adversary’s tool of power is also found in 11QApocryphal Psalms where an
exorcist mocks a demon’s aggressive traits. Indeed, the similarity between the
anti-demonic methods in the Temptation and 11Q11v, vi demonstrates a strong
connection between the two works. The second implication is that Satan’s
inversion tactic accentuates the hostile tone of the narrative. While it is
certainly the case that the quoting of scripture by both Jesus and the devil is
similar to patterns of rabbinic discussion, the confrontation portrayed in the
Temptation should not be mistaken as a convivial discourse. Rather, while Jesus
and Satan are depicted in opposition to one another throughout the gospels (e.
g. Mt. 12:22–23; Lk. 11:17–23), Satan’s use of Psalm 91 in the Temptation
characterizes this pericope as an especially antagonistic personal encounter
between the two. This is even more so the case if Jesus’ quotations are
interpreted as an apotropaic technique. These implications, to a large degree,
are applicable to the anti-demonic language attributed to the demoniacs in
other synoptic pericopae. Although the inversion language has long been
commented on it has not been associated with the technique in 11Q11, and doing
so connects these instances with a broader early Jewish tradition which helps
to contextualize the interaction between Jesus and demonic evil portrayed in
the gospels. (Michael J. Morris, Warding Off Evil: Apotropaic Tradition in
the Dead Sea Scrolls and Synoptic Gospels [Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen
zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 451; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017], 187-88, 197)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card:
ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
