I have just been having a look at some of the links which @Eddie kindly posted above and I would like to say that I think @Jonathan_Burke owes @Eddie a very big apology.
Throughout this post, and the one preceding it, @Jonathan_Burke has adopted a sneering, superior tone, accusing @Eddie of antipathy to the historical critical method, of having a hermeneutic similar to Ken Ham’s, of making exactly the same mistake that YECs make when they read the Bible, of being unfamiliar with any of the scholarship in the field, of not accepting scholarship, of being guilty of using dated scholarship, of demonstrating little familiarity with academia, of lacking the ability to construct a syllogism, of painting himself into a corner, and of being desperate to avoid answering questions about his beliefs. Memo to @Jonathan_Burke: People do not like being spoken to like that, particularly when they happen to have a Ph.D. in the field. That’s basic manners 101.
The irony here is that @Jonathan_Burke himself concedes that he is going against the scholarly consensus on the question of whether the Gospel writers taught the reality of demons: “Obviously I am contesting that consensus, but I am not denying that it exists.” @Jonathan_Burke also makes no claim to be a Biblical or religious scholar.
So, how does Thomas J. Farrar respond to @Jonathan_Burke in his article, Satanology and Demonology in the Apostolic Fathers: A Response to Jonathan Burke (SEÅ 83 (2018): 156–9), which @Eddie linked to above? Here’s an excerpt from his conclusion:
The findings of this study are as follows. Contra Burke, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Shepherd of Hermas and Martyrdom of Polycarp all undoubtedly reflect belief in Satan (despite mentioning this concept with varying frequency). Diognetus probably does too, and the Didache may. Once Burke’s tendentious interpretations of the satanological terminology in these texts are set aside, it becomes apparent that his AFS [argument from silence] concerning their authors’ non-belief in Satan are built on a very noisy silence! The Apostolic Fathers mention demons only sporadically and exorcism never, but none of these texts meets Lange’s second condition for a conclusive AFS for its author’s non-belief in demons. Broadly speaking, the Apostolic Fathers, like the NT writers, reflect theologies of evil that incorporate both anthropological and cosmological elements. Burke’s study, while offering some insights and stimulating further research, suffers from major methodological shortcomings and exegetical errors. Its minimalistic bias with respect to mythological evil appears on every page…
Also worth perusing is Thomas J. Farrar’s 2015 50-page paper, ‘When an unclean spirit goes out of a person’: An Assessment of the Accommodation Theory of Demon Possession
and Exorcism in the Synoptic Gospels.
First, here’s the abstract:
Abstract
In this exegetical study of the references to demons and exorcism in the Synoptic Gospels, we aim to evaluate the accommodation theory which claims that Jesus and the Synoptic writers did not share the belief in demons which was common among their contemporaries, but accommodated themselves to it. We first define three competing theories. We give a brief history of the accommodation theory and distinguish two sub-theories: benign accommodation and subversive accommodation (the latter of which seems to be restricted to Christadelphians). These are ‘benign accommodation theory’, in which Jesus and the Synoptic writers behaved just as though demons were real, and the ‘subversive accommodation theory’, in which Jesus and the Synoptic writers intended to subvert the popular belief in demons and show indirectly that no such beings exist. A survey of the literature shows that biblical scholars are in wide agreement that Jesus and the Synoptic writers did in fact believe in demons. Exegetical arguments for the accommodation are considered and seen to be mostly arguments from silence with very little merit. Seven exegetical arguments are then raised against the accommodation theory. The conclusion drawn is that the accommodation theory represents revisionist eisegesis of the relevant texts and not sound, grammatical-historical exegesis. Finally, the theological implications of the various theories are explored.
The following excerpts convey the general tenor of the author’s conclusions:
…[O]n several occasions, when someone is described [in the Gospels] as ‘demon-struck’, demons or unclean spirits themselves are explicitly mentioned in the context, and Jesus responds by expelling the demon (Matt. 8:31-32; 9:33; 12:24; Mark 5:2; 5:8; 5:13; Luke 8:27; 8:29; 8:30; 8:33). This goes far beyond the mere use of terminology or phenomenological language. The context in which the word is used clearly demonstrates that the Synoptic writers did actually regard these people as ‘demonstruck’. Moreover, we can recount the other arguments against accommodation here:
(i) The Synoptic Gospels clearly distinguish between cases that are demonic and cases that are not
(ii) The way the demons are described corresponds with the beliefs of the ancient world
(iii)The exorcism techniques employed by Jesus correspond in several important respects to the incantations known to have been used by other exorcists of the age
(iv)Jesus attached great theological significance to his exorcisms and those of his disciples
(v) The demon possession accounts contain details which require supernatural ability on the part of the demon(iac)
(vi)Jesus gives a general saying or parable about the operations of unclean spirits, which
suggests he regarded this as the stuff of everyday life
(vii) Jesus encourages and coaches his disciples on casting out demons
Finally, in spite of all of the above, the Synoptic writers express not even the slightest doubt about the real existence of demons, nor the slightest hint that their references to demons and exorcism are ironic. They never distinguish the beliefs of Jesus and his disciples from the beliefs of their contemporaries on this subject…
Anyone who said the things that Jesus said, and did the things that Jesus did, about demons, to demoniacs, either believed fervently in the reality of demons, or else went to great theatrical lengths to disguise his own true beliefs. The idea that Jesus was essentially putting on an act in order to accommodate, however, is rendered extremely improbable by Jesus’ teaching concerning hypocrites. As Batey explains,
"The Greek word ὑποκριτής denotes a stage actor… The pervasiveness of ὑποκριτής in the Synoptic tradition and its virtual absence from the LXX imply a firsthand knowledge by
Jesus of the dramatic actor, who assumed a role and identity that were not truly his own
and performed for the audience’s approval… Hypocrites in Jesus’ teaching consistently refer to those lacking integrity, whose real motives and actions do not correspond."157
Given the harshness with which Jesus excoriated the scribes and Pharisees for ‘play-acting’ in their religious lives, it is unthinkable that he himself would compromise his integrity and engage in such ‘play-acting’ in order to avoid stating his position on the reality of demon possession.
Only one conclusion is possible: Jesus, his disciples, and the Synoptic Evangelists all sincerely believed in the reality of demons, possession, and exorcism.
I think the facts speak for themselves, here.
Lastly, I’d like to invite @Jonathan_Burke to examine the empirical evidence for the existence of demons. Here it is:
Psychiatrist believes demonic possession and exorcism is real (New Zealand Herald, 20 June 2018; article by Sheila Flynn):
He’s heard the voices speak in ancient Greek. He’s heard them speak in Latin. Dr Richard Gallagher says they converse in Chinese, Spanish, French; that they’re wildly smart and manipulative.
The voices and the languages come out of people, he says, but they’re not actually human.
They’re demons. They’re real, and so is evil, he says. Demonic possession exists, and he has seen it firsthand…
“I’ve heard them speak Chinese; I’ve heard them speak ancient Greek, which I studied,” says the former Princeton Classics major. “I’ve certainly heard them speak and understand Latin.” …
He says the demons exhibit extraordinary powers such as personal knowledge and near clairvoyance. On one occasion, a demon told him how his mother had died – ovarian cancer. That evil spirit also knew “how 15 other people’s parents died, too. It wasn’t just me.”
On another occasion, a demon told him exactly what a priest was wearing though the clergyman was nowhere near Dr Gallagher and the possessed person speaking…
“They [Skeptics] come up with all kinds of cockamamie theories … they say, ‘Well, you know, this person heard Latin babbled as a kid.’ But it’s kind of absurd. The demon is speaking fluent Latin and is understanding fluent Latin, and many of these people are not even Catholic, didn’t even go to church as a kid.”
Here’s another article that might interest you:
[https://www.abc27.com/news/local/harrisburg/meet-harrisburgs-modern-day-exorcist/](http://Meet Harrisburg’s modern-day exorcist) (ABC27News.com, February 13, 2020; article by Dennis Owens).
When asked if he has seen a demonic possession, Szada laughed and said, “More than one.”
Job one, Szada says, is ruling out mental illness which weeds out many claims.
But there are rare instances, and Szada remembers them vividly.
“A person was possessed and it took four fully grown men to hold this person down,” Szada said.
Another client didn’t know Latin but answered Szada’s questions fluently in Latin. That was the work of the devil, he insists.
And then the local girl who was hospitalized.
“Doctors couldn’t figure out what was going on. Tranquilizers were not working. They stepped out to consult, they came back in and found her climbing up the wall, literally, like Spider-Man,” Szada said.
Compelling? Maybe not. But definitely food for thought.