Re: Mk1:24/Lk4:34 Why plural?

Stephen C. Carlson (
Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:40:21 -0400

At 05:25 9/10/96 -0500, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
>I have always supposed that the unclean spirit speaks generically for all
>the minions of Satan. I don't know where I first got this notion, but I
>think it may have been quite some time ago from a book or long article by
>James M. Robinson on Mark's historical perspective.

Jonathan Robie wrote
>Robertson suggests that the spirit may be speaking for himself and for
>the man he possesses. Makes sense to me.

Hmm, two reasonable but divergent suggestions, so I should take this as
a sign that nobody really knows for sure? (;-) I think I should slightly
favor the former over the latter, because of the next sentence: HLQES
APOLESAI hHMAS? "Did you come to destroy us?" An exorcism would restore
rather destroy the possessee, and its position at the front of Mark's
narrative demonstrates that this exorcism is but the opening salvo (or
salve?) of Jesus' ministry.

Stephen Carlson

Stephen C. Carlson                   : Poetry speaks of aspirations,              : and songs chant the words. :               -- Shujing 2.35