THREAD: on demon possession
The term ‘demon-possessed’ is common in modern Bible translations (eg ESV, HCSB, NIV, NKJV at Matt 8:28) & has become a standard phrase.
It conveys to people that 1 or more demons possess a person.
That’s the problem. We’ll see there’s been a shift.
The term ‘demon-possessed’ is common in modern Bible translations (eg ESV, HCSB, NIV, NKJV at Matt 8:28) & has become a standard phrase.
It conveys to people that 1 or more demons possess a person.
That’s the problem. We’ll see there’s been a shift.
The Greek is usually a single verb daimonizomai, which we might literalistically render as ‘be demonized’.
But earlier translations tended to express that the person had the demon, not the demon, the person.
But earlier translations tended to express that the person had the demon, not the demon, the person.
The #LindisfarneGospels give us beautiful Latin with Anglo-Saxon glosses above.
Here’s Matthew 4:24: Latin et qui daemonia habebant ‘and whoever had demons’.
You can probably make out the words ‘devil’ & ‘have’ in the Anglo-Saxon.
So the people have the devils, not vice versa.
Here’s Matthew 4:24: Latin et qui daemonia habebant ‘and whoever had demons’.
You can probably make out the words ‘devil’ & ‘have’ in the Anglo-Saxon.
So the people have the devils, not vice versa.
Next up, Middle English with #JohnWycliffe’s translation.
Line 6: hem that hadden fendis
(them that had fiends!)
Other manuscripts use the devil word.
Line 6: hem that hadden fendis
(them that had fiends!)
Other manuscripts use the devil word.
#WilliamTyndale begins modern English translation.
Line 8: them that were possessed with devils.
What does ‘possessed with’ mean?
Line 8: them that were possessed with devils.
What does ‘possessed with’ mean?
Well, the same phrase is found in the KJV (1611). In that version it’s only used in connection with devils. From the KJV it made it to modern translations, only ‘possessed with’ could be wrongly modernized as ‘possessed by’ (eg NET Bible here).
Now I’m no expert on the English of the KJV, but even now ‘possessed with’ (e.g. possessed with greatness) can be rather active. It could be active then. But it allows an ambiguity about who possessed whom.
Over time people came to think only of the demon possessing the person.
Over time people came to think only of the demon possessing the person.
Now it might be thought to make little difference.
After all, if someone’s possessed with rage, do they have the rage, or does the rage have them?
Of course the Gospel narrate about people controlled by demons.
After all, if someone’s possessed with rage, do they have the rage, or does the rage have them?
Of course the Gospel narrate about people controlled by demons.
But the Greek sometimes explicitly uses the verb ‘have’ (eg Mark 8:17; Acts 16:16) indicating that (grammatically at least) the person possesses the demon.
The subtly different idea that a demon possesses someone may lead us to assume that demonic influence is constant.
The subtly different idea that a demon possesses someone may lead us to assume that demonic influence is constant.
The phrase ‘demon-possession’ may wrongly convey the idea of unremitting and total control by a demon.
If you struggle to find anyone under such a total control you may then conclude that #Screwtape, Wormwood & Co have gone into retirement.
That would be a big mistake.
END
If you struggle to find anyone under such a total control you may then conclude that #Screwtape, Wormwood & Co have gone into retirement.
That would be a big mistake.
END
