New Testament Miracle and Greco-Roman Magic
Please try to remember that these are just notes and quotes!
Behr, C. A. Aelius Aristides and The Sacred Tales. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1968.
This is Behr's attempt to connect Greek words and phrases used in Aelius Aristides with those used in New Testament passages. The chapter attempting to do this for Luke's gospel and Acts were copied and examined. No translation of the Greek text is provided. Not much I can use in my research.
Betz, Hans Dieter, ed. The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Translations of various selections in the papyri.
Replaces Preisendanz's Papyri Graecae Magicae. Contains translations by various scholars. "Many of these papyri are bilingual with a Greek and a Demotic passage. Demotic" refers to an Egyptian language.
Seven of these passages were examined more closely because they deal with demons or exorcism. Various scholars date them from the first century b.c. to the fifth century a.d. They are almost certainly copies of copies of copies and thus reflect traditions centuries older than the documents. A few writers declare them useless for understanding the New Testament milieu, but several other scholars disagree with that view.
Lucian. "Lucius, the Ass." In Selected Satires of Lucian, edited by Lionel Casson, 58-94. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1968.
This is an often ribald (read, pornographic) tale that was later re-written as a longer Roman novel. I scanned this looking for interaction with daimons and found none. Interactions with gods was all I found. Throughout, the distinction between daimons and gods is unclear; however, this is consonant with our understanding of these concepts by the general populace in that era.
Why is this work often cited by those studying Hellenistic magic? Perhaps Everett Ferguson answers this question and gives us insight into the application of this work and its successors to our research: ". . . The real theme of the Metamorphoses is that the initiation into Isis freed him [Lucius] from the control of fate and magic" (258).
Luck, Georg, ed. Arcana Mundi: Magic and the Occult in the Greek and Roman Worlds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985.
Six chapters covering "Magic," Miracles," Daemonology," "Divination," "Astrology," and "Alchemy." Each chapter has two parts: an introduction and translations of texts. The first three chapters are useful to my research.
Magic. (pp.3-131) "The oldest Greek text in which a magical operation is mentioned forms part of Homer's Odyssey" (61). Ancient texts excerpted include passages from Homer, Virgil, Tacitus, The Great Magical Papyrus in Paris, Philostratus, Lucian of Samosata, Apuleius, and many others.
One interesting translation here was from a lead tablet from Africa:
"I conjure you, daemon, whoever you may be, to torture and kill, from this hour, this day, this moment, the horses of the Green and the White teams; kill and smash the charioteers Clarus, Felix, Primulus, Romanus; do not leave a breath in them. I conjure you by him who has delivered you, at the time, the god of the sea and the air: Iao, Iasdao . . . . a e i a. (p.91).
Why is this here rather than in the chapter on demons (pp.163-225)?
Miracles. Simple but useful definition of miracle on p.135: "extraordinary events that are witnessed by people, but that cannot be explained in terms of human power or the laws of nature. They are therefore frequently attributed to the intervention of a supernatural being."
Sees separating "miracles from . . . performing magic" as "difficult" (135). Ancient myths and writers cited here include Cleo's five-year pregnancy; Apuleius; Aelius Aristides' Sacred Orations; Lucian; and Philostratus' Life of Apollonius of Tyana. (pp.135-159)
Daemonology. "The Greek word daimon originally meant 'divine being.' By the late Hellenistic period, however, the distinction between theos 'god' and daimon 'evil spirit' had become fairly common" (163). Traces a history of the use of the terms and an understanding of spirits in general (164f). He compares and contrasts the daemonology of Xenocrates, Plutarch, and Apuleius; he then shows how this related to early Christian concepts.
Texts cited include Homer, Hesoid, Plutarch, Philostratus, and the Greek Magical Papyri. (pp.163-225).
Plutarch. "Aristides." Translated by John Dryden. Downloaded as an electronic text off the Internet.
Did not find much useful for this research.
Plutarch. "Isis and Osiris." In Plutarch's Complete Works, edited by W. Lloyd Bevan. Vol. Essays and Miscellanies, Vol. I, 369-426. New York: Thomas Crowell & Co., 1909.
Plutarch recounts stories that include various magical occurences like curses and calling on a god to appear visibly (374). Plutarch thought these stories of the gods should be interpreted allegorically or symbolically (376, 382). It isn't difficult to recognize that he uses dæmons differently than we do demons (384f, 386-389).
Plutarch seemed to interpret the stories of the gods as myths (376). Once he refers to these "notions respecting the gods" as "absurd" and "fine-spun fables and empty tales . . . without foundation from first to last" (381). He understands these as "a kind of reflection of a history reflecting the true meaning of things. . . . (382; also see pp.409). But he did see the spirit world and thought that "amongst dæmons [there] exists degrees of virtue and of vice" (385) and tells his readers that Plato called the good ones "pure demons" and considered them "a middle class between gods and men" (386). "Osiris and Isis passed from the rank of good dæmons to that of deities . . . " (388)-very Hellenistic. Plutarch includes much "history" of the ideas of the Persians, Chaldeans, and the Pythagoreans (401ff). Not much here useful for our specific research.
Alexander, P. S. "Jewish Literature Composed in Hebrew or Aramaic: VII. Incantations and Books of Magic." In The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. A New English Version ed., edited by Emil Schürer, 342-79. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Ltd., 1986.
Alexander uses the evidence from the Old Testament, intertestmental writings, the Talmud and midrash, the New Testament, early Christian writers, and even ancient pagan writers to portray Jewish magic. He does reference the Greek Magical Papyri, but raises the questions of dating (345; also 357f). He identifies Sefer ha-Razim (The Book of Mysteries), magical handbook, as the most important source of knowledge (347). Another magical handbook is The Sword of Moses (he thinks sword is a secret name for God; dating is uncertain). Other texts explored include Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions on bowls and amulets. He considers the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Testament of Solomon (Greek).
Arnold, Clinton E. "The 'Exorcism' of Ephesians 6:12 in Recent Research." The Journal for the Study of the New Testament 30 (1987): 71-87.
Arnold argues cogently against Wesley Carr's position (in his book Angels and Principalities, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, 42, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981) that "the concept of mighty forces that are hostile to man, from which he sought relief, was not prevalent in the thought world of the first century a.d." (italics mine, 71). Arnold uses ancient Jewish texts, the Greek Magical Papyri, and New Testament texts to refute Carr.
Arnold, Clinton E. Ephesians: Power and Magic. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series, ed. G. N. Stanton, 63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Arnold attempts to recover the Zeitgeist of the citizens of Ephesus in New Testament times. He portrays Ephesus not only as a leading city, but a center for magical practices (14-20). His sources include the Greek Magical Papyri, "the tabellae defixionum, amulets, ostraca, and various extant magical apparatuses" (17). He develops a connection between "the cult of the Ephesian Artemis and . . . Hellenistic magic" (24). Cites PGM IV.2288 to show that Artemis-Hekate delivers people from peril involving spirits (25). Includes a good but short treatment of Jewish magic (31-34). His section titled "The influence of the religious climate on Christianity" is insightful (38).
Aune, David E. "Demons; Demonology." In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia., edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Vol. 1, 919-23. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979.
Aune describes how Hebrew and Greek words are used in ancient texts. Hebrew "had no single, comprehensive word for [demons] as did the ancient Greeks" (919). Describes the understanding of demons in intertestamental and New Testament times. Limited usefulness to my research.
Aune, David E. "Magic in Early Christianity." In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Vol. II.23.2, 1507-57. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980.
Probably considered the seminal work in this field (at least by less conservative scholars); almost everything written after this makes mention of it. He seems to have confidence in the conclusions of the form critics and the History-of-Religions school. Useful sections include: "Magic in Graeco-Roman Religions," "Jesus and Magic," "The Magical Use of the Name of Jesus," and "Magical Prayer."
Denies a "theological distinction" between New Testament miracles and pagan magic because he uses "sociological definitions" (1513). His criteria for magic (p.1515) reveals his presupposition that Christianity is merely another religion-one among many. He often fails to support his conclusions from empirical data (e.g., "Judaism was even less syncretistic than Christianity" [p.1520] has only a footnote to a previous publication of his).
Aune concludes there is no difference between New Testament miracle and pagan, Hellenistic magic (1557).
Aune, David E. "The Apocalypse of John and Graeco-Roman Revelatory Magic." New Testament Studies 33, no. 4 (1987): 481-501.
Aune sees "the orientation and Hellenization of Judaism" as "particularly evident in apocalypticism" (481). Especially useful section is "Graeco-Roman Magic" (481ff). Still does not see New Testament miracle as distinguishable from pagan magic (482). But, he agrees that the Greek Magical Papyri are useful for "comparative purposes":
While the bulk of the papyri were written from the third through the sixth centuries, the conservative nature of the religious formulas, hymns and rituals which they contain suggests that Graeco-Egyptian magic had achieved its basic form by the first century a.d. (483).
Most of the rest of the paper compares revelatory magic with John's Revelation. His conclusion: many parts of the Apocalypse "have striking parallels with the techniques, formulas and motifs of magical revelation as shown in the Greek and Demotic magical papyri" (493).
Betz, Hans Dieter. "Magic and Mystery in the Greek Magical Papyri." In Magika Hiera: Ancient Greek Magic and Religion, edited by Christopher A. Faraone and Dirk Obbink, 244-59. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Seems to provide at least some of a corrective to Aune's writings cited above. Betz addresses the question of miracle versus magic. He quotes Alan Segal as seeing little difference between the two (246), and even says he can agree with much of what Segal said. But he also quotes and agrees with Sigmund Mowinckel that magic "is not a kind of religion, but a worldview" (246). Then he tells his readers that "in order to understand what was meant by distinguishing magic and religion, however, one has to shift from social science to theology" (247). Why? Because "the basic questions . . . are theological in nature" (247).
Betz's conclusion: There are "real differences between magic and religion even within this body of highly syncretistic material. Certainly, even greater differences existed between the Greek magical papyri in their entirety and the official religions from which the traditions derived" (254). So Betz sees magic not only as distinct from New Testament Christianity, but also distinct from the pagan religions from which they sprang.
These thoughts must be used in our articles: Aune insists on a sociological approach; Betz contends that a theological approach is more appropriate. I agree with Betz's conclusion. This gives me one heavyweight to use against another.
Betz, Hans Dieter, "Introduction to the Greek Magical Papyri" in The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Hans Dieter Betz, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. pp.xli-liii.
The introduction by Betz provides a history of the documents that were collected into what we now call the Greek Magical Papyri. "Therefore, strange as it may sound, if we wish to study Greek folk religion, the magical papyri found in Egypt are to be regarded as one of the primary sources" (xlv). "The papyri represent a Greco-Egyptian, rather than the more general Greco-Roman, syncretism" (xlvi). Betz does not seem to believe that any of this magic was "real": "magic is nothing but the art of making people believe that something is being done about those things in life about which we all know that we ourselves can do nothing" (xlvii).
Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993. "Hellenistic-Roman Religions," pp.137-298.
The author starts by examining ancient Greek religions, then moves to a description of Hellenistic-Roman religion. He characterizes them thus:
(1) Greco-Roman paganism was nonexclusive (161).
(2) The identification of deities tended to reduce their number and contributed to the monotheistic trend of thought (161).
(3) The anthropomorphism of classical Greek religion was weakened in the worship of power (161f).
(4) On the other hand, there was a deificaiton of virtues or benefits . . . (164).
(5) The tendency of monotheism influenced the terminology of pagan authors but was seldom carried through consistently.
(6) Since lesser gods and intermediaty powers were identified with demons, there was a demonizing of religion. . . . The word demons did not have the negative connotations it does today. . . . The demons filled the gap between the gods and human beings and between the superlunary world and the earth (164).
(7) The power of fate was very strongly felt . . . (164).
(8) The belief in fate was often linked with belief in the influence of the stars, so astrology came to prominence . . . (165).
(9) Magic was another popular expression of human relations with the powers of the universe. . . . Superstition, sorcery, use of amulets, the magical power of statues, formulas for healing and cursing, and private divination were all on the increase. . . . (165).
(10) The corporate nature or social side of religion was not lost in the Hellenistic-Roman periods (165).
(11) There was . . . a new prominence to chosen relationships [cult associations] (165).
(12) Morality was not closely associated with religion (165).
"The Greeks thought the countryside was filled with supernatural powers, with demons or spirits inhabiting mountains, forests, trees, stones, rivers, and fountains" (167).
Ferguson posits that
magic refers to efforts to control supernatural forces for one's own ends by means that rest on some peculiar and secret wisdom. It differs from sceince in being nonrational; it differs from religion in involving an element of constraint in contrast to religion's attitude, "Thy will be done." One can argue that in origin magic is more nearly akin to science than to religion. Magic and science have in common the view that the same actions, the same "formulas," under the same circumstances will produce the same results. .......... The boundaries between religion and magic are not sharply marked in the ancient world. Magic was a part of religion, and the two became one in later Neoplatonism (212).
The root idea in magic was that by employing the proper means the gods or demons could be forced to do something for you. Vital was the belief in the two different planes of visible and supernatural reality and in the possibility of transferring a thing from one to the other. Magic continued ideas from older, primitive strata of religion that were given up elsewhere (213).
Because of the ambiguity in ancient texts between what was religion and what was magic, the student must take account of the social setting. Accusations of magic were made against persons suspected of unacceptable or unexplained behavior. The factor of social deviance must be considered in description of magic (212).
There was . . . conflict in the ancient world over the interpretation of what was considered to be supernatural. Belief in miraculous deeds was common in antiquity: if done by one's own hero, they were attributed to divine power; if done by an opponent, they were attributed to magic. . . . (213).
Ferguson describes the Greek Magical Papyri.
A number of "magical Papyri" from the second to fifth centuries a.d. have survived: "some are brief recipes for magical processes or exorcisms; others are collections of such recipes with more ambitious invocations and methods of securing control over natural forces." (Ferguson, 1993, 215). [Here he quotes A. D. Nock, "Greek Magical Papyri," Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 15 (1929):219 (Essays, 176).]
He sees "all the religious views characteristic of late antiquity are found in the magical papyri: cosmic (astral) religion . . . the highest god, belief in power and demons . . . search for wonders, occultism, designating magic as a 'mystery,' and acceptance of . . . fate . . . whose power the magician as the 'adept' can break" (215).
The magical ceremony involved two activities: the invocation of the supernatural power (the "formula") and the ritual practice (the employment of material means, the "recipe"). The treatment in the magical texts is quite regular: invoke a higher power to compel it to assist the invoker in procuring what is wished-healing, fame, wealth, or power, or to obtain the affections of a loved object. . . . (216).
The collections of the magical spells and charms represented in the magical papyri may be comparable to the books and practitioners of magical arts burned in Ephesus in Acts 19:19. Ephesus was in fact considered one of the centers for the practice of magic. Formulas used in magic were known as Ephesia grammata ("Ephesian Letters"). [Here he footnotes C. C. McCown, "The Ephesia Grammata in Popular Belief," Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 54 (1923):128-31).]
The author discusses the prominent Jewish element in the magical papyri (216f). He argues that most of the spells "have nothing to do with religion." He then offers four major groups of magical texts: "erotic spells, protection from evil, curses, and prognostications" (217).
He says that amulets "were important as protective devices because magic could be used to place a malediction upon someone." "An amulet is an object that by its nearness to the person who possesses it keeps evil away or brings good luck" (218). He also discusses the curse tablet (218) and imprecations and oaths (219f).
Ferguson describes the evolution of the concept of "demons" on pages 220-222. A few of the more useful statements: "In general [daimon] referred to a power that accompanies persons and dispenses destiny" (220). "From the idea of a demon accompanying each person came the use of the word as virtually equal to 'fate'. . . ." (221). During the early Christian era, "demonic forces were everywhere and were constantly affecting human life" (221). "Pre-Christian Judaism had already begun to take over the word demon in that sense of intermediate evil beings which is so evident in the Christian Gospels. Belief in demon possession of individuals was widespread and led to the practice of exorcism to expel demons-by pagans, Jews, and Christians" (221).
The author gives us insight into the application of The Golden Ass to our research: ". . . The real theme of the Metamorphoses is that the initiation into Isis freed him [Lucius] from the control of fate and magic" (258).
His section on "Mystery Religions and Christianity" also gives us a little insight. "The study of Christian origins has been responsible for much of the study devoted to the mystery religions" (279). For those who posit that Christianity borrowed from the mystery religions, he proposes that we do not have empirical evidence to suggest such, and "there is the possibility that the mysteries themselves adopted Christian ideas" (279). "On the other hand," he continues, "there definitely was, but by the fourth century and in some cases earlier, Christian borrowing of outward gestures from the mysteries . . ., of terminology . . ., and of artistic motifs . . ., even as there was borrowing from pagan religion in general of ceremonies . . ., of ideas . . ., of funerary practices . . ., and even of deities (now disguised as Christian saints)" (279).
The author discusses many of these supposed parallels between Christianity and pagan religions including resurrections of gods (280), regeneration (280), baptism (280), shared meals (281), and salvation (281). But he concludes that the idea that pagan influences reached Hellenistic Christianity though Paul "has failed to be substantiated" (280).
Funk, Robert W., and Roy W. Hoover, eds. The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993. "Introduction," pp.1-38.
This is included because the Introduction to this work provides the most direct explanation by liberals of the their presuppositions and conclusions. These scholars automatically dismiss any New Testament text that pretends to give an account of any supernatural event-it is dismissed as ahistorical.
The goal of the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar (their name) "have decided to update and then make the legacy of two hundred years of research and debate a matter of public record" (1). After the 1925 Scopes trial, "American biblical scholarship retreated into the closet. The fundamentalist mentality generated a climate of inquisition that made honest scholarly judgments dangerous" (1). This continued until "the end of World War II" when "critical scholars again quietly dominated the academic scene" (1). By this time
critical biblical scholarship was supported . . . by other university disciplines which wanted to ensure that dogmatic considerations not be permitted to intrude into scientific and historical research. The fundamentalists were forced, as a consequence, to found their own Bible colleges and seminaries in order to propogate their point of view (1).
"One focal point of the raging controversies was who Jesus was and what he had said" (1) -another was the question of the supernatural.
The contemporary religious controversy . . . turns on whether the worldview reflected in the Bible can be carried forward into this scientific age and retained as an article of faith. The Christ of creed and dogma, who had been firmly in place in the Middle Ages, can no longer command the assent of those who have seen the heavens through Galileo's telescope. The old deities and demons were swept from the skies by that remarkable glass. Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo have dismantled the mythological abodes of the gods and Satan, and bequeathed us secular heavens (2).
Historical knowledge became an indispensable part of the modern world's basic "reality toolkit." Apart from this instrument, the modern inquirer could not learn the difference between an imagined world and "the real world" of human experience. To know the truth about Jesus . . . one had to find the Jesus of history (2).
They then describe what they call "The Seven Pillars of Scholarly Wisdom" (2-5). A brief history of the contributions of Reimarus, Jefferson, Strauss, Schweitzer, Weiss, and their successors introduces this section. "The first [pillar] was the distinction between the historical Jesus, to be uncovered by historical excavation, and the Christ of faith encapsulated in the first creeds" (3). Thus they embrace a priori the position that faith (and the supernatural or miraculous) and historical reality are mutually exclusive. They solidify this position when they write about
the reversal that has taken place regarding who bears the burden of proof. It was once assumed that scholars had to prove that details in the synoptic gospels were not historical. .................. The current assumption is more nearly the opposite and indicates how far scholarship has come since Strauss: the gospels are now assumed to be narratives in which the memory of Jesus is embellished by mythic elements that express the church's faith in him, and by plausible fictions that enhance the telling of the gospel story for first-century listeners who knew about divine men and miracle workers firsthand (5).
Notice how they try to portray themselves as mainstream, middle-of--the-road scholars: "the work of the Seminar has drawn criticism from the skeptical left wing in scholarship-those who deny the possibility of isolating any historical memories in the gospels at all. Of course, it has also drawn fire from the fundamentalist right wing for not crediting the gospels with one hundred percent historical reliability" (5). Makes you think that they just have a few questionable passages, right? But three paragraphs later they write: "Eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him, according to the Jesus Seminar" (5). Let me be the first to apologize to these scholars-using-the-seven-pillars-of-scholarly-wisdom for thinking that they were trying to exclude 100% of the gospels' accounts of Jesus' teachings-it is only 82%! My apologies, guys.
They take a few pages to challenge the authority of the Bible, its inspiration and inerrancy. They claim to have adopted legal rules of evidence, and have found the gospels wanting: "The evidence provided by the written gospels is hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is secondhand evidence. In the case of the gospels, the evangelists are all reporting stories and sayings related to them by intermediate parties:; none of them was an ear or eyewitness of the words and events he records" (16). Therefore, "scholars must be extremely cautious in taking the data at face value" (16).
Finally the Fellows posit a list of 37 criteria by which they will determine if a particular saying of Jesus is likely to be authentic. One or two will serve to illustrate:
The evangelists frequently relocate sayings and parables or invent new narrative contexts for them (19).
The evangelists often revise or edit sayings to make them conform to their own individual language, style, or viewpoint (21).
The evangelists frequently attribute their own statements to Jesus (23).
Sayings and narratives that reflect knowledge of events that took place after Jesus' death are the creation of the evangelists or the oral tradition before them (25).
Jesus makes no claim to be the Anointed, the messiah (32).
Canonical boundaries are irrelevant in critical assessments of the various sources of information about Jesus (35).
With such presuppositions, they can arrive at no other conclusions than the ones they do. The only value I find for the work of these pseudo-scholars who pretend to be objective is to serve as an illustration of where beginning with these presuppositions will invariably lead one. Never have I read a clearer presentation of the liberal position. For this, I am indebted to them.
Garrett, Susan R. The Demise of the Devil: Magic and the Demonic in Luke's Writings. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.
Two portions must be read and re-read: Chapter 1: "Magic and the Study of Magic" (includes "Magic in the Greco-Roman World" and Magic in the New Testament") (11-36); and her Conclusion, especially the section titled "Luke and Hellenistic Magic" (106-109).
One of my premises has been that in order to interpret the portrayal of magic and magicians in Luke-Acts, one must first understand what Luke thought about magic. Thus the driving question has not been whether Luke's world view or his characters' actions were 'magical,' but how 'magic' and 'magicians' functioned to order the events of the narrative and the perceptual experience of those who read it (107).
Garrett sees Luke as showing that-"though the final victory lay in the future"-"no longer could Satan and his demonic and human servants harass and torment at will. Satan's kingdom was splintering around him, and his authority was no longer acknowledged by all. The battle still raged but Christ's ultimate triumph was certain" (108f).
Garrett, Susan R. "Light on a Dark Subject and Vice Versa: Magic and Magicians in the New Testament." In Religion, Science, and Magic In Concert and In Conflict, edited by Jacob Neusner, Ernest S. Frerichs, and Paul Virgil McCracken Flesher, 142-65. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
She agrees that the charge by Jesus' opponents that he was in league with the prince of demons was a charge that he practiced magic (142). Magicians observed the apostles' miracles and assumed they were seeing magic, too. She reviews Morton Smith's Jesus the Magician and John Hull's Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition-and cogently critiques the arguments offered by both. She uses Luke's account of Paul and Bar-Jesus as the example to offer a better approach.
The task for the modern interpreter is neither to try to make such a distinction [i.e., manipulative vs. supplicative], nor (by the opposite token) to try to prove that Paul was indeed a magician. The task is, rather, to discover the culturally informed presuppositions about "magic" and "magicians" that enabled Luke to relate the account as an instance of Christian opposition to magic. How and why could Luke construe the curse of darkness in a manner flattering to Christianity? (152)
I have argued that the most useful questions when studying magic and magicians in the New Testament are not questions of ontology but of interpretation: that is, not "Was Jesus a magician?" but "How did Christians defend their position that Jesus was not a magician?" (160).
[Does she imply here a theological interpretation?]
Hemer, Colin J. The Book of Acts in the Settings of Hellenistic History. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. (Appendix 1: Speeches and Miracles in Acts; 2. The Miracles pp.428-443.)
Hemer begins this section with this statement: "There is no way to avoid the problem of miracle in Acts" (248). What is the problem? Miracle is such an intrinsic part of Acts "that it cannot be prised out" without irreparable damage to its context" and "A narrative that contains it [miracle] is automatically suspect" (428). Hemer then lists the ways various scholars try to handle the problem.
There are several ways of attempting to handle the problem: (1) to deny the miraculous and explain texts containing it theologically, allegorically, as pious creation or the like; (2) to minimize the factor of miracle and refrain from raising the issue too acutely; (3) to adopt a sceptical view of the text generally on this account, and apply the keeest scepticisim to accounts of miracle; (4) to admit the generally reliable quality of the narrative, and Luke's own acceptance of the miraculous, and treat his account sympathetically but critically, requiring stricter standards of testimony before taking his miracles too easily at face value. Such are at least examples of possible strategies. They are neither exhaustive nor mutually exclusive, and most scholars probably adopt gradations among them, varying with the instance (428).
The New Testament itself is however the most important context for the problem of miracle, and the Synoptics in particular" (429). However, he posits that "Acts cannot be considered in isolation from the Third Gospel, though the pattern of miracle in the two parts appears to be substantially different, because of the personal uniqueness of Jesus as the subject of the one part and the differences in relationship to sources and of critical approach thereby engendered" (431). Hemer cites a few miracle-passages that are uniquely Lucan, but sees his "basic content" as "relatively near the mainstream Synoptic tradition...." (431).
Hemer groups Luke's miracles in Acts into ten categories, the tenth of which reads, "Claims of magical and demonic opposition to God, and the perspective that God's power is superior to that of any pretended rival" (435). He posits that this "is again troublesome to the modern reader, for the supernatural in any form is a difficulty, whereas Luke lives in a world where different kinds are on the market, and it is sometimes a revelant argument to set the power of God over against any inadequate rival claim" (437f).
Thus Hemer's treatment is not satisfying to this reader. He seems to only begin to treat demons and exorcism and then just leaves it.
Hull, John M. Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition. Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series, 28. Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson Inc., 1974.
Hull agrees that those who charged that Jesus cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub were calling him a magician (1). Cites Jewish writings and Christian apocryphal literature to show the development of that theme.
Chapter II: "The Recovery of Hellenistic Magic" (5-19) is key. He uses the magical papyri, the tabellai defixionum, amulet inscriptions, ostraca, and various magical apparatuses as sources of information about Hellenistic magic. He then describes the impact of these on New Testament studies, including the conclusions of scholars like Adolph Deissmann, Rudolph Bultmann, and Martin Dibelius.
Chapter III: "The Main Features of Hellenistic Magic" (20-44) has many useful ideas and quotations. "There is no doubt at all that the existing magical papyri are not original compositions. They contain records of traditional forms of actions and words which to a large extent are copied from earlier manuscripts" (20). Then, "A hundred years however is not a very long span of time in the terms of magical traditions" (21). He gives a good example of the difficulty of determining the date of the contents (not the writing) of the papyri (25f).
We may conclude that although the more bizarre and complex features of later Hellenistic magic will be much too late to have had any impact at all on the canonical Christian literature, the main features of magic were well developed by the early and middle first century ad if not before, and we may safely use selections from the magical papyri if cautious attentions is given to these problems (27).
He treats demonology in various parts of pages29-31 including its origins (Assyrian-Babylonian-Zoroastrian, not Egyptian). He posits exorcism originated in Persia. But the section devoted to demons (38-42) will be more helpful. He describes the various views of the spirits (gods, demons, and heroes) and their roles in human affairs. He quotes the Greek Magical Papyri at times (39, 40, and 41) as he discusses demon myths.
In Chapter IV: "Miracle and Magic" (45-72) presents "The Jewish tradition of magical miracle," "The Greek tradition of magical miracle," and "The relationship between miracle and magic." He touches on demons and exorcism from time to time in these three sections, but he specifically covers exorcism on pp.61-72. He examines data from Tobit, Josephus, Philostratus, and the Greek Magical Papyri to illustrate the syncretistic nature of magic.
Note: "Examination of the parallels between the synoptic stories and the magical papyri . . . " on page 67.
Chapter VI: "Luke: The Tradition Penetrated by Magic" (87-115) will be very useful to our research. He begins, "Luke is the only New Testament writer who specifically refers to the church's attack on magic" (87). Hull considers Luke's accounts the most vivid when it comes to miracle-magic because "he saw and believed" (87). Hull covers Luke's treatment of angels and demons as contrasted with the other evangelists. Finally, he shows how Luke-Acts portrays "a spiritual world divided into two realms with its classes and division" (hierarchy) (105). He posits that Luke's use of the word power, then, is "not a metaphor but is that reality which carries the actual potency of the spirit world into our world" (105). Further, this "power is particularly effective in exorcism" (106).
The whole first paragraph of Hull's "Conclusion" (142-145) is worth quoting. In it he refuses to portray Jesus as a magician, but admits some of his miracles-and especially his healings and exorcisms-"were interpreted as magical at an early date" (142). He also thinks that "By the time the earliest gospel was written the tradition of the acts of Jesus had already become saturated with the outlook of Hellensitic magic" (142f).
In Luke we find a world-view arranged along magical lines, the battle between Jesus and his foes being presented in terms harmonious with the sort of significance attached in magic to the battle between spiritual forces. Christianity, face to face with magic as described in Acts, overcomes it by a greater power of the same kind, the source of which is traced back to the one who, indwelt bodily by the energy of the spirit world, passed his authority over the demons on to the church which confessed his mighty name (italics mine, 144).
"The records of magic contain nothing like the self-sacrifice of the Gethsemane Christ" (145).
Johnson, Janet H. "Introduction to the Demotic Magical Papyri" in The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Hans Dieter Betz, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. pp.xlv-xlviii.
Not much in here useful for our purposes. Explains bilingual texts found in many magical papyri.
Kee, Howard Clark. Medicine, Miracle & Magic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
Chapter 3, "Miracle," (pp.67-94) begins with the Isis and Asklepius traditions then follows with Jewish Apocalyptic. In the next section, Jesus in the gospel tradition, Kee addresses the theories of the form critics (Dibelius, Bultmann, et al.) (75-79). He finishes this chapter by examining the evidence from Roman historians, Philostratus' Life of Apollonius, the apochryphal gospels and Acts, and Plutarch.
Chapter 4, "Magic," (95-125) Kee considers Lucius' Metamorphoses, Pliny's Natural History, the Greek Magical Papyri, and Jewish magic in the Talmudic period. Kee takes on Morton Smith concerning the miracle v. magic debate. He cites John Hull and Harold Remus. "What Hull has ignored is that belief in angels and demons was operative in Judaism and in early Christianity in contexts where magic is not present or not a significant factor" (118).
"What is sought is not to learn the will of the deity, but to shape the deity's will to do the bidding of the one making the demand or to defeat the aims of the evil powers" (112).
Reread section "The magical papyri" on pg.107-112. Reread pages 118-119 for Kee's analysis of New Testament miracle and pagan magic. Kee finishes this chapter refuting Celsus' charges that Christians practiced magic.
Remus, Harold. "Pagan-Christian Conflict over Miracle in the Second Century." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia), 1981.
Chapter 4: "Language and Miracle" contains the word studies Remus used to write the article cited next. In "Demarcating Magic from Miracle" (101-119) Remus considers manipulations, compulsion for base or mundane purposes, and a lack of group consciousness the characteristics that distinguish magic from miracle.
Remus, Harold. "Does Terminology Distinguish Early Christian from Pagan Miracles?" Journal of Biblical Literature 101, no. 4 (1982): 531-51.
Remus says Christian scholars answer the title question "Yes." Then he considers the history of scholarship on the use of words translated in the New Testament as 'miracle,' 'sign,' 'wonder,' and 'power.' Cites Moule as agreeing with Rengstorf's thought: "the extreme rarity in the NT of any word that, in fact, corresponds to the word 'miracle' (533f).
He argues that the "fluidity of Latin miracle terminology is paralleled in the Greek sphere" (536). This claim is based on the observation that "the ancient authors . . . employ different terms, often alongside each other, to designate the same phenomenon" (536). Remus looks at how semeion and teras were used by Homer, Herodotus, Theophrastus, Plutarch, Polybius, Philo, Josephus, and others and concludes that "they have distinctive meanings, and yet in many contexts they are used interchangeably" (551). "The distinctions pagans and Christians draw between miracle claims lie in the eyes of the beholders, and represent communal and cultural judgments" (550f).
Twelftree, Graham H. Jesus the Exorcist. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993.
All of this book has potential for use in this study, but especially Section I: "The Debate" (1-12) and Section II: "Exorcism and Exorcists in First Century Palestine" (13-52). Twelftree argues that many ancient texts including "the magical papyri . . . can, with varying degrees of ease and reliability, be used to provide material to reconstruct first century understandings of spirits, demons, possessions, magic, healing, healers, exorcism and exortcists" (16f). Other sources the author thinks are useful and apropos: "1 Enoch, Tobit, Jubilees, the Qumran Scrolls, Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (LAB) . . . Lucian of Samosata, Apollonius of Tyana and rabbinic literature" (16).
In Chapter 3 he treats what people in first century Palestine believed about exorcism and exorcists (22-47). He concludes that exorcisms were thought to be successful because of (1) who the exorcist was; (2) what was said and done; (3) both of the preceding (46f). Further, "the peripatetic life-style of a philosopher-wonder-worker would have been familiar to Jesus' audience and observers" (47).
Finally, in Chapter II.4: Conclusions (48-52) Twelftree evaluates some modern and some ancient sources. He argues (contra Bultmann and Hull) that there "are extremely few stories of, or traditions about, individual [Jewish] historical exorcists available to help provide a background to examining the Jesus tradition in relation to exorcism" (48). But, "an understanding of exorcism and exorcists in the first century was not limited to what we can discover from stories roughly parallel to the Jesus stories" (49).
Twelftree also challenges the "impression . . . that there was a variety of forms of exorcism that would have been . . . used in Palestine in Jesus' time." Instead, he thinks "there may be a pattern" deduced from the evidence (50).
Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Magic in the Biblical World." Tyndale Bulletin 34 (1983): 169-200.
Excellent overview. He argues that magic and religion "represent two different attitudes. Put simply, in religion one prays to the gods; in magic one commands the gods" (174f). Cites other scholars to support his contention that "the elements of 'coercion', 'control', or 'manipulation' has been regarded as an essential element of magic in many definitions" (175). Cites the distinctions between magic and religion made by H. H. Rowley (The Faith of Israel, London: SCM, 1961), anthropologist William Howells (The Heathens, Garden City: Doubleday, 1948), Bronislaw Malinowski, another anthropologist, (Magic, Science, and Religion, Garden City: Doubleday, 1948) and W. J. Goode ("Magic and Religion: A Continuum," Ethnos 14 (1949) 172-182).
Sections titles include "Magic and Love," "Magic and Hate," and "The Evil Eye."
He concluded "It is quite clear from the Scriptures themselves . . . that the Word of God came to Jews and Christians who lived in a world which was steeped with occult beliefs and practices. The biblical revelation did not come to sinless humans but reached them in their cultural situations" (199).
Achtemeier, Paul J. "Gospel Miracle Tradition and the Divine Man." Interpretation 26, no. 2 (April 1972): 174-97.
----. "The Origin and Function of the Pre-Marcan Miracle Catenae." Journal of Biblical Literature 91, no. 2 (June 1972): 198-221.
Alexander, William Menzies. Demonic Possession in the New Testament: Its Historical, Medical, and Theological Aspects. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980.
Apuleius. The Transformations of Lucius, Otherwise Known as The Golden Ass. New York: Farrar, Straus & Young, 1951.
Arnold, Clinton E. Powers of Darkness: Principalities & Powers in Paul's Letters. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992.
----. "Exorcism." In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Vol. 2, 242-45. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982.
----. "Magic; Magician." In The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Vol. 3, 213-19. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1986.
----. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Library of Early Christianity, ed. Wayne A. Meeks. Vol. 8. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1987.
Berchman, Robert M. Arcana Mundi: Magic and Divination in the De Somnilis of Philo of Alexandria. Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 26 (1987): 403-28.
Betz, Hans Dieter, ed. Plutarch's Theological Writings and Early Christian Literature. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975.
Bilynskyj, Stephen S. "God, Nature, and the Concept of Miracle." Ph.D. Dissertation, Notre Dame (Indiana), 1982.
Blackburn, Barry. Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions. Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1991.
Brown, Colin. Miracles and the Critical Mind. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.
Brown, Peter. "Sorcery, Demons and the Rise of Christianity." In Religion and Society in the Age of St. Augustine. New York: Harper and Row, 1972.
Budge, E. A. Wallis. Amulets and Talismans. New York: University Books, 1961.
----, ed. The Book of the Dead. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc., 1956.
Case, Shirley Jackson. Experience with the Supernatural in Early Christian Times. New York: The Century Co., 1929.
Christian, Paul. The History and Practice of Magic. New York: The Citadel Press, 1963.
Davies, T. Witton. Magic, Divination, and Demonology Among the Hebrews and Their Neighbours. New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1969.
Finegan, Jack. Myth & Mystery: An Introduction to the Pagan Religions of the Biblical World. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989.
Frazer, James George. The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. Abridged ed. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1922.
----. The New Golden Bough: A New Abridgment of the Classic Work. New Jersey: S. G. Phillips, Inc., 1959.
Ferguson, Everett. Demonology of the Early Christian World. Symposium Series. Vol. 12. Lewiston/Queenston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1984.
Fox, Robin Lane. "Hellenistic Culture and Literature." In The Oxford History of the Classical World, edited by John Boardman, Jasper Griffin, and Oswyn Murray, 882. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.
----. Pagans and Christians. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1989.
Gasque, W. Ward. A History of the Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989.
Gill, David W. J., and Conrad Gempf. The Book of Acts in Its Graeco-Roman Setting. The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting ed. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994.
Grant, Fredrick C., ed. Hellenistic Religions: The Age of Syncretism. The Library of Liberal Arts, ed. Oskar Piest. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1953.
Grant, Robert M. Miracle and Natural Law in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian Thought. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1952.
----. God and the One God. Library of Early Christianity, ed. Wayne A. Meeks. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1986.
----. Greek Apologists of the Second Century. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1988.
Halliday, W. R. The Pagan Background of Early Christianity. New York: Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1970.
Hanson, John S. "Dreams and Visions in the Graeco-Roman World and Early Christianity." In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wofgang Haase. Vol. II.23.2, 1395-1427. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980.
Harrison, R. K. "Demon, Demoniac, Demonology." In The Zondervan Pictorial Encylopedia of the Bible., edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Vol. 2, 92-101. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.
Herrick, James A. "Miracles and Method." Quarterly Journal of Speech 75(3) (1989): 321-34.
Hillers, Delbert Roy. "Demons, Demonology." In Encyclopaedia Judaica. Vol. 5, 1521-33. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1971.
Hollenback, Paul W. "Jesus, Demoniacs, and Public Authorities: A Socio-historical Study." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 49, no. 4 (1981): 567-88.
Hurtado, Larry W. "The Function and Pattern of Signs and Wonders in the Apostolic and Sub-Apostolic Period." Master of Arts Thesis, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield), 1967.
Hyde, Walter Woodburn. Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1946.
Jacq, Christian. Egyptian Magic. Chicago: Bolchazy-Carducci, 1985.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, ed. Howard C. Kee and Douglas Knight A, Number 39. no city named: Scholars Press, 1977.
Keller, Ernst, and Marie-Luise Keller. Miracles in Dispute: A Continuing Debate. London: SCM Press LTD, 1969.
Kee, Howard Clark. Miracle in the Early Christian World: A Study in Sociohistorical Method. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.
Kinlaw, Dennis F. "The Demythologization of the Demonic in the Old Testament." In Demon Possession: A Medical, Historical, Anthropological, and Theological Symposium, edited by John Warwick Montgomery, 29-35. Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1976.
Kolenkow, Anitra Bingham. "Relationships between Miracle and Prophecy in the Greco-Roman World and Early Christianity." In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. Vol. II.23.2, 1470-1506. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980.
Köster, Helmut. History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age. Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. 1. New York: Walter De Gruyter, 1982.
----. History and Literature of Early Christianity. Introduction to the New Testament, ed. Robert W. Funk. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.
Krill, Richard M. "Roman Paganism under the Antonines and Severans." In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Vol. II.16.1, 27-44. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1978.
Lampe, G. W. H. "Miracles in the Acts of the Apostles." In Miracles, edited by C. F. D. Moule, 165-78. London: A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd., 1965.
Levi, Peter. A History of Greek Literature. New York: Viking, 1985.
Liefeld, W. L. "Exorcism." In The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Vol. 2, 450-51. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.
Lockyer, Herbert. All the Miracles of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.
Long, J. Bruce. "Demons." In The Encyclopdeia of Religion, edited by Mircea Eliade. Vol. 4, 282-88. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1987.
Loos, H. Van Der. The Miracles of Jesus. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965.
MacDonald, A. H. "Herodotus on the Miraculous." In Miracles, edited by C. F. D. Moule, 81-91. London: A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd., 1965.
Mackay, B. S. "Plutarch and the Miraculous." In Miracles, edited by C. F. D. Moule, 95-111. London: A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd, 1965.
MacRae, George. "Miracle in The Antiquities of Josephus." In Miracles, edited by C. F. D. Moule, 129-47. London: A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd., 1965.
McCasland, S. Vernon. By the Finger of God: Demon Possession and Exorcism in Early Christianity in the Light of Modern Views of Mental Illness. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1951.
Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person. The Anchor Bible Reference Library, ed. David N. Freedman. Vol. 1. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
----. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: Mentor, Message, and Miracle. The Anchor Bible Reference Library, ed. David N. Freedman. Vol. 2. New York: Doubleday, 1994.
Meyer, Marvin, and Richard Smith, eds. Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1994.
Moule, C. F. D. "Excursus 1. The Vocabulary of Miracle." In Miracles, edited by C. F. D. Moule, 235-38. London: A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd., 1965.
----. "Excursus 2. The Classification of Miracle Stories." In Miracles, edited by C. F. D. Moule, 239-43. London: A. R. Mowbray & Co. Ltd., 1965.
Oesterreich, T. K. Possession: Demoniacal & Other Among Primitive Races, in Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and Modern Times. New York: University Press, 1966.
Parrinder, Geoffrey. "Exorcism." In The Encyclopedia of Religion, edited by Mircea Eliade. Vol. 5, 225-33. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1987.
Preisendanz, K., et.al. eds. Papyri Graecae Magicae. 3 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1928-41.
Reese, David George. "Demons." In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman. Vol. 2, 138-42. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Remus, Harold. Pagan-Christian Conflict over Miracle in the Second Century. Patristic Monograph Series, 10. Cambridge, MA: The Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, Ltd., 1983.
Smith, Morton. Jesus the Magician. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978.
Smith, Jonathan Z. "Towards Interpreting Demonic Powers in Hellenistic and Roman Antiquity." In Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. Vol. II.16.1, 425-39. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1978.
Solmsen, Friedrich. Isis among the Greeks and Romans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979.
Theissen, Gerd. The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983.
Thompson, R. Campbell. Semitic Magic: Its Origins and Development. London: Luzac & Co., 1908.
Van der Horst. P. W. Aelius Aristedes and the New Testament. Studia Ad Corpus Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980.
Wendland, Johannes. Miracles and Christianity. New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1911.
Winston, David, ed. Philo Alexandria: The Contemplative Life, The Giants, and Selections. The Classics of Western Spirituality, ed. Richard J. Payne and John Farina. New York: Paulist Press, 1981.
Zakovitch, Yair. The Concept of the Miracle in the Bible. Tel-Aviv: MOD Books,
1990.
Italics in quotations always belong to the original author unless otherwise noted.
These twelve items are excerpted direct quotations.
Disclaimer: All of the ideas presented in this HTML document are entirely the responsibility of Steve Badger and in no way reflects the policies, ideas, or opinions of any other person or organization.
Copyright (C) 1997 Steve Badger
Document last revised: February 7, 1997
730 South Duke, Springfield, MO 65802
Email me at mr followed by the at sign and then
steve dash badger dot net
Copyright and Limitations on Reproduction
This HTML document is the sole property of Steve Badger. You may not modify
or edit it in any way. You may reproduce it in its entirety (as is) for distribution
without charge. All reproductions of this HTML file (printed or electronic) must
contain the disclaimer, the revision date, and the entire copyright notice.