body { font-family: ‘Palatino Linotype’, ‘Book Antiqua’, Palatino, serif; line-height: 1.6; margin: 40px; }
h1, h2, h3 { color: #2C3E50; }
h2 { border-bottom: 2px solid #ccc; padding-bottom: 10px; margin-top: 30px; }
h3 { border-bottom: 1px solid #eee; padding-bottom: 5px; margin-top: 20px; }
blockquote { background-color: #F8F8F8; border-left: 5px solid #ccc; margin: 1.5em 10px; padding: 0.5em 10px; }
b { font-weight: bold; }
i { font-style: italic; }
ul { list-style-type: disc; margin-left: 20px; }
li { margin-bottom: 5px; }
An Exegetical Analysis of Demonic and Demoniac Agency in the Gospel of Mark
This exegetical study of Demonic and Demoniac Agency in the Gospel of Mark is based on a b-greek discussion from February 18th, 2017. The initial inquiry focused on the interpretation of participles in Mark 9:20, specifically whether the masculine participle ἰδὼν (seeing) refers to the demoniac boy or the possessing spirit, especially when subsequent masculine participles in the same verse (πεσὼν, ἀφρίζων) clearly describe the boy’s physical actions.
The central exegetical issue revolves around distinguishing between the agency of the demoniac (the human host) and the demonic entity within them, particularly as expressed through grammatical agreement (gender, number) in participles and pronouns within the Gospel of Mark. This often leads to ambiguity regarding the subject of action in passages describing demonic encounters, raising questions about *constructio ad sensum* (agreement in sense rather than grammatical form), strict grammatical agreement, or anacoluthon (grammatical inconsistency).
Greek Text (Nestle 1904)
Mark 5:8-13: The Gerasene Demoniac
8 ἔλεγεν γὰρ αὐτῷ· Ἔξελθε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἀκάθαρτον ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. 9 καὶ ἐπηρώτα αὐτόν· Τί ὄνομά σοι; καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ· Λεγιὼν ὄνομά μοι, ὅτι πολλοί ἐσμεν· 10 καὶ παρεκάλει αὐτὸν πολλὰ ἵνα μὴ αὐτὰ ἀποστείλῃ ἔξω τῆς χώρας. 11 ἦν δὲ ἐκεῖ πρὸς τῷ ὄρει ἀγέλη χοίρων μεγάλη βοσκομένη· 12 καὶ παρεκάλεσαν αὐτὸν λέγοντες· Πέμψον ἡμᾶς εἰς τοὺς χοίρους, ἵνα εἰς αὐτοὺς εἰσέλθωμεν. 13 καὶ ἐπέτρεψεν αὐτοῖς. καὶ ἐξελθόντα τὰ πνεύματα τὰ ἀκάθαρτα εἰσῆλθον εἰς τοὺς χοίρους, καὶ ὥρμησεν ἡ ἀγέλη κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν, ὡς δισχίλιοι, καὶ ἐπνίγοντο ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ.Mark 1:23-26: The Demoniac in the Synagogue
23 καὶ εὐθὺς ἦν ἐν τῇ συναγωγῇ αὐτῶν ἄνθρωπος ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ καὶ ἀνέκραξεν 24 λέγων· Τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, Ἰησοῦ Ναζαρηνέ; ἦλθες ἀπολέσαι ἡμᾶς; οἶδά σε τίς εἶ, ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ. 25 καὶ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγων· Φιμώθητι καὶ ἔξελθε ἐξ αὐτοῦ. 26 καὶ σπαράξαν αὐτὸν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἀκάθαρτον καὶ φωνῆσαν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ ἐξῆλθεν ἐξ αὐτοῦ.Mark 9:20: The Epileptic Boy
καὶ ἤνεγκαν αὐτὸν πρὸς αὐτόν. καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν τὸ πνεῦμα εὐθὺς συνεσπάραξεν αὐτόν, καὶ πεσὼν ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐκυλίετο ἀφρίζων.Mark 9:26: The Departure of the Spirit
καὶ κράξας καὶ πολλὰ σπαράξας ἐξῆλθεν.
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- In Mark 9:20, some manuscripts (e.g., 238, 873, 1084, 1160, 1243, 1302) present the neuter participle ἰδόν in place of the masculine ἰδὼν. The SBLGNT (like NA28) adopts ἰδὼν as the preferred reading, which is also reflected in the Nestle 1904 text provided above. This textual variant highlights scribal attempts to resolve the grammatical tension between a masculine participle and the neuter noun τὸ πνεῦμα.
- For the other passages cited (Mark 1:23-26, Mark 5:8-13, Mark 9:26), the presented Greek text largely aligns with the SBLGNT (2010) regarding participle forms and pronouns relevant to the discussion. The core issue of grammatical agreement for πνεῦμα is one of interpretation rather than a significant textual variant in most instances.
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes (BDAG, KITTEL)
Textual Criticism (NA28): The most pertinent textual variant for this discussion is found in Mark 9:20. While the NA28, like the SBLGNT, reads ἰδὼν (masculine singular nominative active participle), several manuscripts attest to ἰδόν (neuter singular nominative active participle). This divergence reflects an early scribal awareness of the grammatical anomaly wherein a masculine participle modifies the neuter noun τὸ πνεῦμα. Scribes opting for ἰδόν likely sought to normalize the gender agreement, suggesting that for them, strict grammatical concord was paramount. The preference for ἰδὼν in critical editions implies either that the original text deliberately used a masculine form to personify the spirit (*constructio ad sensum*), or that it represents an anacoluthon, a common feature of Markan style.
Lexical Notes (BDAG, KITTEL):
- πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον (Mark 1:23, 5:8, 5:13, etc.): BDAG defines this as “an unclean spirit, a demon, especially as the agent of a physical or mental disorder.” KITTEL (TDNT) would elaborate on the multifaceted concept of πνεῦμα (spirit) in Hellenistic and Jewish contexts, ranging from divine breath to human disposition and, crucially, malevolent supernatural entities. The epithet ἀκάθαρτον (unclean) emphasizes its ritual and moral impurity, highlighting its opposition to divine holiness and its defiling influence on human beings.
- συνεσπάραξεν (Mark 9:20): From συνσπαράσσω, BDAG translates this as “to throw into convulsions, convulse.” This verb denotes a violent, tearing, and disruptive physical agitation. In the context of demonic possession, it powerfully conveys the demon’s destructive control over the host’s body, manifesting in uncontrolled spasms and suffering.
- ἀφρίζων (Mark 9:20): A present active participle from ἀφρίζω, meaning “to foam at the mouth, to cause one to foam at the mouth” (BDAG). This symptom, often associated with epileptic fits, was commonly linked to demonic possession in ancient medical and popular thought, signifying intense physical distress and loss of control.
- κράξας (Mark 9:26): An aorist active participle from κράζω, meaning “to cry out, scream, shriek” (BDAG). This term emphasizes a loud, often sudden and distressed vocalization, which in demoniac narratives is frequently attributed to the demon speaking through the possessed person.
- σπαράξας (Mark 9:26): An aorist active participle from σπαράσσω, meaning “to tear, rend; to convulse” (BDAG). Similar to συνεσπάραξεν, this participle describes violent, convulsive movements, reinforcing the physical torment inflicted by the possessing spirit.
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The grammatical analysis of Mark’s demoniac narratives reveals a tension between strict grammatical concord and the fluid depiction of agency. In Mark 1:26, participles describing the spirit’s actions, σπαράξαν and φωνῆσαν, maintain grammatical agreement with τὸ πνεῦμα (neuter). Similarly, in Mark 5:8-13, pronouns and participles align with the man when he is the focus, shifting to neuter forms (αὐτὰ, ἐξελθόντα) when explicitly referring to the spirits. However, passages like Mark 9:20 and 9:26 present unique challenges.
In Mark 9:20, the masculine participle ἰδὼν appears to refer to the neuter τὸ πνεῦμα. This presents several interpretive possibilities:
- Constructio ad sensum: This view, supported by some commentators (e.g., Swete), argues that Mark treats the spirit as a personal agent (“him”) despite its grammatical neuter gender (“it”). This personification would emphasize the spirit’s active, intelligent, and malevolent consciousness, capable of perception. However, the observation that Mark rarely employs *constructio ad sensum* for πνεῦμα elsewhere weakens this argument as a consistent authorial pattern.
- Anacoluthon: This grammatical break, where the expected grammatical construction is abandoned, is not uncommon in Mark. An alternative reading could posit a parenthetical comment, where ἰδὼν refers to the boy, and the following clause “τὸ πνεῦμα εὐθὺς συνεσπάραξεν αὐτόν” functions as an explanatory interjection.
- Implicit Subject Shift: The rapid shifts in subject without explicit naming are a rhetorical feature of Mark. It is plausible that ἰδὼν refers to the boy, who physically sees Jesus, and then the action shifts to the spirit’s immediate reaction and subsequent torment of the boy. The subsequent participles πεσὼν and ἀφρίζων are unambiguously masculine and describe the boy’s physical response.
Mark 9:26 presents a similar ambiguity with the masculine participles κράξας and σπαράξας preceding the main verb ἐξῆλθεν (it departed), which clearly refers to the neuter spirit. One interpretation attributes these masculine participles to the boy’s physical actions—he cries out and convulses—before the spirit departs. This perspective acknowledges the intertwined nature of the demoniac scenario, where the boy’s body is the medium for the spirit’s manifestation and subsequent departure.
Rhetorically, this grammatical ambiguity effectively blurs the lines between the demoniac’s and the demon’s agency. It heightens the drama and mystery of possession, emphasizing the demon’s pervasive control while simultaneously acknowledging the host’s physical presence and suffering. Mark’s style, often characterized by parataxis and rapid narration, further contributes to this sense of intertwined agency, conveying the chaotic and urgent nature of these supernatural encounters.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The grammatical ambiguities in Mark’s depiction of demonic possession underscore the complex and dynamic relationship between the demoniac and the possessing spirit. While Mark generally maintains grammatical consistency with πνεῦμα as a neuter noun, passages like Mark 9:20 and 9:26 introduce masculine participles that challenge straightforward interpretation. This can be interpreted as *constructio ad sensum* (personifying the spirit), anacoluthon (a grammatical disruption), or an implicit shift in agency, where the host’s physical actions are described even when the underlying agent is the spirit. The most plausible interpretation acknowledges a continuous interplay: the spirit often instigates actions *through* the human host, leading to descriptions that fluidly switch between the spirit’s will and the host’s physical manifestations. Mark’s rhetorical choices thus reflect the profound blurring of identity and control inherent in demonic possession.
Translation Suggestions for Mark 9:20 and 9:26:
- Mark 9:20: “And they brought him to him. And when the spirit saw him (Jesus), it immediately convulsed him, and falling on the ground, he rolled around, foaming at the mouth.”
This translation prioritizes the spirit as the grammatical subject of seeing, aligning with the “constructio ad sensum” argument, where the masculine participle ἰδὼν refers to the neuter τὸ πνεῦμα as a personal agent. The subsequent actions are then clearly attributed to the boy. - Mark 9:20: “And they brought him to him. And the boy, seeing him (Jesus)—the spirit immediately convulsed him—and falling on the ground, he rolled around, foaming at the mouth.”
This option interprets ἰδὼν as referring to the boy (masculine), with the clause “the spirit immediately convulsed him” functioning as a parenthetical interjection, explaining the boy’s violent reaction upon seeing Jesus. This aligns with the anacoluthon hypothesis. - Mark 9:26: “And after crying out and convulsing violently (the boy), it (the spirit) departed, and he became like a corpse…”
This rendering attributes the physical actions of crying out and convulsing (masculine participles κράξας and σπαράξας) to the boy, acknowledging his physical suffering, while clearly identifying the neuter spirit as the one who “departed.” This maintains a distinction in agency even amidst intertwined actions, highlighting the boy’s role as the vessel for the spirit’s dramatic exit.