At Mk 3.22, within a story about Jesus and his family (Mk 3.20-35), Mark presents certain Jewish religious authorities (hOI GRAMMATEISOI) as traveling from Jerusalem to Galilee and proclaiming publicly that Jesus possesses a demon and is in league with Satan.⁽¹⁾ When we ask what it is, in Mark's eyes, that prompts these authorities to make this charge, the answer is, of course, that they wish to explain Jesus' powers and success as an exorcist and healer.⁽²⁾ But why, according to Mark, do the authorities give this particular explanation? Why does Mark have them accuse Jesus of demonic collusion? To put this another way, What did Mark want his readers to see the authorities as `up to' here?⁽³⁾

At first glance, the answer would seem to be that Mark intended the authorities to be seen as simply voicing an honest (though obviously misguided) assessment of the situation as they saw it. In the first place, according to Mark, Jesus' having the power to do miracles, about which the authorities have no doubt,⁽⁴⁾ said nothing in itself respecting where this power came from. Indeed, as is shown in several miracle and exorcism stories recounted in Mark both prior to and after Mk 3.22, Jesus' possession and exercise of this power only served to raise the question of its source.⁽⁵⁾ And since, as Mark presents things, such power was regarded by Jews somewhat suspiciously, as just as likely (if not more so) to have its source in Satan as in God,⁽⁶⁾ then pronouncing that Jesus was in collusion with Satan when faced with Jesus' powers and success as an exorcist would be a reasonable and seemingly warranted response. In the second place, Mark has arranged the events of the Gospel story so that prior to the charge and in concert with performing exorcisms and other mighty works Jesus has, in the name of God, (a) not only publicly engaged in actions such as healing and working on the sabbath (healing: Mk 1.21-28; 3.1-6; working: 2.23-24), associating with the unclean (1.40-41), sharing table fellowship with tax collectors and `sinners' (2.15), and not fasting (2.18) which called into question both the legitimacy of institutions and practices held sacred by Judaism and the necessity of being bound by them, but (b) also publicly called other Jews to follow him in doing so (cf. Mk 2.13-28).⁽⁷⁾ Given all of this, and given who, according to Mark, the authorities are, namely experts in the Scriptures,⁽⁸⁾ a charge against Jesus such as we find in Mk 3.22 is exactly what might be expected from them. For in their eyes Jesus would seem to be the virtual embodiment of the figure against whom Israel is warned in Deut 13.1-5 (2-6, LXX), namely, the apostate PROFHTHS who, while claiming to be God's messenger, says

`Let us go after other gods,' which you have not known, `and let us serve them'

But why, then, at the end of the story (3.28-29, cf. vs. 30), does Mark have Jesus claim that in formulating and uttering the accusation of collusion the authorities have `blasphemed' the Holy Spirit and are guilty of sin so great it places them beyond the pale of God's forgiveness?<sup>(11)</sup> If, according to Mark, the authorities' charge is indeed sincere and arises legitimately as an honest assesment of who from their perspective Jesus appears to be, then Jesus has no grounds for doing so. Moreover, his claim comes off not only as far too harsh for the circumstances which engendered it, but as something wildly inappropriate and wholly gratuitous. For it levies against the authorities a moral culpability that is not theirs and ascribes to them a punishment which they do not deserve. Now unless we are willing to accept that Mark intended to portray Jesus' response to the authorities' charge as lacking in proportion and woefully misjudged, then we must find some other solution to the question of what Mark thinks the authorities were `up to' at Mk 3.22.⁽¹²⁾

I wish to suggest that according to Mark the authorities' charge against Jesus is meant to be seen not as something stemming from an honest misperception of the source of Jesus' power, but as a carefully constructed lie. It is, I contend, a conscious, premeditated misrepresentation of both who Jesus is and the aegis under which he works; and it is put forward with the sinister intent of frustrating Jesus' mission by blackening his name and turning those who might follow him against him. In other words, Mk 3.22 is not just any calumny, but one that is coldly and calculatingly contrived.

That the charge in Mk 3.22, if believed, could indeed have the effect I claim Mark's religious authorities intended it to have, there need be little doubt. It is, after all, at base, an accusation of sorcery;⁽¹³⁾ and as such it labels Jesus a practitioner of the black arts.⁽¹⁴⁾ A label of this sort, if made to stick, would make Jesus a virtual pariah among his co-religionists and cut from under him all claims to authority and allegiance.⁽¹⁵⁾ Moreover, as Malina and Rohbraugh have noted, once acquired, the label could be nearly impossible to shake off.⁽¹⁶⁾

But what indicates that, as I suggest, the charge is intended by Mark to be seen as a shameless and premeditated fabrication? There are three considerations. These become clear when we take into account the implications of the following facts.

First, the fact that, according to Mark, the last confrontation Jesus had with religious authorities prior to his encounter with them at Mk 3.22 -- a confrontation related in Mark's story of the healing of a man with a withered hand (Mk 3.1-6) -- resulted in the authorities becoming so offended with Jesus and his claims that they held `counsel ... against him' (SUMBOULION EDIDOUN KAT' AUTOU) on how best `to destroy him' (hOPWS AUTON APOLESWSIN, v. 6). This notice that the authorities sought to bring about Jesus' `ruin' has the function in Mark not only of recording how severe the opposition of the religious authorities to Jesus had become at this point in the Gospel.⁽¹⁷⁾ Notably, it also serves to set all confrontations between Jesus and the authorities subsequent to that notice within an interpretative, programmatic framework which casts each of these confrontations as attempts to bring about this end.⁽¹⁸⁾ So, according to Mark, what we are to expect from the authorities in Mk 3.22 is not honesty in their dealings with Jesus but subterfuge.⁽¹⁹⁾ And, as we know all too well from modern political campaigns where the destruction of one's opponent is now as much the objective as winning the vote, lying maliciously and leaking manufactured charges in a stab at character assassination is often the first step in trying to attain this goal.⁽²⁰⁾

Second, the fact that the teaching Jesus gives in response to the charge (Mk 3.23-27) is formally and thematically of a piece with the teaching he gives to charges or questions from opponents in such texts as Mk 7.1-13; 10.1-12; 11.27-33; 12.1-11; 13-17; 35-37.⁽²¹⁾ Notably, in each of these instances the teaching is given by Jesus in order both to lay bare and to defend himself against not misjudgment or misunderstanding on the part of his opponents, but their hypocrisy and their machinations against him.⁽²²⁾ The fact, then, that Mark has Jesus respond to the charge in Mk 3.22 with this type of teaching means that in Mark's eyes the charge was not honest but malicious, a fabrication that was full of sinister intent.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the fact that when Jesus speaks of his opponents as having `blasphemed the Holy Spirit' in making their charge that he `has Beelzebul' and expels demons `by the prince of demons', (cf. Mk 3.30) he is accusing them of engaging not only in a rebellious hostility to God and a reviling of his will and power, but in a culpable perversity -- a deliberate, calculated choosing, in defiance of a known truth, `to call light darkness'.⁽²³⁾ For this is the meaning that `blasphemy' has here.⁽²⁴⁾ It should be noted, then, that nothing fits this accusation better than the authorities consciously having given out a slanderous charge in which what is expressed in it about Jesus is the very opposite of what they know to be the case.⁽²⁵⁾

In the light of these three considerations there is, I think, good reason to conclude that, according to Mark, that is, within his story world, the scribal charge at Mk 3.22 is not what the authorities actually believe about Jesus. Rather, as the evidence indicates, it is a premeditated lie used consciously as a `dirty trick' to undermine Jesus' credibility with those to whom he preaches and thereby to bring him and his mission to naught.⁽²⁶⁾
 

Now it should be noted that the import of this conclusion is far reaching. It means that, unlike what Mark presents with respect to other human actors in his Gospel (at least up to this point in the Gospel's narrative line), the religious authorities are portrayed as fully privy to the so-called `Messianic Secret' and actually know that Jesus is hO XRISTOS and hO hUIOS TOU QEOU, the divinely appointed agent for the restoration and redemption of Israel. How else could they engage in a conscious misrepresentation of both who Jesus is and the source of the power with which he is endowed unless they had first grasped the truth about these things? But does not Mark hold that no one ever really broke the `secret' until Jesus' crucifixion, and then only the Roman centurion assigned to Jesus' execution detail? How then can what I have argued for here be true?

In response to this, two things may be pointed out. The first is the fact, documented by J. Coutts and A. Ambrozic, that as Mark presents things there is no `Messianic Secret' as far as Jesus' opponents are concerned.<sup>(27)</sup> From the first, Jesus makes no effort to conceal from them who he is (cf. Mk 2.1-12). In fact, from the initial encounter onward, he seems intent continually to throw down gauntlets on the matter which challenge the religious authorities not only to recognize him for who and what he is, but to deny his claim if they can. It is to them that he first openly proclaims and proves himself to be the `Son of Man' who has God's authority to forgive sins (2.10-11, cp. vv. 6-9).⁽²⁸⁾ It is to them that he makes his claim to be the `Bridegroom' whose presence demands that Israel rejoice (Mk 2.19, cp. v. 18), the one greater than David in authority and Lord of the Sabbath (2.25-26, 28, cp. v. 24), the one `sent' by God to do God's work with `sinners' (2.17, cp. v. 16), the `Son' whom God destines to inherit the vineyard of Israel (12.6-7), and, notably, at their confrontation with him over the charge of demonic collusion, the `Stronger One' whom John the Baptizer prophesied to the authorities as coming soon to bring a baptism of God's Spirit to Israel (3.27, cf. Mk 1.4-8).<sup>(29)</sup> And from the first, as Mk 2.12 shows, the authorities grasp who Jesus is.<sup>(30)</sup> Indeed, unless they are seen as having grasped this, it is hard to explain why they become as shocked at Jesus as Mark makes them out to be when Jesus openly associates with tax collectors and `sinners' (TELWNAI KAI hAMARTWLOI, Mk 2.15, cp. v. 16), refuses to abide by the Law's prescriptions on coming in contact with things that defile (Mk 2.15-18, cp. v. 16), proclaims that such common (and presumably `official') expressions of piety as fasting need not be observed (Mk 2.19-22, cp. v. 18b), and allows his disciples to abrogate the commandments against doing `work' and violating the sanctity of the Sabbath (Mk 2.23-28, cp. v. 24).⁽³¹⁾ Surely, what upsets them is that it is not just anyone, but the `holy one of God' who countenances these things.⁽³²⁾

The second thing is that unless we are willing to accept that at Mk 3.22 (and elsewhere) the religious authorities are indeed portrayed as knowing who Jesus is, or, more importantly, that, according to Mark, the religious authorities reject Jesus because they know who he is, we are hard presssed to explain the searing emphasis found throughout Mark and, notably, as early as Mk 3.5 (if not earlier in Mk 1.45 and even Mk 1.22), that so far as the religious authorities are concerned the EUAGGELLION of Jesus Christ, the Son of God is not good news or Heilsgeschichte but Verdammungsgeschichte -- damnation history.⁽³³⁾ In Mark the authorities are those whom the Markan Jesus proclaims as having no forgiveness in the coming age (3.29), as whom God purposely deprives from being given the `mystery of the kingdom of God' (4.11-12) and against whom God has sworn his wrath.⁽³⁴⁾

They are those, Jesus notes, upon whom God will visit the very fate (APWLEIA, `destruction') they planned and engineered for his Son (12.8, cp. Mk. 3.6; 11.18) and from whom the `vineyard' of Israel with which they were entrusted will be taken (12.8). They, Jesus announces in word and deed, are those whose sanctuary and center of privilege will be `blasted' and left in ruins (11.11-21; 13.3) and who will be banished from the presence of the Son of man when he comes with the glory of his father and with the holy angels of heaven (8.38; cp. 14.62). And they are those who in the end `will receive the greater condemnation' (12.40). Now, why else would the Gospel be from the start for the authorities a Verdammungsgeschichte unless their rejection of Jesus, upon which their damnation is based, is not only early but done in full knowledge of who and what he is? This is, after all, as even a cursory reading of the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Mk 12.1-12) shows, what Mark himself says was the case.

Accordingly, the implication of my claim that in Mk 3.22 the authorities are engaged in a conscious misrepresentation of both who Jesus is and the source of the power presents no obstacle to that claim's validity. On the contrary, it serves to buttress my contention.

And so when we ask what it is, according to Mark, that best characterizes the scribal charge that Jesus possessed a demon and is in league with Satan, we may, I think, conclude without any hesitation that it was not honest, though misinformed, perception. It was, as he presents it, nothing less than cold, calculated calumny.
 

Given this conclusion, the question should, of course, be asked: Why would Mark wish to characterize the charge at Mk 3.22 as a premeditated lie and present a desire on the part of the authorities to ruin Jesus as its motive? Though it is beyond the scope of this article to attempt a thorough exploration of the possibilities, one answer mightily suggests itself, especially if, as has often been mooted, the Gospel's social context or Sitz-im-Leben is the last tragic stage of the Jewish War and the (imminent?) destruction of Jerusalem by the armies of Rome.⁽³⁵⁾ For Mark the actual outcome of the War (a scorched and desolate Judea, a population massacred or in chains, a trampled Jerusalem, a razed and desecrated Temple) was a divine visitation upon Israel attributable directly to the Jewish religious authorities' rejection of Jesus and his message.⁽³⁶⁾ In characterizing the nature of the charge and presenting the motive behind it as he does, Mark, therefore, seems to have been intent to show the types of attitudes and the kinds of behaviour -- embedded in his presentation of the characteristics of the religious authorities and the reasons they do not accept Jesus -- which, to use Lukan language, do not `make for peace' (Lk. 19.42), which led to and caused the war, and which will continue to set `nation against nation', `kingdom against kingdom', `brother against brother', and `father against child', let alone God against his nominal elect, if adhered to.⁽³⁷⁾

In any case, whatever the reason Mark may have had for characterizing the scribal charge in Mk 3.22 as cold, calculated calumny, put forward expressly in the interest of engineering Jesus' `destruction', there is, I think, little reason to doubt that he did so.
 

1. ELEGON hOTI BEELZEBOUL EXEI, KAI hOTI EN TW ARXONTI TWN DAIMONIWN EKBALLEI TA DAIMONIA. I am assuming here that Mark intends the expression BEELZEBOUL EXEI to be taken literally and has the meaning `he [Jesus] has Beelzebul under his power' (with Beelzebul here = either an underling of Satan or, as Mk 3.23 and other linguistic evidence indicates, more probably, Satan himself. On this, see L. Gaston, `Beelzebul', TZ 18 [1962], pp. 247-55). I assume this despite the fact, pointed out by R. A. Guelich (Mark 1-8:26 [Dallas: Word, 1989], p. 174, citing Mk 3.30; 5.15; 7.25; 9.17) and by G. H. Twelftree (Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus [Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993], pp. 198-99, referring [without citation] to usage in Greek philosophy and religion), that EXEIN in contexts similar to Mk 3.22 is a common expression for `being possessed' (so also H. Hanse,`EXW, KTL.' TDNT 2 [1964], pp. 816-32, esp. p. 821-22). To my mind, the reading which takes BEELZEBOUL EXEI as expressing the idea that Jesus is one who has a demon at his disposal fits far better than its opposite (i.e., that Jesus is a demoniac) with the second charge in 3.22 where Jesus is accused of using a (specific) demon to exorcise demons (on this, see R. H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995], p. 172). It should be noted, however, that even should Mark have meant the expression to mean `he [Jesus] is possessed by Beelzebul' (or, alternatively, mixing both readings, `he bears Beelzebul in himself'), what I argue in the following pages would not materially be affected.
     That the `prince of demons' (TW ARXONTI TWN DAIMONIWN) here means Satan seems to be demanded by the fact that when Jesus responds to the charge, the name he gives to the ARXON TWN DAIMONIWN by whom he reputedly `casts out' demons is SATANAS (cf. Mk 3.23-27).

2. This is clear if only from the fact that the authorities' charge is cast by Mark as a counterpart to the charge made by members of Jesus family (i.e. that Jesus was `beside himself' [hOTI EXESTH], Mk 3.21), which in turn is both a response to, as well as an explanation of, a massive and public outbreak of healing and exorcistic power in Jesus (cf. Mk 3.20, compare Mk 3.7-12; on this, see Guelich, Mark 1-8:26, p. 171, 173).

3. My question, it should be noted, is a literary and not an historical one. There are, as all commentators note, strong reasons for saying that the substance of what Mark presents in Mk 3.20-25 can be traced back to, and embodies the memory of, an actual encounter between Jesus and Jewish religious authorities in which charges of demonic collusion were in fact leveled at Jesus (see, e.g. V. Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark [London: Macmillan, 1952], pp. 237-38). But I am not concerned here with what historically stood behind and motivated the accusation. All I am seeking to lay bare here is Mark's understanding of the motive behind the charge, and my intention is to deal with this question strictly from within the logic of Mark's story world. Of course, it may very well be that what Mark presents as the authorities' motive actually coincides with - even faithfully reproduces - what historically was at the root of the charge. This, however, is a matter that may be decided only after we have determined just what Mark's presentation is.

4. In Mk 3.21-30, the authorities never deny that Jesus can perform exorcisms and other miracles. Indeed, the fundamental presupposition on their part is not only that Jesus had already done so, but that he was widely known to have engaged in this activity. Otherwise the authorities' charge makes no sense. Cf. also Mk 3.2, where, as here, the authorities are portrayed as very much aware of Jesus' possession of thamaturgic power.

5. See, for instance, Mk 1.21-28, the story of the healing of a Capernaum demoniac, where those who witness Jesus' expulsion of the demoniac's `unclean spirit' are portrayed by Mark as publically questioning the import of the healing and the source of the power behind it (v. 27). See also Mk 5.1-21, the story of the healing of the Gerasene demoniac, in which the witnesses to this exorcism are portrayed as entering into a debate with their neighbors concerning whether Jesus' exorcistic power was something to be feared.

6. That Mark presents exorcists' power as being viewed by Jews with wariness and suspicion seems clear from the way he has them respond to Jesus' exorcistic activities. When, for instance, Jesus heals a demoniac in a crowded synagogue at Capernaum (Mk 1.21-28), the response Jesus evokes from the witnesses to the event, namely, "wild astonishment" (KAI EQAMBHQHSAN hAPANTES) and a public argument (hWSTE SUZHTEIN PROS hEAUTOUS) centering in the question TI ESTIN TOUTO; DIDAXH KAINH KAT' EXOUSIAN KAI TOIS PNEUMASI TOIS AKAQARTOIS EPITASSEI, KAI hUPAKOUOUSIN AUTW (vs. 27), is filled as much with fear and foreboding as wonderment. When word of Jesus' as powerful exorcist reaches Jesus' family, their immediate reaction is not to rejoice but to claim publicly that Jesus was `beside himself' (ELEGON GAR hOTI EXESTH) and to try to remove him by force from the public sphere (EXHLQON KRATHSAI AUTON, vs. 21). Such reactions betray apprehension not appreciation.

That, according to Mark, Jews viewed the origin of exorcistic power as just as, if not more, likely to have its source in Satan as in God is clear from the consideration that it is to this very belief which the authorities charge in Mk 3.22 appeals. The authorities obviously intend their charge of Jesus' demonic collusion to be taken seriously. But how could they have any hope of this unless the likelihood of the Satanic origin of exorcistic power was the assumption from which those confronted with such power worked?

7. On this, see D. Rhoads, `Social Criticism: Crossing Boundaries', in Mark and Method: New Approaches in Biblical Study, J. C. Anderson and S. D. Moore (eds.), (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), pp. 135-160; J. Neyrey, `The Idea of Purity in Mark's Gospel', Semeia 35 (1986), pp. 91-128; T. L. Budesheim, `Jesus and the Disciples in Conflict with Judaism', ZNW 62 (1971), pp. 190-209.

8. On this, see A. J. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1988), esp. 148-154.

9. On the identification in the first century C.E. amongst Jews and Christians of the apostate (false) prophet of Deut 13 as one in league with demonic forces, see S. R. Garrett, The Demise of the Devil (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), pp. 13-17. According to Garrett the identification was regular and automatic, and the concepts of (a) apostate prophets who offer `signs and wonders' and (b) Satanic agency were `inextricably linked' (p. 13).

10. M. D. Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark (Peabody: Henrickson, 1991), p. 115-116. See also W. L. Lane, The Gospel according to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), p. 141.
     That the conclusion that Jesus was the apostate [false] prophet of Deut. 13 was one that could easily be drawn by any first century Jew familiar with the Deuteronomic description of, and warnings against, that figure (let alone by those schooled in the Law as hOI GRAMMATEIS hOI APO IEROSOLUMWN KATABANTES presumably would be) is suggested by the fact that, as BT Sanhedrin 43a, 107b, and Justin's Dialogue with Trypho 60 seem to show, this is exactly the conclusion that was drawn by first (and second) century Jews about Jesus. Each of these texts notes that, historically, (the majority of?) Jews who knew Jesus and witnessed his exorcisms regarded him as someone who (1) `practiced sorcery' and (2) `led Israel astray' (i.e., enticed Israel to apostasy) or was `a seducer of the people'(LAOPLANON). Notably, the vocabulary of both the latter and the former charges (since `practicing sorcery' = DW SOI SHMEION hH TERAS) is taken directly from Deut. 13. On this, see J. Reiling, `The Use of PSEUDOPROFHTHS in the Septuagint, Philo and Josephus', NovT 13 (1971), pp. 147-56.
     Moreover, as is evident from his use of Deut 13 and its topos in Mk 13 (esp. in vv. 5-6 and vv. 21-23), Mark expected his even his Gentile readers to be familiar with the ways and means of the Deuteronomic false prophet. So the perception that the authorites' charge in Mk 3.22 was grounded in the conclusion that Jesus was the apostate [false] prophet of Deut. 13 was hardly beyond their [Mark's readers'] grasp.
     But the question remains: is giving voice to an honest assessment that Jesus is the false prophet of Deut. 13 really what Mark portrays the authorities as `up to'?. My answer, as we will now begin to see, is no.

11. In Mk 3.28 the sin is defined as one which is AIWNIOU and has no AFESIN EIS TON AIWNA. On the meaning of these terms, as well as that of the expression ENOXOS ESTIN AIWNIOU hAMARHMATOS which Jesus levels against the authorities, see C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Cambridge: CUP, 1963), p. 141.

12. It is sometimes claimed, e.g. by Guelich (Mark 1-8:26, p. 180), Lane (Mark, p. 146), Cranfield (Mark, p. 142, following Taylor [Mark, p. 244]), E. Schweizer (The Good News according to Mark [Atlanta: John Knox, 1975], p. 87) and others, that Jesus' response in 3.28-30 is not a judgement on the authorities or an assessment of what it is they have done, but only a warning to them which says, in effect, `Watch out! You have no idea of the dangerous ground upon which you are treading. Talk like that [the charge], if persistent, will make you liable to an eternal punishment'. This, if true, would mitigate something of the harshness of Jesus' rebuke and its apparent gratuitousness.
     But the idea that Jesus' response is only a warning to the authorities seems to me not only to ignore how closely the form and wording of Jesus response in vv. 28-39 coheres both (1) with OT judgement oracles from God in execution of his `lawsuit' against Israel's faithlessness (note the solemnizing µ µ with which vv. 28-29 begin and compare it with the divine `As I live, says Yahweh' with which Rib formula doom and judgement sayings are prefaced) and (2) with pronouncements of judgement against disobedience that Jesus makes elsewhere in the Gospel (e.g. Mk 8.12; 14.30) -- all of which indicates that the response is meant to be taken as a castigation of the authorities. It also rides roughshod over Mark's specific notation in v. 30 that Jesus' response in vv. 28-29 is an accurate assessment of what the authorities were actually liable to on account of their charge.

13. J. Samain, `L'accusation de magie contre le Christ dans Evangiles', ETL 15 (1938), pp. 449-90, esp. 464-72; C. K. Barrett, The Holy Spirit in the Gospel Tradition (London: SPCK, 1947). pp. 62, 129; C. H. Kraeling, `Was Jesus accused of Necromancy?', JBL 59 (1940), pp. 147-157, esp. 153-155; M. Smith, Jesus the Magician (London: Victor Gollanzez, 1978), p. 81; E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia, Fortress, 1985), pp. 165-66.
     This would be true even if the image underlying and evoked by the charge was the activity of the apostate prophet of Deut 13. As Reiling has shown, by the first century C.E. the activity Deut 13 describes as characteristic of that prophet (offering `signs and wonders') was typically thought of in terms of pagan divination and sorcery as much as it was of an attempt at reduplicating the mighty acts which God manifested during the Exodus events (`The Use of ', p. 154). See also, Garrett, Demise of the Devil, pp. 13-17.

14. Samain, `L'accusation de magie', pp. 464-72, 475-76; Kraeling, `Was Jesus accused of Necromancy?', pp. 153-155; J. H. Neyrey and B. Malina, `Jesus the Witch: Witchcraft Accusations in Matthew 12', in B. J. Malina and J. H. Neyrey, Calling Jesus Names: The Social Value of Labels in Matthew (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge Press, 1988), pp. 3-32. Contra Twelftree (Jesus the Exorcist, pp. 198-99) who, arguing not only that BEELZEBOUL EXEI (Mk 3.22a) but also that EN TW ARXONTI TWN DAIMONIWN EKBALLEI TA DAIMONIA (3.22b) means `he is controlled by demonic forces' (`... the reply of Jesus in Mk 3.23, `How can Satan cast out Satan?' implies not that Jesus is using or manipulating the possessing power, but the reverse' p. 198, italics his), thinks that all the charge amounts to is a claim that Jesus was `possessed'. To my mind, however, this argument is too facile. Whatever is to be made of Mk 3.22a (see above, note 1), is `he is a demoniac!' (that is, `he is controlled by Satan') really what Jesus' reply to 22b implies is stated there? And does not Twelftree's claim ignore the instrumental sense which EN bore in phrases like EN TW ARXONTI TWN DAIMONIWN?

15. Note how in The Martyrdom of Isaiah the charges of false prophecy/sorcery issued against Isaiah by the Samaritan false prophet Belkira (cf. 3.6-10) result not only in Isaiah's rejection by his fellow Jerusalemites (3.11-12) but in his death at their hands (chp. 5).

16. B. Malina and R. L. Rohbraugh, Social Science Commentary on the Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), p. 200.

17. On this, see J. Dewey, Markan Public Debate: Literary Technique, Concentric Structure, and Theology in Mark 2:1-3:6 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1980), p. 104.

18. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26, p. 140. This is to be maintained despite the fact that the authorities who take counsel against Jesus in Mk 3.6 (Pharisees along with Herodians) are not nominally the same as those who charge Jesus with demonic collusion in Mk 3.22 (i.e., Scribes). For as M. C. Cook has shown (Mark's Treatment of the Jewish Leaders [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1978]), in Mark's Gospel Scribes are Pharisees or a subgroup of the Pharisees. Moreover, we should also note, as J. D. Kingsbury points out, that all authorities in Mark, whether designated Scribes, Pharisees, Herodians, Sadducees, Chief Priests, or elders, form a unified front against Jesus, and therefore, from a literary point of view, constitute, and are intended to be seen as, a single character (Conflict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989], p. 14). Consequently, what is characteristic of the one group is characteristic of the other. On this, see also D. Rhoads and D. Mitche, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), 117-122.

19. This is, notably, not only what we are led to anticipate and expect, but what is said by Mark to happen when later in the Gospel -- in Mk 11.15-18; 12.13-17, a section of the Gospel which has strong formal and thematic parallels to Mk 3.1-6, 20-38 -- the authorities (Chief priests and Scribes), hearing Jesus' teachings that Temple worship, as it is presently carried out, is not acceptable to God (11.15-17), `sought a way to destroy him' (EZHTOUN PWS AUTON APOLESWSIN, Mk 11.18). For the next thing they do is to send others (Pharisees and Herodians) who engage in subterfuge (cf. Mk 12.14-15a) `to entrap him in his talk' (hINA AUTON AGREUSWSIN LOGW, Mk 12.13). And just as notably, this fact is not lost on Jesus. Here, too, at Mk 12.15b, Mark presents Jesus as well aware of what his opponents are up to.
     Mark may also be signaling to his readers to expect subterfuge from the authorities when he designates them, as we have seen he does in Mk 3.22, as having `come down from Jerusalem', since, as Guelich notes, Jerusalem in Mark represents `a place of hostility for Jesus, the place of his death and itself destined for destruction' (Mark 1-8:26, p. 174; see also S. M. Smith, `The Role of Jesus' Opponents in the Gospel of Mark', NTS 35 [1989], pp. 161-182, esp. p. 170). But some doubt attaches to this claim since at this point in the Gospel Jerusalem has only been spoken of in terms of a place whose inhabitants are (at least initially) receptive and not hostile to Jesus (cf. Mk. 1.15; 3.8). The city does not specifically come to be identified as a center of hostility until Mk 10.33. On the other hand, in defense of the idea, there is the fact that it is not unreasonable to assume that Mark's readers were already roughly familiar with the ending of the Gospel and already know that Jerusalem is the place from which the religious authorities will engineer Jesus' execution.

20. Witness the use of the patently (and known to be) false accusation of `communist' by J.E. Hoover against Martin Luther King Jr. or the machinations and use of `dirty tricks' by R.M. Nixon against his opponents. Sadly the phenomenon seems to be as rampant in ecclesiatical circles as it is in political ones. Enemies of Jim Baker, plotting his demise, conspired to leak the false accusation that Baker was a homosexual and had had several homosexual encounters with various men. Notably, in each of these instances, the accusations are in their own way charges of collusion with demonic forces.

21. On this, see J. M. Robinson, The Problem of History in Mark (London: SCM Press, 1957), pp. 43-51.

22. A. Ambrozic, The Hidden Kingdom. A Redaction-Critical Study of the References to the Kingdom of God in Mark's Gospel, (Washington, D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1972), pp. 57-58, 62. That Jesus teaching in these passages is intended to expose the hypocrisy underlying his opponents' charges and questions is especially clear in Mk 7.1-13 and 12.13-17 where the term or one of its cognates is applied by Jesus to his opponents before he responds to them. But it is also evident in Mk 10.1-2 at Mk 10.5, in 11.27-33 throughout the pericope, in 12.1-12 especially at v. 12, and in 12.35-37 in v. 37b (See also Jesus' biting criticism of hypocrisy of the authorities in Mk 12.38-40, which is linked in v. 38a to his previous `teaching' to them).
     That this teaching serves as a defense against his opponents' evil machinations against him is most clear in Mk 10.1-12 and 12.13-17, since in each of these passages (1) the intent of Jesus' opponents to bring him to ruin is the major theme of the pericope, and (2) how Jesus responds is noted to be crucial if he is to avoid invoking charges of sedition against himself (on this, see J.B. Gibson, The Temptations of Jesus in Early Christianity [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press], pp. 278-287; 299-314). But it is also evident in the other passages in that for Jesus to answer incorrectly the charges or questions of his opponents would involve him in teaching and thinking `the things of men', something, which as Mk 8.27-33 shows, is forbidden him.

23. So Lane, Mark, p. 145.

24. On this, see H. W. Beyer, `BLASFHMEW, BLASFHMIA, BLASFHMOS', TDNT 1 (1964), p. 624. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact, noted above, that according to Jesus, in uttering their charge, the authorities have committed an `unforgivable sin' (cf. Mk 3.29, hOS D' AN BLASFHMHSH EIS TO PNEUMA TO hAGION OUK EXEI AFESIN EIS TON AIWNA, ALLA ENOXOS ESTIN AIWNIOU hAMARTHMATOS). For, as K. Rengstorf observes, such a sin is committed only `when a man recognizes the mission of Jesus by the Holy Spirit but defies and resists and curses it' (`Hamartanw, ktl.' TDNT 1 [1964], p. 304). See also, O. E. Evans, `The Unforgivable Sin', ExpT 68 (1957), pp. 240-244; A. Stock, `All Sins will be Forgiven ..., But ...', Emmanuel 16 (1986), pp. 18-21.

25. On this, see B. van Iersel, `The gospel according to St. Mark -- written for a persecuted community?', NedTTs 24 (1980) pp. 15-36, esp. pp. 18-21, who demonstrates that in Mark' eyes the particular charge (BLASFHMHSH EIS TO PNEUMA TO hAGION) that Jesus levels against the authorites in v. 29 is tantamount to an accusation of apostasy and consequently characterizes the authorites as among the lapsi, the disciples who give way when brought to trial and knowingly abjure Jesus.
     Note, too, how in Martyrdom of Isaiah 5.9, 12, where Isaiah is said to respond to Belkira's charges that he (Isaiah) is a false prophet and a sorcerer by accusing Belkira of committing the same sort of sin that Jesus accuses the authorities of committing (one against God's Spirit which is so severe that it earns eternal condemnation), the presupposition of Isaiah's accusation is that Belkira's charges are sheer fabrications conjured up by the false prophet in order 'to bring about Isaiah's demise (cf. 3.1-2).

26. B. Weiss, A Commentary on the New Testament Vol. 1 (New York and London: Funk & Wagnals, 1906), pp. 102, 272-273. To my knowledge, Weiss is the only commentator (besides myself) who holds that the charge of demonic collusion in Mk 3.22 is meant to be seen as a deliberate lie on the part of the authorities (or, to use his words, a "slander ... which they themselves could not possible have believed", p. 102), consciously contrived in the service of a calculated campaign to destroy Jesus. Weiss, however, provides no evidence or argument for his view.

27. J. S. Coutts, `The Messianic Secret and the Enemies of Jesus', St.Bib. II (1978), pp. 37-46; Ambrozic, The Hidden Kingdom, pp. 56-62. Contra, Kingsbury, Conflict in Mark, pp. 37-38. On whether, despite great scholarly industry claiming the contrary, there is a `Messianic Secret' at all in Mark, see E. Trocme, `Is there a Markan Christology?', in B. Lindars and S.S. Smalley (ed.), Christ and the Spirit in the New Testament (Festschrift for C.F.D. Moule. Cambridge: CUP, 1973), pp. 3-13.

28. On Jesus openly proclaiming and `proving' in Mk 2.1-2 that he is the Son of Man, endowed by God with authority to forgive sins, see J.B. Gibson, `Jesus' Refusal to Produce a "Sign" (Mk 8.11-13)', JSNT 38 (1990), pp. 37-66, esp. pp. 38-42; idem., The Temptations of Jesus, pp. 170-173.

29. On Jesus claiming within Mk 3.23-28 to be John's coming `Stronger One' (hO ISXUROTEROS), as well as `the Stronger One' as a Messianic designation, see W. Grundman, `ISXUW, KTL.', TDNT 3 (1963), pp. 397-406, esp. 401.

30. That Mark intended the Scribes to be among those who, on seeing Jesus prove his claim that he had an ECOUSIA traditionally thought reserved to God alone `were ... amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!"'(Mk 2.12), and, therefore, also to be seen as accepting Jesus' claim to divine authority, see Gibson, `Jesus' Refusal', p. 41 and note 12; The Temptations of Jesus, p. 171-72, n. 38; Gundry, Mark, p. 120.
     This conclusion would be reinforced if, with Tischendorf, von Soden, H. B. Swete (The Gospel According to St Mark [London: Macmillan, 1908], p. 41), E. P. Gould (The Gospel according to St Mark [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896), p. 42), and A. Plummer (The Gospel According to St Mark [Cambridge: CUP, 1914), p. 89), we could accept as original the reading of Mk 2.15b-16 found in D L 33 which states `And there followed him also [at that time, i.e., when Jesus made Levi, the , his disciple] the Scribes of the Pharisees, and having seen that he eats with the sinners and the tax gatherers, said ...' (KAI HKOLOUQOUN AUTW KAI (hOI) GRAMMATEIS TWN FARISAIWN, KAI IDONTES hOTI ESQIEI (HSQIEN) META TWN hAMARTWLWN KAI TELWNWN, ELEGON , KTL.). For Mark would then be saying that initially, and on account of Jesus' display of power and divine authority, the Scribes were adherents of Jesus and remained so, notably, until they saw how and in what direction Jesus was going to exercise the authority they knew was his. On the probabilities of the authenticity of this reading, see C. M. Martini, `Were the Scribes Jesus' followers? (Mk 2:15-16) A Textual Decision Reconsidered', in Text, Wort, Glaube, Festschrift for K. Aland (M. Brecht ed.; Berlin & New York: Walter de Gueyer, 1980), pp. 31-39. On the dubiousness of the argument used by modern text critics to reject the reading, see Guelich, Mark 1-8:26, p. 99-100, n. e.

31. On the note, as well as the degree, of horror expressed by the religious authorities at Mk 2.16, 18b, 24, see Gundry, Mark, ad loc.

32. Ambrozic, Hidden Kingdom, p. 62. It is also possible that the fact that the religious authorities are portrayed as entering into vociferous debate with Jesus only to be silenced by him or frustrated with a definitive reply, is meant to be taken as indicating an open awareness on their part of who Jesus is, if J.M. Robinson, arguing on the basis of what he sees as formal and linguistic parallels between the exorcisms and the `conflict' stories in Mark, is correct in his claim that the debates between Jesus and the religious authorities are both (1) a formal reduplication of the exorcisms, where typically `the demon advances upon Jesus with a hostile challenge, only to be silenced with an authoritative word', as well as (2) an extension and continuation of the struggle inherent within them (The Problem of History in Mark, pp. 43-46). For then those human beings who oppose Jesus with a hostile question or an accusation are intended by Mark to be seen, like the demons, as minions of Satan, carrying out his work (note that at Mk 8.11; 10.2; 12:15 the debates with the Jewish authorities are, like Jesus' first encounter with Satan, designated `temptations'); and, mutatis mutandis, what is predicated of the demons could be assumed also to be attributes of Jesus' human opponents. Significantly, as Mk 1.24; 3.11, 5.7 show, one of the primary characteristics of the demons (and also those in their power, cf. Mk 1.21) is that they know in advance of Jesus telling them just who he is. (For a defense both of Robinson's claim and of the conclusion regarding the authorities knowledge of Jesus that can be drawn from it, see Ambrozic, The Hidden Kingdom, pp. 56-57, 60-62).

33. On this, see T. A. Burkill, `Blasphemy: St. Mark's Gospel as Damnation History', in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty (ed. J. Neusner; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975) Vol. 1, pp. 51-74, idem., `St. Mark's Gospel as Damnation History', St.Ev. 8 (1981), pp. 87-89. The Verdammungsgeschichte emphasis is clearly evident in Mark's notice at Mk 3.5 of Jesus' `looking around with anger' (MET' ORGHS) at the authorities and `grieving' at their `hardness of heart' (SULLUPOUMENOS EPI TH PWRWSEI THS KARDIAS AUTWN). But it may also stand behind Jesus' action in Mk 1.44 of sending a cured leper to show himself to the authorities if the stated purpose of doing so (EIS MARTURION AUTOIS) means, as some commentators have urged, `as a witness against them'. For Jesus would then be sending word that the era of sacerdotal privilege, and the place within it enjoyed by the authorities, is now at an end. And it seems also to be adumbrated in the notice at Mk 1.22 that the crowds whom Jesus addresses in his first appearance in a synagogue after his baptism and commissioning (Mk 1.9-11) `were astonished ... for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes'.

34. Jesus proclaims this at Mk 8.12 in his designation of the authorities who demand from him a `sign from heaven' (cf. vs. 11) as members of `this generation'. For in this Jesus likens them to the `wilderness generation' who, at Massah and Meribah, demanded proofs from God that he was in their midst and, as a consequence, as Ps. 95 shows, provoked God's wrath against them:

⁹when your fathers tested me, and put me to the proof [at Meribah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness, v. 8], though they had seen my work ... ¹¹...I swore in my anger that they should not enter my rest.

36. As W.R. Telford (The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980) and others have argued, this is most clearly seen in Mk 11.12-21 where Mark has intercalated the story of the `cleansing' of the Temple between the earlier and later parts of the account of Jesus' cursing the fig tree. But this interpretation of the War also stands behind much of Jesus' discourse in Mk 13.

37. On this, see Rhoads, `Social Criticism: Crossing Boundaries', p. 138.