The Court: Where have you been?
Tektonikus: Sorry, I got a phone call.
The Court: In case you forgot, we are in the middle of Gertie Wright’s…I mean…Gertrude Baniszewski’s trial. If you’re too busy, I can always re-appoint Mr. Erbecker.
Tektonikus: Oh, it’s not that, Your Honor.
Attorney 1: Her delaying tactics are getting old!
Tektonikus: I must protest! Attorney 1’s not being fair.
The Court: What do you mean?
Tektonikus: I have to request a recess.
Attorney 2: Attorney 1 is right!
The Court: I will have order in this court! Why do you need a recess?
Tektonikus: I have to go to court.
Attorney 1: You are in court, in case you forgot.
Tektonikus: There’s no need to be snotty!
The Court: I agree. But you might explain your situation.
Tektonikus: I have to offer a not-guilty plea.
The Court: Where?
Tektonikus: Washington D.C. But I didn’t do anything!
Attorney 2: What are you charged with?
Tektonikus: Conspiracy.
The Court: Conspiracy to what?
Tektonikus: Oh…nothing too serious, just conspiracy to destroy the cosmos.
Attorney 1: Is that all?
Tektonikus: Very funny. But I didn’t do it!
The Court: Is this related to your movie?
Tektonikus: Yes. I held auditions, and gave the starring role to Asag.
Attorney 1: I thought he’d be great!
Tektonikus: So did I! But the studio said they don’t have enough insurance in case…
The Court: I see.
Tektonikus: And I was the one who had to tell him that he wouldn’t get the part.
The Court: Then what happened?
Tektonikus: He got a little angry. He punched several holes in the universe and threated to split the earth in half, pull out the core, and hurl it into space. And…
Attorney 1: And what?
Tektonikus: He ripped Georgetown University out of the ground and threw it into the sea.
Attorney 2: So that’s what happened to it!
Tektonikus: Exactly! But I didn’t tell him to do it! Sutekh did.
Attorney 1: Who?
Tektonikus: Never mind.
The Court: But why didn’t Asag split the earth in half?
Tektonikus: Well, another demon showed up and stopped him.
Attorney 1: That’s a lucky thing.
The Court: Indeed! I suppose Baal-Berith stopped him.
Tektonikus: Actually…no. I should have said…a demoness stopped him.
Attorney 2: Demoness? It must have been Lamashtu.
Tektonikus: No, not her.
The Court: No? Then who?
Tektonikus: Wilhelmina.
The Court: Wilhelmina?
Tektonikus: Yes…Wilhelmina…Aunt Wilhelmina.
The Court: Aunt?
Attorney 1: La plume de ma tante!
Tektonikus: Exactly!
That is Jesus…there on the right. And don’t be alarmed. This has nothing to do with the bizarre sex cult that formed the basis of the Children of God. Thankfully, they didn’t call themselves the Sons of God, although we do know that some of Elohim’s sons were not satisfied with what would logically have been an eternal life of celibacy. Thus did they take human women for wives, and raised families of Giants…demi-gods. The Hebrew word for these “Giants” is Nephilim. Jewish exegesis translates Nephilim as “The Fallen Ones.” And hence this strange sub-grouping of the Sons of God gives the notion of Fallen Angels. The person kissing Jesus is Judas…Judas Iscariot…not Judas Priest. We all know him as the one who supposedly betrayed Christ. He signaled to the hit-men of the Sanhedrin Christ’s identity by the sign of a kiss. In return, he received 30 pieces of silver. Supposedly. And supposedly, his overwhelming guilt led him to commit suicide. Although there are traditions that are far superior to Matthew’s feeble attempt to set the tone. Perhaps there is a strange parallel with Father Karras, whose guilt led him to refuse to kill Regan and, seeing the face of his dead mother beckoning him to throw himself out of Regan’s Portal of Death, he too committed suicide.
The Strange Case of Judas Iscariot. We know him as the quintessential traitor; the ultimate betrayer. And so too did those who wrote, compiled and edited the material that came to be the New Testament. I’ve noted elsewhere that the bizarre being that modern culture knows as Satan involves an equally bizarre transformation of the Old Testament character known as The Satan, one of the Sons of Elohim. He was not at war with God, but rather, carried out an important role as the one who tests, tries, and even prosecutes in court.
Yahweh is the judge. The Malak of Yahweh is the defense attorney. The Satan is the prosecutor. Joshua is on trial, and wears dirty clothes. Dirty clothes? Yes…symbolic of sin. Suddenly, Yahweh rules in favor of Joshua, and thus he will be installed as High Priest. The Satan has lost the case. But! Prosecutors lose cases all the time. We do not hear The Satan present his arguments. But he no doubt described the sins of Joshua. God forgave those sins, and the new, clean garments that were given to Joshua symbolized this cleansing of sin. Perhaps The Satan’s role here should be…The Satan, District Attorney. The Diabolical District Attorney’s office. I’ll bet that there are many defendants who wouldn’t have any trouble with such a designation for the guy on the other side.
But must The Satan always lose? Job is a fascinating subject in this regard. We all know that, unfortunately for Job, God and The Satan made a bet as to whether Job would still bless God if he lost all the blessings that God had given him. The Satan is sure that Job will, in fact, curse God. We read in 1:21 what is always translated as
Yahweh gave, and Yahweh has taken away! Blessed be the name of Yahweh!
This was Job’s declaration in the midst of all his, hitherto unknown, suffering. The Satan lost again. But the fascinating thing is that the Hebrew word used in Job 1:11
יְבָרֲכֶֽךָ׃
Most Hebrew words have a tri-literal root…3 letters, and usually consonants. And most vowels are small points above and below the letters…called vowel points. And that is what can make Hebrew so difficult to interpret. Before one can interpret, one must translate. But a single tri-literal root can have numerous meanings, depending upon which vowels you assign to the consonants. For instance, the same tri-literal root can mean nomad (desert dweller) or crow (carrion bird), depending upon the vowel points that I assign to the word.
The word The Satan uses in Job 1:11 is based on consonants B-R-C. What about Job 1:21?
מְבֹרָֽךְ׃
This is an adjectival form of B-R-C. So, The Satan says that Job will B-R-C God, and Job uses the word B-R-C to “bless” the name of the Lord. Hebrew is commonly written without the vowel points, and proceeding from that basis, then:
The Satan: Job will B-R-C God.
Job: B-R-C the name of God.
So, who won? The Satan…or Job? The redactor adds:
In all this Job did not sin nor charge God with wrong
Ok, I get it. Still, it’s interesting that Job used the same word as The Satan. The difference between blessing and cursing lies in the vowel points.
As far as Judas is concerned, the Gospel of John, which is not considered a synoptic gospel, describes Judas as a thief:
Judas didn’t really care about the poor. He was in charge of the group’s money. But he was a thief, and would steal from it.
It’s strange that Jesus, the Christ and Son of God, didn’t know that Judas was stealing his money. And if he did know that, at least some of this money was being stolen by one of the Chosen Twelve, I would think that he would have done something about.
Lord, I hate to tell you this, but Judas, that No Good! He has been embezzling company funds!
He has?
Yes! And we use these funds to help the poor! Our auditors can prove this.
Well, I’m aware of what Judas is doing.
You are? What are you going to do about it?
Nothing.
It seems to me that the writer of John Chapter 6 is “piling on” wicked deeds. The synoptic gospels do not make this accusation. And it is odd that John 13: 27-30, which has the subject of Judas heading out to meet the agents of certain religious leaders, states when he left, the others thought he was going out to purchase things on their behalf, or to give money to the poor. This appears to be a clear contradiction with the idea that Judas, in his role as Treasurer, was diabolically stealing Jesus’ money. However, the claim in John that on the fateful evening Judas left, not to meet the men who intended to arrest Jesus, but rather to buy something, is compelling. In fact, if Judas left to buy something, and so he had money from the till, and he was intercepted by men who asked if he could introduce them to Jesus, then he would return with those men…and the money. Then he took to buy something for the supper. In that case, Judas didn’t receive anything from these Diabolical Agents.
We know that 30 silver coins are associated with Judas, or so we find in Matthew. Judas was certainly in charge of the group’s money, but I don’t believe that he was stealing. There is a clear connection with, on the question of money and Judas’s fate, Zechariah 11: 12-13, part of a bizarre scene described by the prophet. However, the connection between the two is found only in Matthew, an often-unreliable work. In Zechariah, the prophet assumes control of a flock of sheep. He then demands his wages, which turn out to be 30 pieces of silver, which God tells him to “throw” to the Potter. Then we are told that the prophet actually threw the money into the house of the Lord, and that the 30 pieces of silver had been a price levied against God. It’s odd that Zechariah threw the money into the Temple…apparently, he was in too much of a hurry to take a minute and deposit the money in the Temple. No! With no intention of stopping, he threw the coins into the Temple.
It would seem that the story in Matthew is a fictional story built around the material in Zechariah. Matthew is the only gospel to describe the death of Judas, and it states that Judas committed suicide by hanging himself.
Mommy, why do people have to commit suicide?
Well, the money was used to buy Potter’s Field. And so, Matthew’s account is clearly based on Zechariah. Mark states that Judas had intended to betray Christ before Jesus’s enemies offered money. So, money wasn’t the motive, and thus in Mark, Judas’s motive is a mystery. And Mark doesn’t say anything about Judas’s death. Even more interesting…Christ, who mentions the betrayer several times, doesn’t name him. Luke also suggests that money wasn’t the reason Judas supposedly betrayed Christ, though like Mark, states that after Jesus’s enemies heard that Judas would betray him, they agreed to give him money. Only Matthew mentions 30 pieces of silver, and only Matthew sites the material in Zechariah. The Book of Acts stands in stark contrast to Matthew, stating that Judas purchased a field for his own use, but then fell down and died. One is tempted to conclude that the account in Matthew was a fiction constructed around the material in Zechariah. However, the writer of the Story of the Fate of Judas makes a dramatic blunder. He does not cite Zechariah for the 30 Pieces of Silver story. He cites the prophet Jeremiah. This is simply incorrect. The writers of Matthew display a questionable ability to cite the Old Testament correctly. Case in point is Matthew 2:23, which is set in what I believe is a prologue that was composed after the original form of Matthew was produced, and then added to the front of Matthew to fill in the gaps perceived to exist in Mark…which begins with Jesus’s appearance at the Jordan. This prologue describes pre-Jordan events in Jesus’ life, and then cites a prophecy for each that the writer believed had been fulfilled by the particular events. None of this is attested in Mark. But having placed Jesus clearly in the context of Jerusalem, the writer of the prologue nonetheless had to get Jesus to Nazareth, seeing how the name Jesus of Nazareth was the name that people knew him by. That was a bit difficult, seeing that Jesus, in reality, had no connection with Bethlehem or Jerusalem. Nazareth? That was a little hick town out in the sticks. So the writer of the prologue was in a bind…why in the world would Jesus start out in the Royal City of David, only to end up living in the middle of nowhere? What is a prologue-writer to do? That’s right! Cite a prophecy, that’ll do it, and that’s exactly what he decided to do:
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet…He shall be called a Nazarene.
The problem is…there is no such prophecy anywhere in the Old Testament. Now I will point out that the Gospel of Mark speaks about one of Jesus’s inner circle betraying him, and although Jesus refers to a betrayer, he never names this betrayer. It is only in the narrative framework found in Mark 14: 10-11, 43-46, that Judas is named as having been the one who betrayed Jesus. His motive isn’t provided, and it was only after he agreed to betray Jesus that the arrest agents suggested paying Judas. Within the narrative frame-work, Judas’s reason for betraying Christ isn’t stated. But it isn’t money. I find it very strange, and almost impossible to believe, that if Judas betrayed Christ, he had an unknown motive. I believe that the Matthew group decided to take Judas’s connection with the disciples’ money, add it to the tradition that Judas bought a field, and then connected both with the prophecy in Zechariah…making sure, of course, to cite the wrong book. But in this case, unlike his Nazarene-fiction, he did actually manage to cite a prophecy that actually existed. Still, the story in Matthew is essentially untrue.
If Peter is the source behind the original version of Mark, it is strange that he does not quote Jesus as identifying Judas as his betrayer. In fact, when the disciples ask Jesus who is this Diabolical Betrayer, Jesus says that
He is one of the twelve, who dips with Me in the dish.
This declaration is the result of an almost absurd scene as each disciple asks Jesus if he is the one who would betray him. They ask as if they don’t know whether or not they intended to betray Jesus. In my mind, this simply can’t be true, unless that betrayal is something that is not planned, and thus happens in the course of events. That may be exactly what happened. Jesus’s reference to dipping in the dish refers to the customary eating habit at the time where those at dinner dip pieces of bread into a dish of sauce. What Jesus is saying is that there will be a moment that, as he reaches into the sauce dish, another person present will too. And he’s the betrayer…it’s that simple. Except it’s not. Although the other gospels will state who it was who stuck his bread into the sauce dish at the same time as Jesus, those responsible for Mark, ultimately Peter, did not…even though they quote Jesus as having given the clue for all to know. And that is a strange thing. It seems as though someone is going to a lot of trouble to not have Jesus name his betrayer, even to the point of leaving the clue Jesus gave in the text, but left it without the anticipated conclusion. In other words, someone didn’t want the identity of the betrayer known. The narrative framework specifically states that Judas was the one, but the narrative framework always comes after the oral tradition has circulated for, quite often, a long period of time before being set in writing. Those responsible for Jesus’s words are not those responsible for the narrative framework. So the codified oral traditions, available to those who set them into a narrative framework, gave no indication that the betrayer was Judas. In fact, the 150 Decibels of Silence almost give one the feeling that the specific identity of the betrayer was intentionally left…unspecified. That would be a cover-up! Or perhaps, a cover-up and frame-up. Interesting. In fact, there is one man whom Christ specifically states would do something that one might well view as betrayal. Who? Peter! Jesus says that Peter would deny him three times. One might wonder why Jesus would name Peter, but not name Judas. There may be a good explanation for that. John 13:26 states that Jesus actually dipped a piece of bread in the dish and gave it to Judas. That is not what the Mark tradition said. Luke, providing a slightly different version of the clue, likewise leaves it without a fulfillment. The other gospel writers did not like the fact that Mark left the clue without a fulfillment, and so they simply changed the details. Without the narrative framework, the identity of Jesus’ betrayer would not appear anywhere in Mark. But Matthew has Jesus declare it loud and proud:
Then Judas, who would betray Him, asked Jesus whether he was the one who betray him. Jesus responded…yes.
Matthew is, simply, wrong. If Judas had planned his betrayal of Jesus…why would he ask?
Of course, one could make another interesting point on the subject of Judas. He is accused of betraying Jesus, as we all know, by pointing him out to those seeking to arrest him. It’s odd that it had to be done with a kiss! I mean, it’s very dramatic. But I can’t help feeling as though it is overly-dramatic. He could just say…that’s him! But instead, we get a story about a secret way of revealing who Jesus was. And here’s another point. Throughout the time that Jesus was alive, he preached to huge crowds, argued with many religious officials, and everywhere he went, people flocked to him. No doubt tales about him, some true, and some false, spread throughout the region. He went about as a Metaphorical Galilean Rock Star. He had a virtual saturation exposure. He was available to one and all. In fact, he had to have been one of the most, if not the most, readily recognizable figures of the time. And yet…agents of the religious authorities wouldn’t be able to recognize him? He is yet so obscure that they must rely upon a follower who will choose a melodramatic secret signal to let men who, perhaps more than most, would recognize Jesus without any problems? How odd it is that those seeking his life…the most powerful religious leaders in the region, had to sit around waiting for someone to establish Jesus’s identity for them. What would have happened if this story-line had not emerged? I am not doubting that Judas, followed by devious men, kissed Christ after returning from his trip to buy food. But I would suggest that the kiss was genuine, and not meant to identify which of the group was actually Jesus. If so, then all that the agents needed from Judas was to bring them to where Jesus was at the moment. In other words, they would know him when they saw him, but on that evening, when Jesus and the others were eating in the house of a friend, the men looking for him didn’t know where he was at that time. And Judas did indeed bring them to Jesus. But for a very different reason than certain gospel writers have given us.
Now to turn things on their head! I discussed this in Things Ordinary and Extraordinary Part 1, where a certain group of cranks were responsible for a mind-boggling position on sexual activity:
No, that is not Farrah Fawcett. But yes, for all who would connect Satan with wild sex, you are wrong! And in an even more mind-boggling claim, for the Children of God, not the Sons of God, the Devil is behind pornography and dirty pictures. But he promulgates these things as part of his war against sex. That is strange, since pornography and dirty pictures do nothing to undermine sexual activity, quite the opposite. And “Satan’s System outlaws nudity ‘cause it leads to sex!” Don’t ask me, I’m not a Child of God. But how can you produce pornography and dirty pictures, while outlawing nudity?
Now this illustration has been censored, and it was one of several that are very explicit as to what a Flirty Fisher, aka a Lover Bomber, gets up to. So it would seem that Satan is behind pornography, albeit pornography intended to keep people from having sex. I might provide a famous quote from a judge who said that he couldn’t define pornography, but could recognize it when he saw it. But I will add a twist to cover Satan’s Enigmatic Adult Material:
I know Not-Pornography when I don’t see it.
And when “God is Evil” is falsely found as a backwards-masked blasphemy in a Judas Iscariot song…no, I mean Judas Priest song, then, again, things are turned upside down. Of course, you could make the argument made by a very bad guy who, I have decided, if he would accept the promotion that my agent has in mind, would replace both Baal-Berith and Asag in my Boring Demon Possession movie:
Sutekh, the lord of death. Being an Osiran, he can only live for 30,000 years. Demons can live for…I’m not sure, but longer than that. He is not as impressive when his helmet comes off:
Still, he has the power to, as he puts it, destroy the cosmos. I hear that he and Asag are drinking buddies. And he made an interesting statement:
Your evil is my good.
Whatever. Why does Peter not put the name of Judas in Jesus’s mouth? It is suggestive given the fact that he clearly admits responsibility for denying Christ 3 times. If he will rat on himself, why not rat on Judas? So, was the Betrayer of Christ really Judas? There is a gnostic work dating from the Second Century that is most interesting. The Second Century covers the period 100 AD – 200 AD. That is the early period of Christianity. It should also be noted that the oldest surviving copies of Mark date to the same period. Paul was executed sometime during the reign of Nero, who died in 69 A.D. However, I regard it as possible that the book of Mark was produced by those who had been in the Peterian Inner Circle, so the work could have been compiled well after the death of Nero. The aforementioned book is the Gospel of Judas, in which Judas is the only one of Jesus’ followers who understood Jesus’ real teachings. Why? Because Jesus taught them only to Judas. What Judas did was not betrayal, it was in obedience to commands that Jesus had given him. If those responsible for compiling the teachings of Peter knew that Peter spoke of a Betrayer, but he did not name him, then perhaps the Peterites fell back on a separate tradition when they, finding it important, sought to give the Betrayer a name. Or, it could be that the Peterites actually spun the whole story to change the identity of the betrayer. How? By creating a Denier, who couldn’t therefore be…the Betrayer.
I would point out that a Jewish work called the Toledoth Yeshu, which is essentially a bawdy comedy written in the 11th century that mocks Jesus and consequently, Christians as well, and therefore may have had something to do with Christian animosity to Jewish writings, casts Judas as the star of the show. Jesus and Judas, both obtaining magical powers by the same means, have an epic battle in which Judas…wins. This being the case, Jesus loses his powers and is promptly arrested and executed by being hung from a tree. That sounds familiar...well, the second part of it. Matthew has Judas Priest committing suicide by throwing himself out of Regan’s Always Open Window…wait, no that’s not right. Who was Judas Priest anyway?
No, not the Do it! Do it! Do it! Guys. There was no Judas Priest, it’s simply an alternative to using “Jesus Christ” as an expression of anger. Wow! Talk about turning things on their head! Could it be that the heavy metal band Judas Priest was actually attempting to keep people from using Christ’s name in vain? It’s a strange world. No, Matthew says it was Judas who died by being hung from a tree. How? Hung by the neck, or crucified? The latter involves being nailed to a tree, which is really being nailed to a cross, and I freely admit that crosses are made of wood, and therefore come from trees.
That said, if the above image is the execution of Jesus as described in the Toledoth Yeshu, then we aren’t talking about crucifixion.
And Judas, with a demon collecting his soul.
There was, shall we say, a Major Disagreement among key people of the early Christian period. Paul was not one of the Twelve Disciples. He never met Christ. He was, in fact, a bloody persecutor of Jewish Christians. When he converted, it was only natural that he would have a credibility problem. He spent fifteen days with Peter and also visited James. That’s all well and good, but Paul was planning on taking the gospel to non-Jews, while Peter appears to be leading the Jewish Christian movement. Later, when Peter visited Paul at Antioch, the two men fell out with one another. Oh, and Paul fell out with James too. The issue centered around Paul’s accusation that Peter was a Judaizer. While Peter does not attack Paul, he does point out that Paul writes letters that are, in parts, “hard to understand.” And he’s right. So:
Paul vs. Peter
Paul vs. James
Peter comments on the overly-complicated nature of Paul’s teachings
Could it be that Judas was not the Betrayer? Or is the Gospel of Judas right in saying that what Judas did was not actually betrayal? The Gospel of John routinely refers to John, son of Zebedee, and a member of the Inner Circle, as Christ’s Beloved Disciple. It seems clear that the John Group actively propagated the storyline that Jesus cared more about John than any of the others. The setting is the Last Supper, where the whole…guess the betrayer game… was being played. Everybody wants to know his identity. This is great:
Now there was leaning against Jesus one of his disciples…the one Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask who it was of whom Jesus spoke.
See what they have done? Who? The John Group. They have clearly attempted to portray Peter as subject to John. Peter could have simply asked. In fact, the Peterites describe it this way:
And they began to be sorrowful, and each one asked Jesus…am I the betrayer?
But the John Group will have none of this egalitarianism. According to them, if any of the others wanted to ask Jesus a question…they had to ask John to ask Jesus. It seems clear that the John Group used their gospel to further their claim that John outranked the others. I’ll bet that Peter would have disagreed vehemently. Not to mention…Judas. It wouldn’t be very long before different Christian groups began excommunicating each other, no longer satisfied with petty squabbling about which one of them was the most important. No! Soon, only denying the very validity of the groups that they now saw as enemies would suffice. But I may therefore posit:
Paul vs. Peter
Paul vs. James
Peter makes derogatory comments about Paul’s writings
John insists he was Jesus’ favorite, as opposed to all the other guys
Judas’s group insists that Judas was Jesus’s favorite, not John, Peter, or James.
And Paul? He wasn’t even invited to the dinner.
Then: Redactors of Mark, those who produced Matthew, those who produced Luke, and those who produced John ganged-up against the Judas Group and use their writings to accuse Judas of being the Betrayer of Christ. A short alliance was useful to so completely remove one of the competing Christian groups…the Judas Group…that it was no longer a question of which group had primacy. No. The Judas Group would become nothing but followers of a condemned betrayer. And betraying Christ…what could be worse? Well, I can think of something. Although portions of the Gospel of Judas did survive, this group was soon extinct. Then it was time to have a go at each other again. It may seem odd, but I think it was the Peterites who set this into motion. After all, they were in a rather difficult position to explain the thrice-repeated denial of ever knowing Christ made by their spiritual leader. What could be more disqualifying as to any claim of primacy than that? What’s worse than being the Denier? Being the Betrayer. And thus the worst of them became…Judas. In my mind, being a denier is being a betrayer. Eventually, it was the Matthew Group that seemed to exhibit the greatest hostility to Judas. It was their group, and their group alone, who described Judas’s death as a suicide, and considered it to be so important that Judas be the Excommunicated One that they produced a semi-fictional account of Judas that went to such an extreme that they resorted to an Old Testament prophecy found in Zechariah, material that has nothing to do with anything that happened between Jesus and anyone else, and then managed to cite the wrong book. One might feel tempted to label the Matthew Group’s account of Judas’s fate as polemic directed at the Judas Group. If so, then we can add the following to the list of squabbling noted above:
The Matthew Group vs. the Judas Group
The redactors of Mark began the process, and then Luke and John fell in line. Matthew took it to an extreme, suggesting that at one point in history, the two communities based around Matthew and Judas where in direct conflict with one another.
And now I come to the interesting thing about Judas Iscariot. Was he a good guy who was transformed into a bad guy? Was he a bad guy who was turned into a good guy? Was he a whatever guy who the Toledoth Yeshu turned into a superhero? I don’t know for sure. But I do know that in 1928, Judas made a strange re-appearance.
Do you think the crucifix is big enough? I’m glad that Regan didn’t have that one! Who is this guy? Father Theophilus Riesinger, a German priest, exorcist, and fraud. He was the Prime Mover in constructing a strange story around a young woman that is now famous. Who? Anna Ecklund, or Emma Schmidt, or Mary Somebody. Assuming, of course, that this person ever existed at all, though I think she did. As the story goes, Anna (born 1882) became possessed, and needed an exorcist. Then our hero takes center stage, with a spotlight illuminating the exorcist of all exorcists. And yes, we officially have a Canonical Story…the Anna Ecklund Canonical Story. The only official sources for this story that I know about are an interview with Riesinger and a small book published on July 23,1935 called Begone Satan! Then another version of the book was published in the 1990s. Then the internet became inundated with all sorts of details and claims, most of which do not derive from the 1935 book, but I will admit that they do make things extraordinary.
Other sources state that central character was born in Marathon, Wisconsin. Father Riesinger was from that area. But the only plausible historical source does not connect this woman with Wisconsin. The whole Canonical Story has already started to fall apart. It is actually the case that Begone Satan! does not name the woman who was supposedly possessed. It doesn’t use the name Anna Ecklund, or Emma Ecklund, or Anna Schmidt, or Emma Schmidt. And this is a serious problem, since without even an alias, there is no way to know that this person ever existed. I don’t know where this name came from, but it doesn’t appear in the book. The time-frame is said, within the book, to have been 1928. The date of the birth of the unnamed woman is only provided in a supplement at the back of the book, which gives the year of birth as 1882, but makes no connection with Wisconsin. The only chronological indicator in the book is further delineated as August 18 – August 26, 1928. Then September 13 – September 1928; and December 15 – December 22, 1928. And this makes absolutely no sense. What was happening in the intervening periods? Was it vacation time? And where was the Unnamed Woman during these vacation times? Was she hanging around in the convent? Was she hanging upside down from the ceiling of the nun’s lunchroom? Maybe feeling better? And then not? The idea that someone would be suffering from demon-possession, and yet there are time gaps in between exorcism sessions…simply is nonsense.
The claim is made in the supplement that the woman had also been possessed in 1908. Further information is provided that would have us believe that the entity responsible for the events of 1908 was Mina. And of course, Mina was a witch. And Mina features in the book itself. A person couldn’t even hypothetically become possessed because a woman who is supposed to be a witch, which is a construct that is a complete cliché, put a spell on some herbs that she then mixed into Unnamed Woman’s food. That is not demon-possession. That is a fable. It is a Witch Story, and there have been plenty of those. My favorite work of fiction about a big, bad witch is:
Hansel and Gretel. And isn’t that an ugly witch! Still, I must admit that for the most part, witches and the Devil go together. The witch draws her powers from him. My belief is that witches were women who practiced traditional folk magic in the pre-Christianity world. Christianity tried to stamp this out, but it proved almost impossible to succeed. The Magic Women were then demonized and linked to Satan in an effort to finally rid the world of folk-magic. Devilish Witches, or evil female characters with witch characteristics are the mainstay of popular fables.
The Evil Queen from Snow White. Not a witch? She possesses a Magic Mirror that speaks. Notice too that in the drawing this Magic Mirror is being held up by a figure with horns and a…well, perhaps there’s a little Pazuzu in him. And this Witch-Not-Witch attempts to kill Snow White by giving her a poisoned apple; in other words, she gave her a Mickey Finn.
Mirror, mirror, on the wall…who’s the fairest one of all?
What? Can we please keep our stories straight?
And so too did the witch named Mina. That was an apple. How about magic herbs?
Valerianella locusta…also known as Rapunzel.
The wicked witch is Dame Gothel. Rapunzel grows in her garden. And the magic herb possessed by Dame Gothel can help a woman become pregnant. Then a barren couple who desperately want to have a baby sneak into the Diabolical Garden and steal some. The result is the birth of a baby girl, but she is taken by the witch and locked in a tower. Now for:
A willy-willy-wag? The Old Witch…the star of another fairy tale called, quite aptly, The Old Witch. This story features magic bread that can speak, and a magic apple tree…that can speak. So many witch stories feature magic food! The Salem Witch Trial Canonical Story features a Cuban slave named Tituba:
She was accused of being a witch, and confessed to making Witch-cake…magic food. Magic dessert? I would pass on this delicacy if I were you. Its main ingredients are rye flour and urine. No thanks…I’m full. And the whole Canonical Story started when the soon-to-be Horrid Puritan Girls made a “Venus Glass” for telling the future. This was a simple device that involved dropping egg whites into a glass of water, and then interpreting the shapes formed by the eggs…magic eggs!
Returning to the Unnamed Woman, the supplement states that on June 18, 1912, Father Theophilus Riesinger
freed her from her 1908 possession
Why in the world would you diagnose someone being cursed by a witch using magic herbs, which is truly something straight out of a fairy tale, and wait for 4 years to do anything about it?
In March 1936, in an interview with a man who was clearly deranged, the Sick Priest said the following:
Devils usually take possession through a curse or a maleficium..an evil action.
That is simply ridiculous. He is describing the superstitions related to witches placing hexes or spells on people. The book states of the Unnamed Woman:
After her fourteenth year some unusual experiences manifested themselves. She wanted to pray, wanted to go to church and as usual receive Holy Communion. But some interior hidden power was interfering with her plans. The situation became worse instead of improving. Words cannot express what she had to suffer. She was actually barred from the consolations of the Church, torn away from them by force. She could not help herself in any way and seemed to be in the clutches of some mysterious power. She was conscious of some sinister inner voices that kept on suggesting most disagreeable things to her. These voices tried their utmost to arouse thoughts of the most shameful type within her, and tried to induce her to do things unmentionable and even to bring her to despair. The poor creature was helpless and secretly was of the opinion that she would become insane. There were times when she felt impelled to shatter her holy water font, when she could have attacked her spiritual adviser and could have suffocated him. Yes, there were suggestions urging her to tear down the very house of God.
Then, when all hope is gone, and the woman is 40 years old, it’s time for an exorcism. So, the book provides two ages: 14, and 40. If you do the math, and the Unknown Woman was 40 years old in 1928, then she was born in 1888, not 1882, or 1884. And the year 1888 is fascinating, since a smalI I-Can-Assure-You-That-Everything-In-This-Book-Is-True written statement, which I will discuss shortly, claims that the Unnamed Woman stayed with a particular family in 1929. That family was the Schimerowski family of Earling. And they happened to have a foster-daughter named Lena Wilke, born in Iowa in 1888, who suddenly appear as living with them in the 1910 Census, though she wasn’t living with them in the 1900 Census. She is no longer listed with the family in 1920. Lena may be short for Magdalene. She was apparently an orphan, and had probably been adopted through the Catholic church. That’s very kind, but it can also be very risky. Riesinger makes no mention of 1908 or 1912, but in the interview, he makes the claim that
I watched the case for years before I acted. The woman was my penitent- you understand, she confessed to me.
If that’s the case, why did he wait until she was 40 years old before doing anything? Then he says something absolutely insane:
The Crazy Priest will have to carry out continual, never ending exorcisms in order to save the world from “billions and billions of devils.” Not only is the priest insane, the guy asking the questions seems to be insane as well. We are supposed to believe that Unnamed Woman has become the very religious and spiritual hub of the universe! The Great End-Time Final Showdown between Good and Evil will take place inside of some farmgirl from Earling, Iowa? Over and over again? 10,000 years of human history have finally reached the crux moment…in Earling, Iowa…with a girl from the sticks. Still, I am inclined to believe that Riesinger knew her. But! Riesinger is displaying Delusions of Grandeur. He will be the one who finally defeats the forces of evil through his eternal exorcisms.
Billions and billions! Well, Carl Sagan isn’t speaking of demons or devils. But never mind! Father Riesinger will lock up billions and billions and deliver us all!
The supplement does say something that is both ludicrous, and yet probably true, assuming that we apply a little common sense, intelligence, and rational thought:
There were still later possessions but of a milder nature
What does that mean? Demon-possession is demon-possession…it doesn’t come in different strains. The Supplement was added to the book after the book itself was written, and it has is problematic to the extreme. So, based on the 1935 book:
1. The woman is never named
2. Wisconsin isn’t mentioned
3. There was no witch
4. There were no herbs, no magic cauldron, no book of spells that are read aloud during a full moon as you dance around a fire in the woods, no Magic Mirror, no witch-cake, no Rapunzel salads, no poison apple, and no Venus Glass...and no willy-willy-wag
5. There was no possession in 1908
6. There was no exorcism in 1912
It must be realized that Begone Satan! was written by Celestine Kapsner in 1935. The later book by that name by Carl Vogl was published in 1994. The original came out within seven years of the supposed events, and I do have evidence that something happened in Earling in 1928:
This article ran in the Harlan Tribune on October 11, 1928. Harlan is a town near Earling. And apparently, a lot of gossip had been going around. Still, this is the only contemporaneous news article I have been able to find, and it is odd that there are no such articles that actually report the events as described in the book.
The unnamed woman waits a whole 26 years to get her exorcism? A whole quarter of a century? Why all this waiting? Why does this happen when she is 40 years old? Any student of the Bible knows that the Number 40 is one of the numbers in scripture that is considered to have religious significance:
1. The rain preceding Noah’s flood lasts 40 days and 40 nights
2. Noah waits another 40 days before opening the window
3. Moses was on Sinai to receive the Law for 40 days and 40 nights
4. The warriors who spied out Canaan were gone for 40 days
5. The Israelites wandered in the wilderness for 40 years
6. Elijah once survived 40 days without eating
7. Jonah told the Assyrians that they owed 40 days of repentance
8. Saul, the first king, reigned 40 years (Acts 13:21)
9. David, the second king, reigned 40 years
10. Solomon, the third king, reigned 40 years
11. King Jehoash reigned 40 years
12. Jesus fasted for 40 days
13. Jesus was seen 40 days after his crucifixion
I think the point is made, so I won’t list anymore. Nonetheless, I think that the information that she was 40 in 1928 is dead-on. But the book does state that at the age of 14 the person in question began to exhibit strange behavior. That would take us to the year 1902. I think that information is dead-on. And I also think that the statement found in the supplement, i.e. that there were further possessions later in the woman’s life, but that these weren’t as severe as what happened in 1928, is dead-on as well, assuming that we do a little interpreting. And all the years between 1902 and 1928? How about being brought from elsewhere for an exorcism in Earling? Yes…I believe that too…well, with a little interpretation. And I believe that the woman had developed a very powerful delusion, a psychotic delusion, that her disturbance was the result of possession. But it would be an extraordinary thing if the reason why she was brought to Earling is because somebody was bringing her…home. If I’m ultimately right about the reconstruction I will provide at the end, then the very basis of Unknown Woman’s disturbance is the same as the basis of Regan’s disturbance. Well, in my obviously incorrect interpretation…of course.
The following observations were made in the 1935 book about the symptoms that Unnamed Girl began to display:
1. The Unnamed Girl had been enthusiastic about religion, but was becoming hostile toward it
2. She was experiencing impulses to do “unmentionable” things
3. She was having “shameful” thoughts
4. She grew hostile to her “spiritual adviser” and felt urges to kill him
The writer notes another problem:
She was conscious of some sinister inner voices
Now we’re talking. Yes, she was beginning to show signs of a developing psychosis, possibly brought on by severe, traumatic stress. Wow, I think I’ve said that before. Then the writer says:
“Hallucination, a pure hysterical case, nervous spells." Such easy explanation one will hear to account for the experiences. True, similar happenings do occur in nervous and hysterical cases.
He put it well…hallucinations…hysteria…psychosis. He says:
However, many doctors had this case in charge for years, and the woman was finally examined by the best specialists in the profession. But their thorough examinations resulted in the unanimous conclusion that the woman in question did not betray the least sign of nervousness, that she was normal in the fullest sense. There was not the slightest indication suggesting physical illness. Her undeniable and unusual experiences could not be accounted for.
Nonsense. Some farm-girl had the best specialists in the medical profession? Who paid for Earling’s version of The 88 Berringer Clowns? All the best doctors agreed that she was fine. This is pure hyperbole. The writer is setting up the story…he has described the symptoms of psychosis, or at least the symptoms of something akin to psychosis. Generally speaking, hallucinations and delusions, as symptoms of Schizophrenia, begin around 16 years of age…more or less. It may well be that the initial indications that something was wrong came on at age 14, and then proceeded to grow worse as she got older. There were no drugs to treat mental illness in 1928. Psychosis requires medication to effectively control. The best explanation is exactly the one the writer had been given…seeing how he quoted it, and quoted it quite well…all in all. A physician not trained in psychology can look you over and tell you that there is nothing physically wrong with you…then you have to go get 88 Barringer Clowns, who refer you to a specialist…a witch-doctor. The really cool thing is that the writer provides us with an absolutely excellent cause for the development of psychotic symptoms! And it is the same cause for the psychotic symptoms in Regan MacNeill…in my interpretation.
The exorcism conducted in Africa by Father Merrin lasted for months and almost killed him. The Story spun around Anna Ecklund holds that her demonic-possession lasted for 26 years. And that beats Merrin’s experience.
Other sources have claimed that Unnamed Woman had become involved in deviant sexual behavior. Still, it is actually the case that Anna’s supposedly troubling sexual behavior is never quantified. The 1935 account states only that she had disturbing thoughts. These may be sexual, but we also know that she had thoughts about murder.
Here’s the book…the original 1935 book.
I see the Great Dragon of the Book of Revelation…who was not Satan…on the boring cover. But I bet someone could jazz it up a bit:
Yes, that’ll do fine. Enter Carl Vogel. And if you come up with a silly story and get lots of people to believe it, there might be more money in it:
I dig the secret code on the cover! And we know that in the 1960s and 1970s, you sell more books if your book is somehow based on a true story:
And Emma-Anna, or Anna-Emma, has a claim to fame that none of all the other demon-possessed girls have…she was possessed…twice! Or billions and billions of times. And what is better than one weird book? Getting two for the price of one!
Mary crushes the serpent? Please! Who would…wait:
Maybe she really did. And the original book cost only 15 cents. In my opinion, that was just 15 cents more than a copy of the book was worth. And there was an interesting advertisement on the inside cover:
Leaflets with the Exorcism against Satan and the Rebellious Angels published by order of His Holiness, Pope Leo XIII, may be had at one cent a copy.
Well, His Holiness had to recoup printing costs. And if you were dealing with a possessed person, and you didn’t have your copy of Leo’s handy-dandy do-it-yourself exorcism chant, you might be lucky enough to have:
Works against Gout, Rheumatism, Gastro-intestinal Dyspepsia, Gravel, Uric Acid Diathesis…and demon-possession! How far is Virginia from Rome?
Leo XIII is interesting in another way, one that fits in well with the story. While celebrating mass one day, he stopped at the alter and stood there for ten minutes, as if he were in a trance. He suddenly heard two voices at the alter having a conversation:
The guttural voice, the voice of Satan in his pride, boasted to Our Lord: "I can destroy your Church."
The gentle voice of Our Lord: "You can? Then go ahead and do so."
Satan: "To do so, I need more time and more power."
Our Lord: "How much time? How much power?
Satan: "75 to 100 years, and a greater power over those who will give themselves over to my service."
Our Lord: "You have the time, you will have the power. Do with them what you will."
It’s odd that this conversation was going on at the altar. There’s no indication that Leo was involved in it, or that Christ and Satan were aware they were being overheard. So, the pope was hearing voices! And that is a sure sign of….
As with my interpretation of the Exorcist, the issue of sex, and I would point out, sexual abuse, comes crashing to the forefront. It is perilous to say which manifestation of sexual abuse is worse than another, since the result is the usually the same. But in the case of Regan, I posited someone I call Attic Man. In the case of Unnamed Woman, her father was supposed to have pursued sexual relations with his own daughter. And perhaps the whole story could stop there. The horrible consequences of sexual abuse, be it at the hands of a sick, strong priest, or one’s own father, are well-known, and the disturbing behavior of its victims matches their victimization. Super Priest Riesinger performed the exorcism in 1912? Anna apparently got over the Demon-Possession Flu Bug. And I can’t resist! There is, or was, a terrible flu with the following name:
Yes! This flu can kill all life on earth in a matter of months. Really? I would have thought that “a matter of days” would be even cooler. Asag can do it in a matter of seconds if he wanted to! Perhaps the movie should have been called…The Asag Bug! But the Satan Bug that Unnamed Woman came down with fortunately didn’t destroy all life on earth. Thankfully, she, with some Theological Chicken Soup served Riesinger-style, had been able to kick it, returned in 1928.
We’ve seen that she is described in some sources as having anxiety about sexual thoughts. And, yes…thoughts. I have yet to find a description of any naughty things that Emma actually got up to, if she got up to any at all, or whether she had engaged in otherwise normal sexual behavior and simply had an intense guilt reaction to it. I’ve seen no proof, I should say, that her father had done anything to her either. The testimony offered as sensationalistic tripe, blatantly ridiculous throughout, as published in the 1935 book, suggests that what happened in 1928 was really round two.
One of the myriad claims in a convoluted story whose details differ based on who is telling the story, is that, unlike Regan MacNeill, Pseudo-Anna could speak various foreign languages that she should not have been able to speak. The 1935 source identifies two of these languages…Latin, and Latin. A strange distinction is drawn between the language of the Church...the Latin tongue, which upset her tremendously, causing her to “foam at the mouth” and become enraged, and Latin. Although it is said that she understood the language, the description given doesn’t attest to this at all. If she were Catholic, she would know Latin when she heard it. When Latin was replaced with Latin…classical Latin, she felt fine again. In my opinion, that makes no sense. Now more: German, Latin, and English. Well, I’ll cross English off the list since she was born in the US in 1888. In and around Earling, there were many people who had emigrated to the U.S. from Germany and Switzerland, most of whom spoke fluent German. She spoke fluent Latin? Maybe she could say…Ego te absolvo! The 1935 source could be taken to indicate that the 40-year-old, who had been demon-possessed for 26 years before deciding to go to a Clerical Physician, knew Latin when she heard it, but did not speak it:
It gradually became evident that strange preternatural powers were at play. The woman understood languages which she had never heard nor read. When the priest spoke the language of the Church and blessed her in the Latin tongue, she sensed and understood it at once, and at the same time foamed at the mouth and became enraged about it. When he continued in classical Latin, she regained her former ease.
Speaking fluent Latin? No one speaks fluent Latin. Not for a long, long time. Being able to recite ritual texts in Latin, which priests do during mass, is not being a fluent speaker of Latin. Recognizing Latin when you hear it, isn’t being a fluent speaker of Latin. We’re left with English…and that’s a hard one to explain, and German…Guten Tag! Sorry…Bon Jour! She didn’t speak French too? Bummer. How about…ancient Sumerian? Or, 4rth Millennium Egyptian? That would be impressive! Spitting and swearing at priests when she hears Latin is less so.
The story becomes even crazier as it goes along.
Wow! That’s a cool trick! What is?
Father Theophilus had hardly begun the formula of exorcism in the name of the Blessed Trinity, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, in the name of the Crucified Savior, when a hair-raising scene occurred. With lightning speed the possessed dislodged herself from her bed and from the hands of her guards; and her body, carried through the air, landed high above the door of the room and clung to the wall with a tenacious grip. All present were struck with a trembling fear.
Here is a less cool, but far more disturbing illustration of the event:
This is taken from the Post-Crescent, a newspaper in Appleton, Wisconsin. Yes…1973…and yes…the Exorcist has brought this bizarre story into the limelight again.
So, Regan is a Spider-Girl, or a Frog-Girl, or a Lizard-Girl, depending upon which version of the Spider Walk Scene you prefer. Emma was Bat-Girl.
Real force had to be applied to her feet to bring her down from her high position on the wall. The mystery was that she could cling to the wall at all! It was through the powers of the evil spirit, who had taken possession of her body.
A mystery indeed. What is a mystery is that an actor like George C. Scott, star of one of the best ghost movies ever made…the Changeling, ended up resorting to slumming his way through the Exorcist 3. Oh! The real Exorcist made due, thankfully, without adding Bat-Girl to the movie. Hey! Mr. Scott! Look out! I mean, look up!
Metaphorical Pseudo-Anna is at it again.
Of course, Regan made all manners of grunts, groans, howls, growls, screams, screeches…perhaps Lilith the Screech Owl, rather than the Horrid Lady Lamashtu, was involved!
She was certainly a lot better looking. And many don’t know that according to Jewish legend, Lilith, not Eve, was the first woman. Some traditions state that Lilith actually ate babies. The Beautiful Horrid Lady. Abyzou and Lamashtu were horrific and ugly.
Of course, none of this stuff about Lilith has any truth to it, and Lilith was, and remains, a screech owl. But I would point out that image is everything, which means that Lamashtu and Abyzou, who are no doubt the same entity appearing in parallel cultures, are at a disadvantage when it comes to looks. But this image of the Jewish Horrid Lady has a certain familiarity:
The Face and Abyzou have something in common…black, gunky lips and bad teeth. Spirit-entities really do need a better dental plan. Or, perhaps, a Diabolical Oral Hygienist!
But as I was saying, anyone who wants to be seen as demon-possessed will have to offer up a medley of terrifying vocalizations.
Awe-struck people came running from here and there: "What is the matter? What is up? Is there someone in the convent being murdered? Not even a pig stabbed with a butcher knife yells with such shrieking howls as these."
Unnamed Woman was so loud that one and all could hear? The only thing louder than her was a stabbed pig? Perhaps she was a 140 decibel Marlin rifle! Then we could have a 150 Decibel Stabbed Pig that would give Shaggy a run for the money. And I hope that the question…is someone being murdered in the convent…is not one that they have to ask with any frequency; in Earling, Iowa…of all places. This would be horrifying in the extreme:
Not exactly nominated for an Academy Award. I’ve heard of red devils and blue devils…but not green devils. And say it isn’t so:
Or even:
I guess this nun does more than whack your knuckles with her beads if you talk out of turn, although I’m at a loss as to the connection between Diabolical Nuns and squids.
Hey, Sister Mary Margaret…guess what?
I don’t know, Sister Agnes, what?
I think they’re murdering people in the convent.
Again? I hate when that happens!
Of course, Satanic nuns are still just nuns. I’m unaware of any weird movie that suggests that Satan is a nun. But if you want weird…I’ll give you weird:
That’s right…Satan is a transvestite…and a stripper! Sorry…dancer. That must be one Hell of a strip-joint! Sorry…Gentleman’s Club.
No, Shemp! Resist! Believe me…resist! Or are you in for a surprise!
That’s weird? I will give you weird:
The Devil is a gay woman…who knew?
This is interesting:
The knowledge Satan had about the sins and the condition of the souls of those present was rather embarrassing to them. But in this case, there were no disturbing revelations made along that line as there were only nuns and priests present. But even here he made insinuating remarks: "Is it not true that you did so and so in your past life, in your childhood days?" He made reference here to acts which were hardly remembered.
And so it is that Regan knew things about Karras; in particular, about the death of his mother. That is really not so strange given the fact that Dyer told Chris, and Sharon probably knew, and someone told Regan so she could manipulate Karras…the priest desperately seeking for something to justify an exorcism. Or at the least, seeking for something to justify an exorcism because he was being black-mailed.
Does Regan know my mother just died? No, says Chris. Perhaps…yes, says Sharon. But I like how Unnamed seems to know about people’s past naughty deeds. But what about Mrs. Karras’s maiden name? Chris wouldn’t know. Sharon wouldn’t know. And so it’s not strange that Regan…doesn’t know. And she keeps you from really noticing that she doesn’t have Pseudo-Anna’s ability to know secret things that she’s not told…by throwing up in Karras’s face. Chris met Merrin when Sharon met Merrin and oddly enough, Regan knew nothing about Merrin. Why? Because Chris and Sharon didn’t know anything about Father Merrin, and you can’t tell Regan what you don’t know. And in defense of the Good Mrs. Karras! When Regan tells Karras that his mother gets up to certain things in Hell that the prudish Satan would never tolerate anyway…Regan doesn’t have any secret knowledge; she’s just being nasty.
And it strikes me as strange that Satanic Pseudo-Emma holds back on saying anything disturbing because nuns and priests were present. If I had been present, she would have probably told everyone that I read Satan was a Lesbian! Wouldn’t that be embarrassing? Hey..that’s not fair! I retract my former statement.
In order to avoid such inconvenient consequences, Father Theophilus, richer by mature experiences, undertakes his exorcism in consecrated or religious houses with only the assistance of priests and nuns. Even then things have happened. Satan shrewdly and sagaciously disclosed hidden things which made certain persons blush for shame; yes, he made them quiver with fear by threatening to expose them still more.
Ok, so now I’m blushing because I may, or may not, have read a certain paperback book that was rather naughty! Besides, it really is well-written…and the dialogue is excellent! Not that I would know. Performing exorcisms in secret places is very handy if you want to make sure that there are no witnesses who can contradict your 1935 story. Although as we will see, there were people who claimed to be witnesses.
There is definitely one very interesting point of connection with the Exorcist:
During all this time she could not eat solid foods, but nourishment in liquid form was injected into her. It was surprising to note how such a weak creature could vomit forth such quantities of material as indicated above. It was not unusual for her to vomit twenty to thirty times a day.
And so here I suspect that it is from this element of the Riesinger Story that we get Regan MacNeill Queen of the Unending Vomit. I have discussed Regan and possible medical explanations related to CVS. But apart from two particular scenes, she only shows trace amounts of vomit on her chest.
The vomit is present, and before Karras walks into the room. But it isn’t much, and has been there for some time.
And this is the second scene. Like the first scene, the vomit is present. But it isn’t a lot of vomit, and is not a key element of the scene other than the clear allusion that Regan has a medical problem. Actually, the word vomit may be over-stating it. It looks more like she is bringing up bile in fairly small amounts, and spitting it out onto her chest. Being restrained to the bed would make it hard to do anything else.
Same scene. Traces of vomit around the mouth. She is “spitting up” as opposed to the full-scale vomiting that she so generously shared with Karras on his first visit.
No food, but Pseudo-Anna can vomit twenty to thirty times a day? I would hate to have been the janitor. Or the maid! But if you think Regan is bad, and that Earling Girl is worse…Emma will get worse still:
Frothing and spitting and vomiting forth unmentionable excrements from the mouth of the poor creature, they would try to ward off the influence of the exorcist.
I don’t even want to know what “excrements from the mouth” entails, although I’ll bet it’s like the result of a leisurely swim in the sewer, and requires lots of Listerine. Vomit is very important to the 1935 Joke of a Source. What kind of vomit?
At one time the emission was a bowl full of matter resembling vomited macaroni.
Parents! Don’t give your kid too much macaroni! Oh, you’ve made that mistake before? Never mind. I’m surprised that Father Riesinger didn’t have a bottle of Buffalo Lithia Water! It cures demon-possession, and alleviates the symptoms of gastro-intestinal disorders. Wait!
At another time an even greater measure, having the appearance of sliced and chewed tobacco leaves, was emitted.
So Unknown Woman was a tobacco-chewer and accidentally swallowed her chewing tobacco. Maybe the convent was out of spittoons. And how much time did these guys spend analyzing Emma’s vomit?
From ten to twenty times a day this wretched creature was forced to vomit though she had taken at the most only a teaspoonful of water or milk by way of food.
Come on! Yes, this is a ridiculous little book, but is it 10 to 20, or 20 to 30? Keep focused! And now for a clear borrowing:
She would spit and vomit in a most hideous manner so that both Father Theophilus and the pastor had to use handkerchiefs constantly to wipe off the spittle from habit and cassock.
This is something we’ve already seen:
