Possession in the Gospels

Some Christians, even though they believe the Gospels, are sometimes perplexed by what they regard as the disproportionate occurrence of possession. By that I mean, not that cases of possession are overrepresented in the Gospel record, compared to other stories, but that cases of possession seem to be overrepresented in the general population. It's not a question of Mark's selection criteria, Mark's interest in possession, but the fact that Mark has so much raw material to choose from. 

They wonder why there would be so many cases of possession in 1C Palestine. To begin with, that's a center of Judaism, so we'd expect possession to be less frequent there than in pagan parts of the world. Moreover, it seems to be out of proportion to our own experience. In the modern world, cases of possession are evidently rare. So why would there be such a concentration in the time of Christ? To be blunt, this strikes some readers as unrealistic. 

I'm not stating my own position. I'm just summarizing the baffled reaction that some Christians have, when they compare the Gospel accounts to the observable world. By way of response:

i) I think some Christian readers have a misimpression of the Gospel data. The vivid stories of possession and exorcism make such a memorable impression on the reader that they think the reportage is more prevalent than is actually the case. The actual number of Gospel references to possession is fairly sparse, and primarily confined to Mark, with Matthew as a distant second, then Luke and John trailing even further behind. 

You have four exorcism accounts in Mark (Mk 1:21-28; 5:1-20; 7:24-30; 9:14-29), two short reports in Matthew (Mt 9:32-34; 12:22; par. Lk 11:14) and a few summary statements (Mk 1:32-34,39; 3:7-12). You also have the possession of Judas (Lk 22:3; Jn 13:2). So there's less material than we might mistakenly recall. 

ii) We also need to distinguish between reported cases of possession which were brought to Jesus, and cases where Jesus or the narrator identifies the individual as a demoniac. When the narrator describes people bringing cases to Jesus, that's a reflection of their diagnosis, not the narrator's. They bring the troubled individual to Jesus because they think that individual is possessed. When the narrator explains their motivation, that isn't an endorsement of their diagnosis.  

iii) Unlike a disease, whose symptoms are automatic, the symptoms of possession are under the voluntary control of the demon. It's a question of the degree to which he chooses to manifest himself. Having Jesus on the site brings the behind-the-scenes spiritual conflict out into the open. That invites a direct confrontation between the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of light. That smokes them out of hiding. So it's not surprising if a demon surfaces when brought face-to-face with his arch rival. Ordinarily, he might maintain a low profile. 

iv) What about modern counterparts? Demonic possession may well be underreported and often go undiagnosed. Most psychologists and psychiatrists have a secular outlook. And psychotropic drugs might mask the symptoms of possession. Illicit drug use might have the same effect. Also, even if a psychologist or psychiatrist suspects possession, he may decline to offer that diagnosis, for fear of damaging his professional reputation. 

Of course, you have the opposite problem in folk pentecostalism, where possession is routinely overdiagnosed. And that, in turn, can lead to a backlash, by bringing the demonic attribution into disrepute.