H CHAPTER VII THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE GERASENE AFFAIR UXLEY referred to this with unnecessary vehe mence as "the Gadarene pig affair." In this connection, he remarks: "(Mr. Gladstone's) strategic sense justly leads him to see that the authority of the teachings of the synoptic Gospels, touching the nature of the spiritual world, turns upon the acceptance or the rejection, of the Gadarene and other like stories. As we accept, or repudiate, such histories as that of the possessed pigs, so shall we accept, or reject, the witness of the synoptics to such miraculous interventions." A critique of the potential fallacy underlying this statement is not called for at this stage. Truth rarely consorts with the purely controversial mood. If the difficulties of the narrative have been felt to be real, there remains the possibility of a restatement of the whole case, with the prospect of diminishing or removing most of them. THE SCENE OF THE EVENT The locality has been variously assigned to the Gadarenes, Gerasenes, and Gergesenes Lachmann Tregelles Tischendorf Westcott and Hort Revised Version . MATT. Gadarenes Gerasenes Gerasenes. Authorised Version. Gergesenes Gadarenes Gadarenes. Origen clears up the matter; remarking that the precipitation of the swine is recorded to have taken place in the country of the Gerasenes. In a few manuscripts he found mention of the country of the Gadarenes. He objects to Gerasa, which was a city of Arabia (Gilead), having neither sea nor lake near it; also to Gadara, noted for its warm springs, but its lake or sea was not at all near to precipices. There remained Gergesa by the Lake of Tiberias, near which was a precipice adjacent to the Lake, from which it was pointed out that the swine were precipitated by the demons. Origen thus makes it clear that in his time, "Gerasenes" was the prevalent reading; Gadarenes," that of a few manuscripts; "Gergesenes," being unattested.1 The weight of textual authority thus favours the reading, "Gerasenes." The indications of the site are sufficiently explicit 1. A place over against Galilee. 2. A place with tombs adjacent to it. 3. A place sloping steeply towards the Lake. 1 Keim calls Gergesa a mere guess of Origen; but Jerome affirmed the existence of a village of that name, "still shown above the mountain, close by the Lake of Tiberias." The site of the ancient Kerza or Gersa, discovered by Thomson, answers all the requirements of the case. The ruins of the old town are described as but a few rods from the shore; but there is no bold overhanging cliff, or "jumping-off place." Sir C. W. Wilson notes that about a mile south of the town, the hills approach within forty feet of the water's edge; not terminating abruptly, but in a steep evenly slope. That spot would accord with a desire on the part of the demoniac(s) and the swineherds to avoid the town. Neither Gadara nor Gerasa affords the proper environment. The former on the Hieromax (Um-Keis on the Jermuk), some ten miles from the Lake, was the capital of a district which apparently included Kerza. The latter was east of the ancient Ramoth-Gilead; being some twenty miles from the Jordan, and some forty miles from the Sea of Galilee. It may be affirmed, on physiological grounds alone, that the swine were unequal to the physical task of galloping without rest from either of those towns to the Lake; even though ridden by a whole legion of demons. These considerations lead to the unhesitating acceptance of Kerza as the scene of this affair. That is also the verdict of numerous competent travellers. The mention of the locality introduces us to the "Huxley-Gladstone controversy," which has already an antiquarian flavour.1 It is immaterial, whether 1 Nineteenth Century, "Agnosticism,” Feb. 1889; Keepers of the Herd of Swine," Dec. 1890; Huxley and the Swine-Miracle," Feb, 1891. Cf. Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture, p. 268 ff, we hold with Huxley that "the legal provisions which alone had authority over an inhabitant of the country of the Gadarenes were the Gentile laws sanctioned by the Romans"; or believe with Gladstone that the Gadarenes were "Hebrews bound by the Mosaic law." The ownership of the swine is completely hidden from us, and the conclusions on either side are open to a twofold objection. The arguments really proceed,— Moral issues cannot rest upon mere topographical considerations. e silentio. THE NUMBER OF THE DEMONIACS That Matthew should have two demoniacs where the other Synoptists have but one, is a surprising but not a singular occurrence.1 Attempts to make the diverse accounts agree with each other have met with small success, and the tendency is to get rid of one of the possessed. Thus Chrysostom, Augustine, and Calvin thought of the greater importance of one of the demoniacs compared with the other. Ammon's suggestion of a madman and his keeper is too ridiculous to deserve attention. The difficulty is hardly removed by the supposition of communicated insanity (folie à deux); for Matthew contemplates no difference either in the type or in the severity of the symptoms of the two possessed. We have thus to consider two men suffering from the most furious mania, both manifesting the same homicidal pro 1 Cf. Matt. xx. 30; Mark x. 46; Luke xviii. 35. pensities, both harbouring the same delusions, both practising the same mutilations, and both uttering the same menaces. How two lunatics animated by such terrible passions, could dwell together in unity, "for a long time," surpasses comprehension. The theory of folie à deux is inadequate to the occasion, and the circumstances raise an inherent, if not an invincible, doubt as to the accuracy of this detail. Various conjectures have been offered as to the source of this discrepancy. Matthew does not aim at a heightening of the miraculous here. The concentration of the demons in one subject comes much nearer to that. Nor does the first Evangelist introduce the two demoniacs here to make up for his omission of the possessed of Capernaum. Ebrard, Bleek, Holtzmann, and others, overlook the fact that Matthew is usually precise in distinguishing things that differ. He separates the epileptics from the demonised, and differentiates the dumb from the blind - and - dumb demoniac. Another explanation, usually associated with the name of Weiss, is that Matthew found the term "demons" in his original; and for the plurality of these postulated a plurality of demoniacs. Jewish, not less than ethnic, doctrine contemplated the possibility of a single person becoming the hold of many unclean spirits. Matthew was therefore under no necessity of introducing two subjects of possession where one sufficed. The suggestion of Weiss thus becomes of none effect, and there is still left an unsolved antinomy. Yet |