Biblical commentary on the New Testament - The Christian ...

366 Matthew VIII. 28.
the name is which the madman applies to his demon. At most,
therefore, we can only say, that the cases have become much more
rare, and this shews how the restorative power of the Saviour will,
at some future period, harmonize all discords in the life of man,
both of his body and of his soul. [It seems, however, more probable
that that fearful letting loose of demoniacal agency ran parallel with
the special revelation of Deity in the incarnation, and that there-
fore thd|- were only then permitted by heaven.]
If, after these remarks, we turn to the history of the Gmlarenc
demojiiac before us, which has, moreover, special diiRculties, we
have to observe, in general, that Matthew speaks of tioo sufferers,
while the other two Evangelists know of only one. A similar case
of the number being doubled occurs in Matth. xx. 30, where he
speaks of two blind men, though Mark (x, 46) and Luke (xviii. 85)
make mention of one only. This difference belongs to the class
discussed in the Introduction (§ 8), which we must take to be sucb
as they manifestly are—as discrepancies—without seeking for ex-
planations ; as, for instance, that one carried. on the conversation,
and is, therefore, alone mentioned, and so forth. In this case it is
extremely improbable that there should have been' two persons
afflicted in this manner. Probably MatthcAV has combined this occurrence
with a kindred one, which might happen all the more
easily, as he uniformly presents the frame-work of his naiTative only
in general outline. Further, there is an uncertainty about the
spelling of the name of the jjlace, after which the demoniac, of
whom our narrative speaks, was called. In all the three Gospels
there are the various readings, Vepyearjvm', Tadap7jva)v, Tepaorjvojv,
from which we may conclude, that they did not originally agree in
the reading. The difference of the reading arose from the eftbrt to
establish uniformity. It must indeed be allowed, that the possibility
of such a variation in the name of the place results from the cha-
racter of the locality itself In Decapolis (see note on Matth. iv.
25), where according to Mark v. 20, the occurrence took place, lay
the well-known town of Gadara, the capital of Perea, sixty stadia
distant from Tiberias, and renowned for its warm baths. Farther
to the north lay Gerasa, a place on the eastern boundary of Perea ;
at some distance from the sea indeed, but yet so that the territory
of the town extended down to it ; and hence the " countries"
(x^jpai) of the two towns might easily be confounded. (On the two
places, see Winer's " Reallexicon," s. v.) Origeii (0pp. vol. iv., p.
140) does indeed report, that in his day the precipice was shewit
down which the swine were said to have cast themselves, and calls
the neighbouring town Gcrgesa.* But the entire account speaks
* Origen speaks of the reading Tepaarivuv as the common one in the Codd. of his
day. lie says, that the reading VadaprjvCiv is found in only a few copies, and decides ia