Moore Perspective: Geographical Confusion: the Land of Demon-Possessed Pigs?

Fairly early in his ministry Jesus and his twelve disciples ventured to the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee and encountered a Legion of demons and their reluctant hosts.¹ All three Synoptic Gospels report this incident in great detail but are confusingly obscure about the specific geographical location (Matt. 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-40). Was it the land of the Gadarenes or the Gerasenes or the Gergesenes? While the townships of Gadara, Gerasa, and Gergesa are assumed, these communities were considerable distances apart in various proximities to the Sea of Galilee.

Textual Variation²

Variant readings among extant manuscripts occur in each Synoptic account. In Matthew 8:28 most manuscripts read “Gergesenes,”³ although the weight of textual evidence supports “Gadarenes,”⁴ while a number of ancient versions favor “Gerasenes.”⁵ In Mark 5:1 and Luke 8:26 and 37 the majority of manuscripts read “Gadarenes,”⁶ yet “Gerasenes” is better supported by the weight of textual evidence,⁷ and “Gergesenes” is another variant reading.⁸

Geographical Probability

Gadara (modern-day Umm Qais in NW Jordan) was about 6 miles (9.6 km) from the Sea of Galilee, and Gerasa (modern-day Jerash in N. Jordan) was approximately 37 miles (60 km) away. Closer to the coast was Gergesa, which would explain why Origen (ca. 184-253), Eusebius (ca. 260-339), and later copyists preferred this particular location.⁹Archaeologically identified as the lakeside village of El Kursi (in Israeli controlled Golan Heights), it more readily corresponds to the Gospel accounts: “they sailed down” to this area (Luke 8:26) and were encountered “immediately” once exiting the boat (Mark 5:2). The site also has nearby tombs and a steep bank descending to the shore (Matt. 8:28, 32; Mark 5:2-5, 13; Luke 8:27, 33).¹⁰

Why the Geographical Confusion?

The incident occurred in the greater Decapolis region (Mark 5:20), where both Gadara and Gerasa were among the league of ten cities (Pliny, Natural History 5.16). None of the Synoptic authors names a particular city. They each speak of the χώρα (“country” or “region”) of a much broader territory incorporating and surrounding these municipalities, where the Gadarene, Gerasene, and Gergesene peoples all lived.

Although Gerasa was the farthest away from the sea, it was the largest and better known.¹¹Mark and Luke both allude to “the country of the Gerasenes” as a geographical marker that would have been more familiar to their respective non-Jewish audiences living far away and unacquainted with the area. While Gadara was smaller and lesser known, Matthew writes to a Jewish audience somewhat familiar with the region, so he can be more defined with reference to the Gadarenes. In fact, Josephus reports that this territory reached to the “frontier” or “coast” of the water boundary (Life 9.42). And if variant readings are afforded any level of credence, all three Synoptic authors would be even more precise than most modern versions indicate.

Conclusion

At first glance the textual, intertextual, and geographical discrepancies give the appearance of inaccuracy and disharmony among the Synoptics. However, geographical specificity does not seem to be the intent of the respective authors. The general area on the eastern coast of the Sea of Galilee in mid-west Decapolis is clearly in view (Mark 5:13, 20). Alert readers recognize that Jesus is venturing into predominantly Gentile territory and thus laying the groundwork for his eventual call to make disciples of all nations.¹²

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

¹ Matthew records two demoniacs, one of whom would have been the more dominant or notorious figure who became the Lord’s emissary, singularly featured in the accounts of Mark and Luke. See K. L. Moore, “Synoptic Confusion: Matthew’s ‘Two’ vs. Mark and Luke’s ‘One’?” Moore Perspective (2 Jan. 2019), <Link>.

² See P. W. Comfort, A Commentary on the Manuscripts and Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2015): 141, 183-84, 217-18; B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994): 18-19, 72, 121.

³ The Byzantine Majority Text and Textus Receptus; cf. Darby, JUB, LSV, N/KJV, WEB, YLT.

⁴ NA²⁷ and UBS⁵; cf. ASV, CSB, ESV, NAB, NASB, NET, NIV, NLT, N/RSV.

⁵ Latin Vulgata Clementina; cf. Douay-Rheims, ISV, Finnish Bible (1776), Latvian NT. This is probably a case of scribal harmonization with the parallel accounts in Mark and Luke.

⁶ The Byzantine Majority Text and Textus Receptus; cf. Darby, JUB, LSV, N/KJV, WEB, YLT.

⁷ NA²⁷ and UBS⁵; cf. ASV, CSB, Douay-Rheims, ESV, ISV, NAB, NASB, NET, NIV, NLT, N/RSV.

⁸ Fourth/fifth-century Codex Washingtonianus.

⁹ Origin, Commentary on John 6.24; Eusebius, Onomasticon 73.14. See T. J. Baarda, “Gadarenes, Gerasenes, Gergesenes and the ‘Diatessaron’ Traditions,” in E. E. Ellis and M. E. Wilcox, eds., Neotestamentica et Semitica: Studies in honour of Matthew Black (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1969): 181-197.

¹⁰ C. A. Evans and S. E. Porter, eds., Dictionary of New Testament Backgrounds (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000): 97; Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8 AYB (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008): 27:342; John McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008): 166-168; W. Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903): 27; Vassilios Tzaferis, “A Pilgrimage to the Site of the Swine Miracle,” BAR 15 (1989): 48. Thanks to the research of Colt Mahana, “Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5:1-20),” FHU BIB 515: Synoptic Gospels (9 April 2022): 1-15.

¹¹ D. M. Doriani, “Matthew,” in I. M. Duguid, J. M. Hamilton, Jr., and J. Sklar, eds., ESV Expository Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2021): 8:143 n.140; C. S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2014): 139.

¹² See K. L. Moore, “Beyond the Jordan: an Ethnogeographical Study,” Moore Perspective (9 June 2021), <Link>.