Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory

How to cite this article:
Joshua N. Tilton and David N. Bivin, “Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory,” The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction (Jerusalem Perspective, 2023) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/26210/].

Matt. 8:28-9:1; Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39

(Huck 51, 106; Aland 91, 137; Crook 95, 159)^[427]

Updated: 4 April 2025

וַיָּבֹא אֶל אֶרֶץ הַגִּרְגָּשִׁי אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי הַגָּלִיל וַיֵּצֵא לִקְרָאתוֹ אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מִן הָעִיר אֲשֶׁר הַשֵּׁד בּוֹ וּזְמָן הַרְבֵּה לֹא לָבַשׁ בְּגָדִים וּבְבַיִת לֹא יָשַׁב אֶלָּא בַּקְּבָרִים פְּעָמִים הַרְבֵּה חָטַף אוֹתוֹ וַיַּאַסְרוּהוּ בַּנְחֻשְׁתַּיִם וַיְנַתֵּק אֶת מוֹסְרוֹתָיו וַיִּנְהַג אוֹתוֹ אֶל הַחוֹרָבוֹת וְהִנֵּה קָרָא בְּקוֹל גָּדוֹל לֵאמֹר מַה לִּי וָלָךְ יֵשׁוּעַ בֶּן אֵל עֶלְיוֹן בָּאתָ אֵלַי לְצָעֵר אוֹתִי וַיִּשְׁאָלֵהוּ יֵשׁוּעַ מַה שִּׁמְךָ וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ לִגְיוֹן כִּי נִכְנְסוּ בּוֹ רִבּוֹא שֵׁדִים וַיִּפְגְּעוּ הַשֵּׁדִים בּוֹֹ לֵאמֹר אַל תְּגָרֵשׁ אֹתָנוּ מִן הָאָרֶץ וַיְהִי שָׁם עֵדֶר חֲזִירִים הַרְבֵּה רֹעֶה בָּהָר וַיִּפְגְּעוּ בוֹֹ לֵאמֹר אִם אַתָּה מוֹצִיא אֹתָנוּ גָּרֵשׁ אֹתָנוּ לְעֵדֶר הַחֲזִירִים וְנִכָּנֵס בָּם וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם לְכוּ וַיֵּצְאוּ רוּחוֹת הַטֻּמְאָה מִן הָאָדָם וַיִּכָּנְסוּ בַּחֲזִירִים וְהִנֵּה גָּלַשׁ כָּל הָעֵדֶר מִן הַצּוֹק אֶל הַיָּם וַיָּמֻתוּ בַּמַּיִם וַיִּרְאוּ הָרוֹעִים וַיָּנוּסוּ וַיֵּלְכוּ אֶל הָעִיר וַיַּגִּידוּ אֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר רָאוּ וְהִנֵּה כָּל הָעִיר יָצְאָה לִקְרַאת יֵשׁוּעַ וַיִּמְצְאוּ אֶת הָאָדָם מְלוּבָּשׁ בְּגָדִים וְיוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵי רַגְלֵי יֵשׁוּעַ וַיִפְחֲדוּ וַיַּגִּידוּ לָהֶם הָרוֹעִים אֶת אֲשֶׁר קָרָה וַיִּשְׁאָלוּהוּ לָלֶכֶת מִגְּבוּלָם

Yeshua arrived in the territory of the Girgashites, which is opposite the Galil. Out came a certain man from the nearby village to meet him. But this man had a demon in him. Because of it he had neither worn clothes nor lived at home for a long time. Rather, he lurked among the graves. The demon seized him so often that the townspeople bound him in chains. Yet the demon snapped them apart and drove him off to a place of ruins.

Suddenly, the possessed man yelled at Yeshua in a loud voice, shouting, “What do you and I have in common, O Yeshua, Son of God Most High? Have you come here to torment me?”

At that, Yeshua asked him, “What is your name?”

“Ligyon,” the possessed man replied. (He had earned this nickname because many demons had entered him.)

Then the demons began to urge Yeshua, telling him, “Don’t expel us from our territory!”

Now at that location a herd consisting of a great many pigs was grazing on the hillside, so the demons urged Yeshua, saying, “If you must force us out of the man, at least drive us away to the herd of pigs so that we may enter them.”

“Go!” Yeshua replied.

So the impure spirits came out of the man and entered the pigs. But the entire herd tumbled down the ridge into the sea, where they all drowned in the water. When the swineherds saw what happened, they ran away and, coming to the village, they told all about what they had seen.

When they heard this, everyone in the village went out to prevent Yeshua from coming any closer. Finding the man whom Yeshua had liberated from the demons dressed and sitting calmly at Yeshua’s feet, they were filled with dread. The swineherds identified Yeshua as the culprit, and everyone asked him to leave their territory.^[428]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory click on the link below:

Conclusion

The themes of ritual purity and the redemption of Israel (both the people and the land) unite and give meaning to the strange events described in Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory. The hordes of impure spirits who colonized the possessed man’s psyche and the herd of impure pigs that trampled holy ground were both emblematic of Israel’s subjection to the hostile Roman Empire in different ways. The possession of individuals by demons mirrored the pressures that subjection to Roman imperial rule placed on the Jewish people. The raising of pigs on a small parcel of Israel’s inheritance to be eaten by Gentiles or sacrificed to pagan deities mirrored the trampling of the entire Holy Land by Roman rulers and their legions, who spread terror and impurity wherever they went.

Jesus’ expulsion of the demons from the possessed man and his removal of the pigs from the land were symbolic of a greater redemption that had already begun. The demonic powers that had invaded and colonized the possessed man also animated the Roman Empire and manipulated its policy. Therefore, just as the impure spirits had been driven out of the possessed man, so the degrading and dehumanizing system of Roman imperialism would be abolished from Israel. And just as the defeat of the demons resulted in running the pigs out of the territory, so the defeat of Satan would result in expelling the Roman presence from the Holy Land. Without ever drawing the sword, without ever spilling a drop of blood, the land and the people of Israel could be liberated through the redeeming power of the Holy Spirit.

“Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,” says the Lord of hosts.

(Zech. 4:6)

---

Click here to return to The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction main page. _______________________________________________________

---

• ^[1] See Plummer, Mark, 139; Marcus, 1:341. ↩
• ^[2] Cf. Bundy, 243 §147; Guelich, 274. See also Rudolf Pesch, “The Markan Version of the Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac,” Ecumenical Review 23.4 (1971): 349-376, esp. 355-356. ↩
• ^[3] We witnessed examples of the First Reconstructor’s rearranging of the order in which events were narrated in Quieting a Storm. ↩
• ^[4] See the “Conjectured Stages of Transmission” discussion in Four Soils parable. ↩
• ^[5] See the “Conjectured Stages of Transmission” discussion in Four Soils interpretation. ↩
• ^[6] On the small collections of sayings we refer to as “strings of pearls” scattered about in Luke’s Gospel as stemming from FR, see LOY Excursus: Sources of the “Strings of Pearls” in Luke’s Gospel. ↩
• ^[7] See the “Conjectured Stages of Transmission” discussion in Yeshua, His Mother and Brothers. ↩
• ^[8] Fitzmyer (1:753), approaching the question of Luke’s sources from the perspective of the Two-source Hypothesis, assumed that Mark was Luke’s only source for Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory and that any differences between the two versions were due to Lukan redaction. ↩
• ^[9] Pace Beare (Earliest, 75 §46, 121 §106) and Nolland (Matt., 374), who regarded Mark as Matthew’s sole source for this pericope. ↩
• ^[10] Cf. Dibelius, 89, 101; Bundy, 243 §147; Knox, 1:39-41; Beare, Earliest, 122 §106. See also John F. Craghan, “The Gerasene Demoniac,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 30.4 (1968): 522-536, esp. 531. ↩
• ^[11] See Knox, 1:39; Pesch, “The Markan Version of the Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac,” 352-354; Meier, Marginal, 2:651; Guelich, 276-277. ↩
• ^[12] See Bundy, 244 §147; Beare, Earliest, 122 §106. ↩
• ^[13] Other scholars who argue for the unity of Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory include Bultmann, 210; Amanda Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist: His Exorcisms in Social and Political Context (London: T&T Clark, 2012), 168-169. ↩
• ^[14] On the purity motif in Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, see Kazen, 180-181; Daniel Cohen, “The Gerasene Demoniac: A Jewish Approach to Liberation before 70 CE,” in Judaism, Jewish Identities, and the Gospel Tradition: Essays in Honour of Maurice Casey (ed. James G. Crossley; London: Equinox, 2010), 152-173. ↩
• ^[15] Human corpses were the most potent source of ritual impurity in Second Temple Judaism. ↩
• ^[16] Cf. the rabbinic ruling that אין חי מטמא אוכלין ומשקין (“a living creature does not render food or drink impure”; t. Yom. 3:15). ↩
• ^[17] See Shimon Applebaum, “Animal Husbandry,” in The Roman World (ed. John Wacher; 2 vols.; London and New York: Routledge, 1987), 2:504-526, esp. 511; Oded Borowski, Every Living Thing: Daily Use of Animals in Ancient Israel (Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltiMira, 1998), 140, 147. In this respect pigs are unlike many other domesticated animals. Sheep and goats produced wool and milk. Cattle were used as draft animals. Pigs served no other purpose than to provide meat for food or sacrifices, and indeed were destructive to their environment when kept in large numbers. ↩
• ^[18] Gundry (Mark, 1:248) and Kazen (180-181) note that while the purity motif is present in Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, this motif does not represent the concerns of the author of Mark. Nor, we might add, does it reflect the interests of the other synoptic evangelists. The purity motif, in other words, was present as a unifying theme at a pre-synoptic stage of transmission. ↩
• ^[19] See Richard A. Horsley, “‘My Name Is Legion’: Spirit Possession and Exorcism in Roman Palestine,” in Experientia, Volume 1; Inquiry into Religious Experience in Early Judaism and Christianity (ed. Frances Flannery, Colleen Shantz, and Rodney A. Werline; Leiden: Brill, 2008), 41-57. ↩
• ^[20] See Joshua N. Tilton, “Like Lightning from Heaven (Luke 10:18): Jesus’ Apocalyptic Vision of the Fall of Satan.” ↩
• ^[21] See Gregory David Wiebe, “The Demonic Phenomena of Mark’s ‘Legion’: Evaluating Postcolonial Understandings of Demon Possession,” in Anna Runesson, Exegesis in the Making: Postcolonialism and New Testament Studies (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 186-212, esp. 206-207. On the interlocking relationship of the personal, political and cosmic planes of demon possession, Roman imperialism and a war between the God of Israel and Satan, see Joshua N. Tilton, “‘Build That Wall!’: The Morals of Wall Building in the Light of Jesus’ Gospel,” under the subheading “How Was the Kingdom of Heaven Proclaimed?” at WholeStones.org. See also Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 175. ↩
• ^[22] The predominating Jewish view in the Second Temple period was not that the gods of the Gentiles were unreal, but that the Gentiles’ gods were demons (Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:37; 1 Enoch 19:1; Jub. 15:31; cf. Ps. 95:5 [LXX]; 1 Cor. 10:20). On this view, see Paula Fredriksen, “Gods and the One God,” Bible Review (2003): 12, 49; idem, “Mandatory retirement: Ideas in the study of Christian origins whose time has come to go,” Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 35.2 (2006): 231-246, esp. 241-246; Wiebe, “The Demonic Phenomena of Mark’s ‘Legion,’” 209-210. The political overtones of Jesus’ victory over the demons must not be overlooked. If Jesus exercised power over the demons, he had also subjugated the Gentiles’ gods. Those very gods were the patrons of the Roman Empire. Indeed, the Roman emperors claimed to be gods and the sons of gods. Since the gods of the Gentiles were no more than demons, and since Jesus had demonstrated his mastery over the demons, Jesus had also proven his mastery over the oppressive system of Roman imperialism. ↩
• ^[23] Cf. Teresa Calpino, “The Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5:1-20): The pre-Markan Function of the Pericope,” Biblical Research 53 (2008): 15-23, esp. 20-21; Cohen, “The Geresene Demoniac: A Jewish Approach to Liberation Before 70 CE,” 158-159; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 174. ↩
• ^[24] Pace Meier, Marginal, 2:651. ↩
• ^[25] Cf. LHNS, 78 §106; Nolland, Luke, 1:406. ↩
• ^[26] See Moulton-Geden, 537; Creed, 120. ↩
• ^[27] On genitives absolute in the Gospel of Matthew as indicative of Matthean redactional activity, see LOY Excursus: The Genitive Absolute in the Synoptic Gospels, under the subheading “The Genitive Absolute in Matthew.” ↩
• ^[28] Cf. Pesch, “The Markan Version of the Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac,” 356. ↩
• ^[29] Cf. Taylor, 278; Guelich, 275; Collins, 263. ↩
• ^[30] Cf. Pesch, “The Markan Version of the Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac,” 352. ↩
• ^[31] On stacked prepositional phrases in Mark, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[32] See Metzger, 23. ↩
• ^[33] See Fitzmyer, 1:736; Davies-Allison, 2:79; Rainey-Notley, 359. ↩
• ^[34] See Ze’ev Safrai, “The Administrative Structure of Judea in the Roman and Byzantine Periods,” Immanuel 13 (1981): 30-38, esp. 31; Estée Dvorjetski, “The Military and Medical History of Gadara as Reflected by the City-Coins,” Aram 23 (2011): 81-140, esp. 86. ↩
• ^[35] See Michael Avi-Yonah, The Holy Land: A Historical Geography from the Persian to the Arab Conquest (536 B.C. - A.D. 640) (rev. ed.; ed. Anson F. Rainey; Carta: Jerusalem, 2002), 175-177.
  
  For this reason Guelich’s suggestion (277) that χώρα (chōra, “region”) was redactionally added to “Gerasenes” in order to accommodate the story originally set in Gerasa to the collection of stories set around the Sea of Galilee founders. The “region of the Gerasenes” never extended to the lake. Moreover, for Guelich’s suggestion to work, we must assume greater redactional intervention than simply the insertion of χώραν (“region”) before τῶν Γερασηνῶν (“of the Gerasenes”). The pre-synoptic source would have needed to read καὶ ἦλθον εἰς Γέρασαν (“and they came into Gerasa”), but, as we will argue, it is unlikely Jesus ever visited the Hellenistic city of Gerasa. ↩
• ^[36] See Fitzmyer, 1:736; Davies-Allison, 2:79; Rainey-Notley, 359. ↩
• ^[37] Some scholars maintain that Gadara’s toparchy extended to the lake on the basis of unclear statements in Josephus (Life §42; J.W. 3:37) and coins minted at Gadara that bear nautical symbols. See Metzger, 23; Marshall, 337; Hagner, 1:226; Luz, 2:24 n. 7. However, coins with nautical symbols are not uncommon for landlocked cities (even Jerusalem minted coins with nautical symbols), as Dvorjetski has demonstrated. See Esti Dvorjetski, “Nautical Symbols on the Gadara Coins and their Link to the Thermae of the Three Graces at Ḥammat-Gader,” Mediterranean Historical Review 9.1 (1994): 100-115, esp. 104-105; idem, “The Military and Medical History of Gadara as Reflected by the City-Coins,” 92-94. Some coins refer to naumachiae (reenacted naval battles) which Gadara sponsored. Gustaf Dalman (See his Sacred Sites and Ways: Studies in the Topography of the Gospels [trans. Paul P. Levertoff; New York: Macmillan, 1935], 178-179) opined that these could have taken place on the Yarmuk River, while Avi-Yonah (The Holy Land, 174) noted that in inland cities naumachiae were held in amphitheaters. Nun, who argued that Gadara’s territory did extend to the Sea of Galilee, disputed Dalman’s suggestion, arguing that there are no archaeological traces of naumachiae having taken place on the Yarmuk. Nun proposed an alternate location, a recently discovered harbor on the southeastern shore of the Sea of Galilee that would have served as the port of Gadara. See Mendel Nun, “Gergesa: Site of the Demoniac’s Healing,” under the subheading “Site of the Miracle”; idem, The Land of the Gadarenes: New Light on an Old Sea of Galilee Puzzle (Kibbutz Ein Gev: Sea of Galilee Fishing Museum, 1996), 18 (naumachiae), 18-25 (harbor). See also Rainey-Notley, 359-360. But, as Safrai noted, even if the harbor on the Sea of Galilee served as Gadara’s port, this is not proof that the harbor belonged to Gadara’s jurisdiction. See Ze'ev Safrai, “Gergesa, Gerasa, or Gadara? Where Did Jesus’ Miracle Occur?” under the subheading “Geographical Considerations.” Cf. Pesch, “The Markan Version of the Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac,” 353.

  

  

  ↩
• ^[38] Some scholars have suggested that rabbinic sources, too, associate the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee with the Girgashites, citing a passage in the Jerusalem Talmud in support of this claim. See Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways, 177-178; Nun, “Gergesa: Site of the Demoniac’s Healing,” under the subheading “Site of the Miracle.” The Yerushalmi passage reads:

  אמר ריב″ל כתיב ויברח יפתח מפני אחיו וישב בארץ טוב זו סוסיתא ולמה נקרא שמו טוב שפטור מן המעשרות ר′ אימי בעי ולא מבעלי סיסין הן סבר רבי אימי כמי שנתכבשו דאמר רבי שמואל שלש פרסטיניות שלח יהושע לארץ ישראל עד שלא יכנסו לארץ מי שהוא רוצה להפנות יפנה להשלים ישלים לעשות מלחמה יעשה גרגשי פינה והאמין לו להקב″ה והלך לו לאפריקי...גבעונים השלימו...שלושים ואחד מלך עשו מלחמה ונפלו

  Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, “It is written, Jepthah fled from his brothers and dwelt in the land of Tov [Judg. 11:3].^[a] This is Susita. And why is its name called ‘good’? Because it is exempt from tithes.” Rabbi Imi asked, “And are they not tributaries^[b]?” Rabbi Imi reasoned, “They are like those who were conquered.” As Rabbi Shmuel said, “Joshua sent three proclamations^[c] to the land of Israel^[d] before they entered the land: ‘Whoever wishes to depart, let him depart. [Whoever wishes] to make peace, let him make peace. [Whoever wishes] to make war, let him make it.’ The Girgashites departed, and believed the Holy One, blessed be he, and went to Africa....^[e] The Gibeonites made peace.... Thirty-one kings made war and they fell.” (y. Shev. 6:1 [16b])

  ^[a] Tov in Hebrew means “good.”

  ^[b] According to Jastrow (984), instead of מבעלי סיסין we should read מַעֲלֵי מִיסִּין (“those who pay tribute”).

  ^[c] According to Jastrow (1221), the reading פרסטיניות should be corrected to פְּרוֹסְטַגְמָאוֹת (p^erōs^eṭagmā’ōt, “proclamations”; from Gk. πρόσταγμα).

  ^[d] Probably instead of “land of Israel” the text should read “land of Canaan.”

  ^[e] By referring to Africa generally the sages probably meant Carthage in particular. The sages were aware that Carthage was inhabited by Phoenicians (i.e., Canaanites). See Menahem Kister, “The Fate of the Canaanites and the Despoliation of the Egyptians: Polemics Among Jews, Pagans, Christians, and Gnostics: Motifs and Motives,” in The Gift of the Land and the Fate of the Canaanites in Jewish Thought (ed. Katell Berthelot, Joseph E. David, and Marc Hirshman; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 66-111; Richard Bauckham, “Gergesa Is Tel Hadar, Not Kursi,” Revue Biblique 122.2 (2015): 268-283, esp. 280.

  Although both “Susita” and “Girgashites” are mentioned in this passage, there is no suggestion that the rabbinic sages involved in this discussion regarded the toparchy of Susita as the former land of the Girgashites. As Bauckham pointed out, the analogy is between the residents of Susita, who are מַעֲלֵי מִיסִּין (“tributaries”), and the Gibeonites, who, according to Deut. 20:11, were to be subjected to forced labor (מַס) because they made peace with Israel. See Bauckham, “Gergesa Is Tel Hadar, Not Kursi,” 281. The sages interpreted מַס (mas, “forced labor”) in light of its post-biblical meaning, “tax.” On this shift in meaning, see Jan Joosten, “Biblical Hebrew as Mirrored in the Septuagint: The Question of Influence from Spoken Hebrew,” in his Collected Studies on the Septuagint: From Language to Interpretation and Beyond (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 67-80, esp. 75-76. ↩

• ^[39] Text according to Paul Koetschau et al., eds., Origenes Werke (12 vols.; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1899-1941), 4:150. Translation according to The Ante-Nicene Fathers (10 vols.; ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and Allan Menzies; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980-1986), 10:371. ↩
• ^[40] See Metzger, 23; Fitzmyer, 1:736; Safrai, “Gergesa, Gerasa, or Gadara? Where Did Jesus’ Miracle Occur?” under the subheading “Summary”; Rainey-Notley, 360; Bauckham, “Gergesa Is Tel Hadar, Not Kursi,” 274. Metzger pooh-poohed the significance of the local tradition upon which Origen relied, dismissing it as “dubious.” But why should local tradition be regarded as dubious, especially when the local tradition is at odds with those Gospels that set the story in Gerasa and Gadara? We might expect the authority of those Gospels to have suppressed the local tradition unless it was very firmly rooted in historical recollection. ↩
• ^[41] See Safrai, “Gergesa, Gerasa, or Gadara? Where Did Jesus’ Miracle Occur?” under the subheading “The Graves of Gog and Magog.” See also Nun, “Gergesa: Site of the Demoniac’s Healing,” under the subheading “Site of the Miracle”; Rainey-Notley, 360; Bauckham, “Gergesa Is Tel Hadar, Not Kursi,” 281-282. ↩
• ^[42] See Jastrow, 265. ↩
• ^[43] See Rainey-Notley, 360; Bauckham, “Gergesa Is Tel Hadar, Not Kursi,” 273. ↩
• ^[44] See Bauckham, “Gergesa Is Tel Hadar, Not Kursi,” 282. ↩
• ^[45] We sometimes encounter the mistaken assumption that Aramaic was a “Jewish” language unknown to Gentiles (cf., e.g., Davies-Allison, 2:83). In fact, Aramaic was an international language of the east. Josephus tells the story of how a Roman centurion of Syrian birth was able to overhear and understand the besieged Jews of Gamla discussing strategy because both he and they conversed in Aramaic (J.W. 4:37-38). On this episode, see Randall Buth and Chad Pierce, “Hebraisti in Ancient Texts: Does Ἑβραϊστί Ever Mean ‘Aramaic’?” (JS2, 66-109, esp. 89-90). Gamla was not far from the site where we believe the healing of the demoniac and the drowning of the pigs took place. ↩
• ^[46] Cf. Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways, 177-178. Josephus, it should be noted, included the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee within the territory allotted to Naphtali (Ant. 5:86). On Josephus’ description of the tribal allotments, see Zecharia Kallai, “The Biblical Geography of Flavius Josephus,” Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies 4.1 (1965): 203-207; Ze’ev Safrai, “The Description of the Land of Israel in Josephus’ Works,” in Josephus, the Bible, and History (ed Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989), 295-324, esp. 313-317. ↩
• ^[47] See Fitzmyer, 1:736. ↩
• ^[48] See Rainey-Notley, 360. ↩
• ^[49] See McNeile, 111; Metzger, 24; Bauckham, “Gergesa Is Tel Hadar, Not Kursi,” 269; Wolter, 1:349-350. ↩
• ^[50] Origen’s discussion about the variants Gerasa/Gadara/Gergesa appears in a commentary on the Gospel of John, not the most natural place to search for a discussion about the healing of the demoniac and the drowning of the pigs. ↩
• ^[51] Cf. Gundry, Mark, 1:256. ↩
• ^[52] Cf. Fitzmyer, 1:736-737; Gundry, Mark, 1:255. ↩
• ^[53] See Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways, 178; Safrai, “Gergesa, Gerasa, or Gadara? Where Did Jesus’ Miracle Occur?” under the subheading “The Graves of Gog and Magog”; Rainey-Notley, 360. Cf. Gould, 87; Bovon, 1:327. ↩
• ^[54] Pace Meier, Marginal, 2:651. ↩
• ^[55] See Beare, Earliest, 122 §106; Davies-Allison, 2:79. Dvorjetski’s suggestion (“The Military and Medical History of Gadara as Reflected by the City-Coins,” 88-89) that “Gadarenes” entered the textual tradition because it was known that Kursi, the site of the miracle, had been transferred from Susita’s toparchy to Gadara’s is untenable. How could Gadara, a city to the south of Susita, include Kursi, which is north of Susita, in its territory? ↩
• ^[56] See Bauckham, “Gergesa Is Tel Hadar, Not Kursi,” 273. ↩
• ^[57] Or does Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory draw on Jewish traditions according to which the Girgashites willingly ceded their territory to Joshua? In some traditions the Girgashites were honored as righteous Gentiles who believed God and were rewarded with a new homeland in Africa (cf., e.g., y. Shev. 6:1 [16b]). Perhaps in other versions of the tradition the Girgashites coexisted with the Israelites in a manner analogous to the Gibeonites. ↩
• ^[58] Instead of developing the implications of the reading he championed, Origen gave a botched explanation of the name “Gergesa” on the basis of the Hebrew root ג-ר-שׁ (“drive out”) that more appropriately belongs to “Gerasa”:

  ἑρμηνεύεται δὲ ἡ Γέργεσα >παροικία ἐκβεβληκότων<, ἐπώνυμος οὖσα τάχα προφητικῶς οὗ περὶ τὸν σωτῆρα πεποιήκασιν παρακαλέσαντες αὐτὸν μεταβῆναι ἐκ τῶν ὁρίων αὐτῶν οἱ τῶν χοίρων πολῖται.

  Now, the meaning of Gergesa is “dwelling of the casters-out,” and it contains a prophetic reference to the conduct towards the Saviour of the citizens of those places [reading: χωρίων in place of χοίρων—DNB and JNT], who “besought Him to depart out of their coasts.”

  Text according to Koetschau et al., eds., Origenes Werke, 4:150. Translation according to The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10:371. On Origen’s botched etymology, see Bauckham, “Gergesa Is Tel Hadar, Not Kursi,” 276-277. ↩

• ^[59] See Chaim ben David, “The Jewish Settlements in the Districts of Scythopolis, Hippos and Gadara,” Aram 23 (2011): 309-323, esp. 322-323. ↩
• ^[60] See Shmuel Safrai, “Could Bethsaida Be West of the Jordan?” ↩
• ^[61] See ben David, “The Jewish Settlements in the Districts of Scythopolis, Hippos and Gadara,” 315-321. ↩
• ^[62] On the district of Susita being generally free of tithes, see y. Shev. 6:1, which states:

  אמר ריב″ל כתיב ויברח יפתח מפני אחיו וישב בארץ טוב זו סוסיתא ולמה נקרא שמו טוב שפטור מן המעשרות

  Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, “It is written, Jepthah fled from his brothers and dwelt in the land of Tov [Judg. 11:3] [DNB and JNT: Tov in Hebrew means ‘good’]. This is Susita. And why is its name called ‘good’? Because it is exempt from tithes.” (y. Shev. 6:1 [16b])

  The question of whether the produce raised in Susita’s territory was subject to tithes would not have arisen if there had been no Jewish presence in the area. ↩

• ^[63] A list of villages in Susita’s jurisdiction that were subject to tithes appears in the Tosefta and in the Rehov Synagogue Inscription. The Tosefta’s list reads:

  עיירות שחייבות במעשרות בתחום סוסיתא ועינישת ועין תרעא ורומברך עין יעריט וכפר יערים רגב צפיא וכפר צמח ר' התיר כפר צמח

  Cities that are obligated to tithe in Susita[’s territory—DNB and JNT]: ‘ynysht and ‘yn tr‘’ and rōmbrch, ‘yn y‘riṭ and kfr y‘rim rgv tzfy’ and kfr tzmḥ. Rabbi [Yehudah ha-Nasi—DNB and JNT] released kfr tzmḥ [from the obligation to tithe—DNB and JNT]. (t. Shev. 4:10; Vienna MS)

  On the Rehov Synagogue Inscription, see Ze’ev Safrai, “The Rehov Inscription,” Immanuel 8 (1978): 48-57; Jacob Sussmann, “The Inscription in the Synagogue at Reḥob,” in Ancient Synagogues Revealed (ed. Lee I. Levine; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1981), 146-151. On the identification and location of the towns in Susita’s toparchy mentioned in the Rehov Synagogue Inscription, see ben David, “The Jewish Settlements in the Districts of Scythopolis, Hippos and Gadara,” 315-319. ↩

• ^[64] Unless “land of the Gergesenes” was the original reading in Luke 8:26, it is difficult to explain how this reading entered the textual tradition. Cf. Davies-Allison, 2:79; Guelich, 275-276. ↩
• ^[65] Cf. Gould, 87; Bovon, 1:327. ↩
• ^[66] Cf. William Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels (Oxford: Clarendon, 1903), 26; Taylor, 278; Metzger, 84. ↩
• ^[67] We think it unlikely that the author of Mark would have identified the “land of the Gergesenes” as coinciding with the territory of Susita-Hippos, a city of the Decapolis. The reading “land of the Gergesenes” in some witnesses to Mark 5:1 probably results from assimilation to Luke 8:26. Likewise, the reading “land of the Gadarenes” in other witnesses to Mark 5:1 probably reflects assimilation to Matt. 8:28. See Gundry, Mark, 1:255. ↩
• ^[68] Cf. Metzger, 24. Nevertheless, Nolland (Matt., 374) regarded “Gerasenes” as the original reading in Matt. 8:28. ↩
• ^[69] The author of Matthew’s copying “land of the Gergesenes” from Anth. is a plausible explanation of how this reading entered the Matthean textual tradition. Fitzmyer (1:736-738) entertained the possibility that “Gergesenes” was the original reading in Matt. 8:28. ↩
• ^[70] Gould (87), McNeile (111), Beare (Earliest, 122 §106), Marshall (337), Metzger (24), Gundry (Matt., 157), Luz (2:23 n. 5) and Collins (263) are among the scholars who have accepted “Gadarenes” as original in Matt. 8:28. See also Roger David Aus, My Name Is “Legion”: Palestinian Judaic Traditions in Mark 5:1-20 and Other Gospel Texts (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2003), 71. ↩
• ^[71] Cf. Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels, 26. ↩
• ^[72] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1481-1482. ↩
• ^[73] See Dos Santos, 18. ↩
• ^[74] See Dos Santos, 39. ↩
• ^[75] See Mendel Nun, Gergesa (Kursi): Site of a Miracle, Church and Fishing Village (Kibbutz Ein Gev: Kinnereth Sailing Co., 1989), 27. One criticism against the identification of Kursi as the location of Jesus’ miracle is the absence of tombs in Kursi’s vicinity. However, there are early reports of tombs near Kursi. According to Christie, “...in the hillside, behind the site of the village [i.e., Kursi—DNB and JNT], we found, in 1893, a number of ancient caves, which had evidently been used as tombs.... Since that time a portion of the hillside has fallen in, and obliterated all trace of the caves.” See W. M. Christie, Palestine Calling (London: Pickering & Inglis, n.d.), 79. Sanday, writing in 1903 (Sacred Sites of the Gospels, 27), still knew of the presence of tombs at Kursi, but by 1952 Taylor (279) denied their presence. Cf. Gundry, Mark, 1:256. The absence of tombs at Kursi is not an insurmountable obstacle for its identification as the site of Jesus’ miracle. First, rock-cut tombs were not the only form of burial in the first century. The burial places described in the Gospels could refer to graves dug in the earth. Such graves are less likely to leave archaeological traces. See Jodi Magness, “Archaeologically Invisible Burials in Late Second Temple Judea,” in All the Wisdom of the East: Studies in Near Eastern Archaeology and History in Honor of Eliezer D. Oren (eds. Mayer Gruber et al.; Fribourg: Academic Press; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 235-248. Second, if the chapel built into a cave on the hillside at Kursi really was the dwelling of the demoniac, the construction of the chapel could have obliterated traces of any tomb that may have been there. ↩
• ^[76] Pace Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels, 26; Marshall, 337; Nolland, Luke, 1:407; Hagner, 1:226; Collins, 264. See Bauckham, “Gergesa Is Tel Hadar, Not Kursi,” 269. ↩
• ^[77] As a toponym, כּוּרְסִי (“Kursi”) is mentioned in b. Avod. Zar. 11b, which refers to a “House of Nebo in Kursi.” The Talmud does not state where this Kursi is located, and the reading is uncertain. See Aus, My Name Is “Legion,” 75. We also find reference in the Jerusalem Talmud to כּוּרְסָאיֵי (kūrsā’yē, “people of Kursi”; y. Moed Kat. 3:5 [14b]). Here, too, there is no information that allows us to identify this Kursi’s location. See Nun, “Gergesa: Site of the Demoniac’s Healing,” under the subheading “Kursi in Jewish Sources,” where Nun also suggested that the rabbinic sage Rabbi Yaakov ben Korshai was from Kursi. However, the name קוֹרְשַׁאי (qōrshai, “Korshai”) seems quite distinct from כּוּרְסִי (“Kursi”). In his Encyclopedia Judaica article on Yaakov ben Korshai, Safrai did not indicate that this sage hailed from Kursi. See Shmuel Safrai and Stephen G. Wald, “Jacob ben Korshai,” Encyclopedia Judaica (2d ed.; 22 vols.; ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik; Detroit: Macmillan, 2007), 11:34. The name Χορσία as the site of Jesus’ miracle appears in the account of Saba’s pilgrimage recorded by Cyril of Scythopolis (ca. 525-ca. 559). For the Greek text of Cyril’s Life of Sabas, see Eduard Schwartz, Kyrillos von Skythopolis (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1939), 108. ↩
• ^[78] See Swete, 92; Plummer, Mark, 139. Other scholars (cf., e.g., A. B. Bruce, 144; McNeile, 111; Aus, My Name Is “Legion,” 76-79) have attempted to equate the names Kursi (כּוּרְסִי) and Gerasa (Γέρασα), but as Nun noted, there is no justification for doing so. See Nun, Land of the Gadarenes, 11. ↩
• ^[79] Bauckham suggested that Gergesa/Gargishta should be identified as Tel Hadar, approximately a mile and a quarter (2 km) north of Kursi. Perhaps there are other sites that might also be considered. ↩
• ^[80] See Bauckham, “Gergesa Is Tel Hadar, Not Kursi,” 274. ↩
• ^[81] See Beare, Earliest, 122 §106. ↩
• ^[82] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1022-1023. ↩
• ^[83] On the LXX equivalence of ὅς and אֲשֶׁר, see Choosing the Twelve, Comment to L10-11. ↩
• ^[84] See Dos Santos, 20. ↩
• ^[85] Cf., e.g., Nolland, Luke, 1:406; J. Green, 335. ↩
• ^[86] Mark’s use of a genitive absolute construction to describe Jesus’ disembarkation is typical of Markan redaction. See LOY Excursus: The Genitive Absolute in the Synoptic Gospels, under the subheading “The Genitive Absolute in Mark.” ↩
• ^[87] Cf. Pesch, “The Markan Version of the Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac,” 355. ↩
• ^[88] See Plummer, Mark, 139. ↩
• ^[89] On the redactional use of εὐθύς in the Gospel of Mark, see the discussion in Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “The Markan Stereotypes.” See also the entry for Mark 1:10 in LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups, and Yeshua’s Immersion, Comment to L24. ↩
• ^[90] Collins (264) regarded ἀπήντησεν in Mark 5:2 as likely to be original. ↩
• ^[91] See our discussion in Tower Builder and King Going to War, Comment to L16. ↩
• ^[92] While εἰς ὑπάντησιν/ἀπάντησιν is not strictly a Hebraism, since it can occur in Greek where there is no Hebraic influence (see Moulton, 14 n. 3), the precise correspondence between εἰς ὑπάντησιν/ἀπάντησιν and לִקְרַאת makes the use of εἰς ὑπάντησιν/ἀπάντησιν especially common in texts translated from Hebrew. ↩
• ^[93] Cf. Plummer, Luke, 229; A. B. Bruce, 371, 522-523; Swete, 92; Nolland, Luke, 1:407. ↩
• ^[94] We have found that some of Mark’s “corrections” of Luke are pedantic. For example, into Luke’s prohibition “whoever might be on the housetop and his belongings are in the house, let him not go down to take them” (Luke 17:31) the author of Mark inserted “and neither enter the house” between “let him not go down” and “to take them” (Mark 13:15). See Lesson of Lot’s Wife, Comment to L6. ↩
• ^[95] The noun μνῆμα occurs 2xx in Mark’s Gospel (Mark 5:3, 5), either in agreement with Luke or following a prior use of μνῆμα in Luke. The noun μνημεῖον occurs 8xx in Mark (Mark 5:2; 6:29; 15:46 [2xx]; 16:2, 3, 5, 8), sometimes in agreement with Luke, but sometimes not. See Lindsey, GCSG, 2:153. ↩
• ^[96] Scholars such as Bundy (135 §58) and Gundry (Matt., 158) have proffered this suggestion. For objections, see Luz, 2:24. ↩
• ^[97] For other proposals, see Plummer, Mark, 139; Bultmann, 316; Nolland, Matt., 375. ↩
• ^[98] But cf. McNeile, 112. ↩
• ^[99] In addition to the two demoniacs in Matthew’s version of Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, Matthew has two versions of Man Healed of Blindness (Matt. 9:27-31; 20:29-34). Both of these versions have two blind men, unlike the parallels in Mark 10:46-52 and Luke 18:35-43. See Bundy, 135 §58. ↩
• ^[100] Un-Hebraic features of Matt. 8:28 include the genitive absolute construction in L1, the substantival use of δαιμονιζόμενοι (daimonizomenoi, “demonized persons”), which has no Hebrew equivalent but occurs in pure Greek compositions like the writings of Josephus (Ant. 8:47), and the un-Hebraic placement of ἐξερχόμενοι (exerchomenoi, “coming out”) in L12. ↩
• ^[101] Typically Matthean vocabulary in Matt. 8:28 includes δαιμονιζόμενος (daimonizomenos, “demonized”) in L10 and λίαν (lian, “exceedingly”) in L18. ↩
• ^[102] The table below shows all the instances of the substantival use of δαιμονιζόμενος in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 4:24 TT (cf. Mark 3:10; Luke 6:19) Yeshua Attends to the Crowds Matt. 8:16 TT = Mark 1:32 (cf. Luke 4:40) Healings and Exorcisms Matt. 8:28 TT (cf. Mark 5:2; Luke 8:27) Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory Matt. 8:33 TT = Mark 5:16 (cf. Luke 8:36) Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory Matt. 12:22 TT (cf. Mark 3:[--]; Luke 11:14) The Finger of God Mark 1:32 TT = Matt. 8:16 (cf. Luke 4:40) Healings and Exorcisms Mark 5:15 TT (cf. Matt. 8:34; Luke 8:35) Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory Mark 5:16 TT = Matt. 8:33 (cf. Luke 8:36) Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; [--] = no corresponding word and/or verse

  The author of Matthew also used δαιμονιζόμενος adjectivally in Matt. 9:32, of which Matt. 12:22 is a doublet. ↩

• ^[103] On the author of Luke’s redactional preference for ἀνήρ, see Generations That Repented Long Ago, Comment to L10. ↩
• ^[104] On the word order τις→noun as a product of Lukan redaction, see A Woman’s Misplaced Blessing, Comment to L2. ↩
• ^[105] If the author of Matthew had read ἀνὴρ εἷς (“one man”) in Anth., would he have felt at liberty to write about two demoniacs? Would ἀνήρ τις (“a certain man”) have allowed the author of Matthew a little more wiggle room? ↩
• ^[106] J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Contributions to the Study of the Gerasene Demoniac,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 3 (1979): 2-17, esp. 6, 16 n. 26. ↩
• ^[107] See Gundry, Mark, 1:257. ↩
• ^[108] The example of Paul’s disciple Timothy is proof that mixed marriages did sometimes happen. ↩
• ^[109] See Taylor, 283. ↩
• ^[110] See McNeile, 111-112; Nolland, Matt., 377. ↩
• ^[111] See Nun, “Gergesa: Site of the Demoniac’s Healing,” under the subheading “Kursi in Jewish Sources.” ↩
• ^[112] The phrase ἄνθρωπος ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ (“man in an impure spirit”) occurs in Mark 1:23 and Mark 5:2. ↩
• ^[113] “Have a demon” occurs in Matt. 11:18 ∥ Luke 7:33. “Having demons” occurs in Luke 8:27. In Mark 3:30 and Mark 7:25 we find “have an impure spirit.” Similarly, Luke 4:33 has “having the spirit of an impure demon.” Likewise, in Mark 9:17 we find “having a mute spirit.” ↩
• ^[114] See LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups, under the entry for Mark 1:23. ↩
• ^[115] Cf. Nolland, Luke, 1:407; Gundry, Mark, 1:258. ↩
• ^[116] Compare the behavior of David while in the service of Achish described in 1 Sam. 21:14. David pretended to be insane by drooling down his beard. Insanity is not the same as demon possession, but the two conditions were similar in many respects. Cf. t. Ter. 1:3, which ascribes to the insane behaviors that are elsewhere said to be causes or symptoms of demon possession. ↩
• ^[117] Cf. Bovon, 1:327 n. 37. On ἱκανός in Luke in the sense of “large” as the product of Lukan redaction, see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L9. See also Cadbury, Style, 196; Randall Buth and Brian Kvasnica, “Critical Notes on the VTS” (JS1, 259-317), esp. 280 (Critical Note 10). ↩
• ^[118] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:685-686. ↩
• ^[119] See Wolter, 1:350. ↩
• ^[120] Cf. Bovon, 1:328. ↩
• ^[121] See Nolland, Luke, 1:413. ↩
• ^[122] “Who had a dwelling in the tombs” might be expressed in Hebrew as אֲשֶׁר הָיָה לוֹ מוֹשָׁב בַּקְּבָרִים (’^asher hāyāh lō mōshāv baq^evārim, “who there was to him a dwelling in the graves”) or אֲשֶׁר הָיָה לוֹ מָגוֹר בַּקְּבָרִים (’^asher hāyāh lō māgōr baq^evārim, “who there was to him a dwelling in the graves”). We might have expected such Hebrew phrases to be represented in Greek as ὃς ἦν αὐτῷ κατοίκησις ἐν τοῖς μνήμασιν (hos ēn avtō katoikēsis en tois mnēmasin, “who there was to him a dwelling in the tombs”) or perhaps ᾧ ἦν κατοίκησις ἐν τοῖς μνήμασιν (hō ēn katoikēsis en tois mnēmasin, “to whom there was a dwelling in the tombs”). Lindsey’s translation of ὃς τὴν κατοίκησιν εἶχεν ἐν τοῖς μνήμασιν in Mark 5:3 (HTGM, 101) as וַאֲשֶׁר מְגוּרָיו בַּקְּבָרוֹת (va’^asher m^egūrāv baq^evārōt, “and whose dwelling [was] in the graves”) does not explain Mark’s use of the verb ἔχειν (echein, “to have”) in L16, but it does demonstrate how difficult it is to revert Mark’s Greek in L16 to Hebrew. Note that the only instance of the noun κατοίκησις (katoikēsis, “dwelling”) in the Synoptic Gospels occurs here in Mark 5:3. ↩
• ^[123] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:931. ↩
• ^[124] See Dos Santos, 180. ↩
• ^[125] The LXX version of the passage also mentions demons (Isa. 65:3). ↩
• ^[126] See Craghan, “The Gerasene Demoniac,” 529-531; Derrett, “Contributions to the Study of the Gerasene Demoniac,” 9-10; Guelich, 1:278. For skepticism regarding an allusion to Isa. 65:2-5 in Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, see Gundry, Mark, 1:258-259. ↩
• ^[127] Paul’s application of Isa. 65:1 to the Gentiles in Rom. 10:20 does not resolve the difficulty, since in Rom. 10:21 Paul applies Isa. 65:2 to Israel. Presumably Paul would have applied the verses that follow (Isa. 65:3-5) to Israel as well. But Craghan (“The Gerasene Demoniac,” 533) remained undeterred. ↩
• ^[128] Gundry (Mark, 1:258) erroneously cited b. Ber. 3b (ruins), b. Shab. 65b (latrine) and b. Git. 70a (latrine) as examples of demons haunting tombs. ↩
• ^[129] Cf. A. B. Bruce, 145; Gundry, Matt., 158; Davies-Allison, 2:80. On the other hand, we cautiously accepted an instance of λίαν in Yeshua’s Testing, L40. ↩
• ^[130] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 158; Davies-Allison, 2:80-81. ↩
• ^[131] See Taylor, 279. ↩
• ^[132] See Marshall, 338. ↩
• ^[133] Cf. Marshall, 338; Gundry, Mark, 1:250; Wolter, 1:351. ↩
• ^[134] Cf. Nolland, Luke, 1:408; Wolter, 1:351. ↩
• ^[135] The reason the First Reconstructor gave for Jesus’ command had the added benefit of hinting at Jesus’ omniscience. ↩
• ^[136] Some scholars opine that the description of the demoniac’s suffering in Mark 5:3-5 is unparalleled elsewhere in Mark’s Gospel in terms of its graphic detail. Cf., e.g., Nicholas A. Elder, “Of Porcine and Polluted Spirits: Reading the Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5:1-20) with the Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 1-36),” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 78.3 (2016): 430-446, esp. 443. However, the graphic portrayal in Mark 9:18, 22 of the sufferings of the boy with a mute demon is comparable. ↩
• ^[137] See A. B. Bruce, 371. ↩
• ^[138] In LXX, examples of διὰ τό + infinitive do occur in books translated from Hebrew (Gen. 6:3; 39:9, 23; Exod. 16:8; 17:7; 19:18; 33:3; Deut. 1:27, 36; 4:37; 28:55; Josh. 5:7; 14:14; 22:19; Judg. 3:12; 1 Kgdms. 15:20; 3 Kgdms. 10:9; 4 Kgdms. 19:28; 1 Chr. 13:10; 2 Chr. 29:36; Isa. 5:13; 8:6; 27:11; 36:21; 53:7; 60:9, 15; 63:9; Jer. 7:32; 9:12; 26:19; Ezek. 33:28; 34:5; 35:10). We have accepted διὰ τό + infinitive constructions in Friend in Need, L17, and Four Soils parable, L43. It is the complexity of Mark’s διὰ τό + infinitive construction with three infinitives that is un-Hebraic. ↩
• ^[139] See Plummer, Mark, 140. ↩
• ^[140] All of the instances of πολλάκις in Matthew and Mark (there are none in Luke) are listed in the table below with parallels:

  Matt. 17:15 (1st instance) TT = Mark 9:22 (cf. Luke 9:39) Matt. 17:15 (2nd instance) TT (cf. Mark 9:22; Luke 9:39) Mark 5:4 TT (cf. Matt. 8:28; Luke 8:29) Mark 9:22 TT = Matt. 17:15 (1st instance) (cf. Luke 9:39) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels

  Both instances of πολλάκις in Mark occur in descriptions of what demons “often” did to their victims. ↩

• ^[141] Or perhaps the redaction was the author of Luke’s. As Bovon (1:324, 328 n. 4) noted, in the whole NT the verb συναρπάζειν occurs only in the writings of Luke (Luke 8:29; Acts 6:12; 19:29; 27:15). ↩
• ^[142] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:160. ↩
• ^[143] See Dos Santos, 62. ↩
• ^[144] See LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[145] Nevertheless, Mark’s use of the perfect tense may have been inspired by Luke’s use of the pluperfect tense of συναρπάζειν (“to snatch”) in L52 (L21). ↩
• ^[146] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1113. ↩
• ^[147] In MT the noun נְחֻשְׁתַּיִם appears in Judg. 16:21; 2 Sam. 3:34; 2 Kgs. 25:7; Jer. 39:7; 52:11; 2 Chr. 33:11; 36:6. There is no equivalent to Jer. 39:7 in LXX. Everywhere else, the LXX translators rendered נְחֻשְׁתַּיִם with πέδη or πέδη χαλκῆ. The Hebrew term נְחֻשְׁתַּיִם literally means “bronzes,” but was used in reference to bonds, much as in English we can refer to putting a prisoner in “irons.” Because “bronze” is inherent in the word נְחֻשְׁתַּיִם, the LXX translators sometimes rendered נְחֻשְׁתַּיִם as “bronze shackles.” ↩
• ^[148] On καί + participle + aorist as the translation equivalent of vav-consecutive + vav-consecutive, see Return of the Twelve, Comment to L1. ↩
• ^[149] The LXX translators rendered most instances of נִתֵּק as διαρρηγνύειν. See Dos Santos, 138. ↩
• ^[150] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:292. ↩
• ^[151] See Dos Santos, 106. ↩
• ^[152] See Tower Builder and King Going to War, Comment to L6. ↩
• ^[153] See Robert L. Lindsey, “Measuring the Disparity Between Matthew, Mark and Luke,” under the subheading “Further Proof of Mark’s Dependence on Luke.” ↩
• ^[154] Marcus (1:343) thought he detected an allusion to Jesus’ saying in Mark 3:27: οὐ δύναται οὐδεὶς εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ εἰσελθὼν...ἐὰν μὴ πρῶτον τὸν ἰσχυρὸν δήσῃ (“no one is able to enter the house of the strong one...unless he first binds the strong one”), but Mark’s denial in Mark 5:4 is closer to the denial in James 3:8. Whereas Mark 3:27 speaks of the inability to enter a house unless a strong person is first bound, both Mark 5:4 and James 3:8 refer to people’s inability to subdue something. ↩
• ^[155] The verb ἰσχύειν occurs 4xx in Matthew, but only 1x without Mark’s agreement (Matt. 5:13 [cf. Mark 9:50]; 8:28 [= Mark 5:4]; 9:12 [= Mark 2:17]; 26:40 [= Mark 14:37]). ↩
• ^[156] On ὥστε + infinitive as typical of Matthean redaction, see Sending the Twelve: Commissioning, Comment to L21. ↩
• ^[157] J. Duncan M. Derrett, “Spirit-Possession and the Gerasene Demoniac,” Man (new series) 14.2 (1979): 286-293, esp. 287; idem, “Legend and Event: The Gerasene Demoniac: An Inquest into History and Liturgical Projection,” in Studia Biblica 1978: II Papers on the Gospels (ed. E. A. Livingstone; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), 63-73, esp. 68. ↩
• ^[158] Marcus (1:343) speculated that the possessed man may have been a former magician who lost control of his magical arts. ↩
• ^[159] Bovon (1:324) opined that the ἐλαύνειν (elavnein, “to drive”) is Lukan, but his opinion can hardly be sustained, since Luke 8:29 contains the only occurrence of ἐλαύνειν in all of Luke and it never occurs in Acts. See Moulton-Geden, 323. ↩
• ^[160] Note, however, that Matthew’s version of Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory does not refer to mountains either. Is Matthew’s omission of a reference to mountains due to their omission in Anth.? Or is the omission due to the author of Matthew’s economizing style? Or did the author of Matthew, who placed the story in the region of the Gadarenes, know that a reference to mountains did not suit the local terrain? The ground slopes gently toward the lakeside on the southern shore of the Sea of Galilee in the only area that might have belonged to the toparchy of Gadara. See Rainey-Notley, 360. ↩
• ^[161] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:448. However, in a Hebrew MS of Ben Sira נָהַג corresponds to ἐλαύνειν in LXX’s version of Sir. 38:25. ↩
• ^[162] See Dos Santos, 129. ↩
• ^[163] On reconstructing ἔρημος (erēmos, “desert”) with מִדְבָּר (midbār, “desert”), see Yeshua’s Words about Yohanan the Immerser, Comment to L8. ↩
• ^[164] In LXX ἔρημοι (“deserts”) occurs as the translation of חֳרָבוֹת (var. חוֹרָבוֹת) in Mal. 1:4; Isa. 5:17; 58:12; 61:4; Ezek. 13:4; 36:33. ↩
• ^[165] In the following tables we show all the instances of παρέρχεσθαι in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the synoptic parallels (if any). The first table shows instances of παρέρχεσθαι in Heaven and Earth Pass Away and Completion. The second table shows the rest of the instances of παρέρχεσθαι:

  Matt. 5:18 (1st instance) TT = Luke 16:17; Matt. 24:35 ∥ Mark 13:31 ∥ Luke 21:33 Heaven and Earth Pass Away Matt. 5:18 (2nd instance) TT = Matt. 24:35 ∥ Mark 13:31 ∥ Luke 21:33 (cf. Luke 16:17) Heaven and Earth Pass Away Matt. 24:34 TT = Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32 (cf. Matt. 10:23; Matt. 16:28 ∥ Mark 9:1 ∥ Luke 9:27) Completion Matt. 24:35 (1st instance) TT = Mark 13:31 ∥ Luke 21:33; Matt. 5:18 ∥ Luke 16:17 Heaven and Earth Pass Away Matt. 24:35 (2nd instance) TT = Mark 13:31 ∥ Luke 21:33; Matt. 5:18 (cf. Luke 16:17) Heaven and Earth Pass Away Mark 13:30 TT = Matt. 24:34 ∥ Luke 21:32 (cf. Matt. 10:23; Matt. 16:28 ∥ Mark 9:1 ∥ Luke 9:27) Completion Mark 13:31 (1st instance) TT = Matt. 24:35 ∥ Luke 21:33; Matt. 5:18 ∥ Luke 16:17 Heaven and Earth Pass Away Mark 13:31 (2nd instance) TT = Matt. 24:35 ∥ Luke 21:33; Matt. 5:18 (cf. Luke 16:17) Heaven and Earth Pass Away Luke 16:17 TT = Matt. 5:18; Matt. 24:35 ∥ Mark 13:31 ∥ Luke 21:33 Heaven and Earth Pass Away Luke 21:32 TT = Matt. 24:34 ∥ Mark 13:30 (cf. Matt. 10:23; Matt. 16:28 ∥ Mark 9:1 ∥ Luke 9:27) Completion Luke 21:33 (1st instance) TT = Matt. 24:35 ∥ Mark 13:31; Matt. 5:18 ∥ Luke 16:17 Heaven and Earth Pass Away Luke 21:33 (2nd instance) TT = Matt. 24:35 ∥ Mark 13:31; Matt. 5:18 (cf. Luke 16:17) Heaven and Earth Pass Away

  .

  Matt. 8:28 TT (cf. Mark 5:3-4; Luke 8:27) Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory Matt. 14:15 TT (cf. Mark 6:35; Luke 9:12) Miraculous Feeding Matt. 26:39 TT (cf. Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42) Gat Shemanim Matt. 26:42 TT (cf. Mark 14:39; Luke 22:[--]) Gat Shemanim Mark 6:48 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 14:[--]) Walking on Water Mark 14:35 TT (cf. Matt. 26:[--]; Luke 22:[--]) Gat Shemanim Luke 11:42 DT (cf. Matt. 23:23) Woes Against Scribes and Pharisees Luke 12:37 TT (cf. Matt. 24:[--]; Mark 13:[--]; Luke 21:[--]) Be Ready for the Son of Man Luke 15:29 U Prodigal Son parable Luke 17:7 U Just Doing My Job Luke 18:37 TT (cf. Matt. 9:27; Matt. 20:30 ∥ Mark 10:47) Man Healed of Blindness Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [--] = no corresponding word and/or verse

  ↩

• ^[166] On the omission or replacement of ἰδού by the author of Luke (or the First Reconstructor before him), see Friend in Need, Comment to L6. ↩
• ^[167] Cf. Plummer, Mark, 141. On ἀπὸ μακρόθεν as a Markan redactional phrase, see Withered Fig Tree, Comment to L4. ↩
• ^[168] The table below shows all the instances of τρέχειν and its compounds in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 27:48 [τρέχειν] TT = Mark 15:36 (cf. Luke 23:36) Matt. 28:8 [τρέχειν] TT (cf. Mark 16:8; Luke 24:9) Mark 5:6 [τρέχειν] TT (cf. Matt. 8:29; Luke 8:28) Mark 6:33 [συντρέχειν] TT (cf. Matt. 14:13; Luke 9:11) Mark 6:55 [περιτρέχειν] Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 14:35) Mark 9:15 [προστρέχειν] TT (cf. Matt. 17:14; Luke 9:37) Mark 9:25 [ἐπισυντρέχειν] TT (cf. Matt. 17:18; Luke 9:42) Mark 10:17 [προστρέχειν] TT (cf. Matt. 19:16; Luke 18:18) Mark 15:36 [τρέχειν] TT = Matt. 27:48 (cf. Luke 23:36) Luke 15:20 [τρέχειν] U Luke 19:4 [προτρέχειν] U Luke 24:12 [τρέχειν] TT (cf. Matt. 28:[--]; Mark 16:[--]) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; Lk-Mk = Lukan-Markan pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel

  ↩

• ^[169] Cf. Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 178. ↩
• ^[170] Cf. the phrase καὶ ἀνέκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ (kai anekraxen fōnē megalē, “and he cried out in a loud voice”) in Luke 4:33. ↩
• ^[171] On the historical present as an indicator of Markan redaction, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[172] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:781-782. ↩
• ^[173] See Dos Santos, 185. ↩
• ^[174] See Dos Santos, 55. ↩
• ^[175] See Dos Santos, 178. ↩
• ^[176] We encounter the combination קוֹל גָּדוֹל + קָרָא in Gen. 39:14; 1 Kgs. 18:27, 28; 2 Kgs. 18:28; Isa. 36:13; Ezek. 8:18; 9:1; 2 Chr. 32:18. The combination קוֹל גָּדוֹל + זָעַק/צָעַק occurs in 1 Sam. 28:12; 2 Sam. 19:5; Ezek. 11:13; Neh. 9:4. ↩
• ^[177] But note, too, that the author of Matthew would have seen τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί in Mark 1:24. Nolland (Matt., 375) stated that Matthew’s τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί “is an LXX idiom,” but in fact in LXX we never find the first-person plural pronoun ἡμῖν used in this idiom. We find only τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί (“What to me and to you [sing.]?”; Judg. 11:12; 3 Kgdms. 17:18; 4 Kgdms. 3:13; 2 Chr. 35:21) and τί ἐμοὶ καὶ ὑμῖν (“What to me and to you [plur.]?”; 2 Kgdms. 16:10; 19:23). ↩
• ^[178] See Plummer, Luke, 133; idem, Mark, 66; McNeile, 112; Muraoka, Syntax, 163 n. 3. Instances of this idiom occur, for example, in Arrian’s Discourses of Epictetus:

  διὰ τοῦτο, ἂν ἂπλοια ᾖ, καθήμεθα σπώμενοι καὶ παρακύπτομεν συνεχῶς⋅ “τίς ἄνεμος πνεῖ;” βορέας. “τί ἡμῖν καὶ αὐτῷ⋅ πότε ὁ ζέφυρος πνεύσει;” ὅταν αὐτῷ δόξῃ

  That is why, if the weather keeps us from sailing, we sit down and fidget and keep constantly peering about. “What wind is blowing?” we ask. Boreas [i.e., the north wind—DNB and JNT]. “What have we to do with it [τί ἡμῖν καὶ αὐτῷ]? When will Zephyrus blow?” When it pleases.... (Epictetus, Discourses 1:1 §16; Loeb)

  εἰ γὰρ βλάπτομαι καὶ ἀτυχῶ, οὐκ ἐπιστρέφεταί μου. καὶ “τί μοι καὶ αὐτῷ εἰ οὐ δύναταί μοι βοηθῆσαι;” καὶ πάλιν “τί μοι καὶ αὐτῷ, εἰ θέλει μ᾽ ἐν τοιούτοις εἶναι ἐν οἷς εἰμι;”

  For if I sustain injury and am unfortunate, he [i.e., Zeus—DNB and JNT] pays no heed to me. And then we hear men saying, “What have I to do with him [τί μοι καὶ αὐτῷ], if he is unable to help us?” And again, “What have I to do with him [τί μοι καὶ αὐτῷ], if he wills that I be in such a state as I am now?” (Epictetus, Discourses 1:22 §15; Loeb)

  εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἐπιστρέφονταί μου, τί ἐμοὶ καὶ αὐτοῖς;

  For if they [i.e., the gods—DNB and JNT] do not care for me, what are they to me [τί ἐμοὶ καὶ αὐτοῖς]? (Epictetus, Discourses 1:27 §13; Loeb)

  τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί, ἄνθρωπε; ἀπολλύμεθα καὶ σὺ ἐλθὼν παίζεις.

  What have we to do with you [τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί], fellow? We are perishing and you come and crack jokes! (Epictetus, Discourses 2:19 §16; Loeb)

  τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί, ἄνθρωπε; ἀρκεῖ ἐμοὶ τὰ ἐμὰ κακά.

  What have I to do with you [τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί], fellow? My own evils are enough for me. (Epictetus, Discourses 2:19 §19; Loeb)

  Thus, Calpino was wrong in stating that τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί “would be a highly unusual form of Greco-Roman parlance.” See Calpino, “The Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5:1-20),” 18. ↩

• ^[179] The phrase τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί occurs in LXX as the translation of מַה לִּי וָלָךְ in Judg. 11:12; 3 Kgdms. 17:18; 4 Kgdms. 3:13; 2 Chr. 35:21 (cf. 2 Kgdms. 16:10; 19:23). ↩
• ^[180] The scholars who identified an allusion in Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory to 1 Kgs. 17:18 include Pesch (“The Markan Version of the Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac,” 357); Theissen, Miracle Stories, 255; Fitzmyer, 1:738; Gundry, Mark, 1:259; Calpino, “The Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5:1-20),” 18. ↩
• ^[181] Cf., e.g., Pesch, “The Markan Version of the Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac,” 357; Guelich, 279; Gundry, Mark, 1:250; Bovon, 1:327. ↩
• ^[182] Cf. Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 180. ↩
• ^[183] See Nolland, Luke, 1:408. Levinskaya argues that “the extent of the pagan usage of the title [the Most High God] has been strongly exaggerated” (Irina Levinskaya, “God-Fearers and the Cult of the Most High God,” in her The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996], 83-103, esp. 98). ↩
• ^[184] Beare (Matt., 218) stated that only demons address Jesus as “Son of God” in the Gospels. But Beare’s narrow observation can be misleading. In Luke’s annunciation narrative the angel predicts that Jesus will be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). In the Lukan and Matthean versions of the temptation narrative Satan tempts Jesus to act upon his status as the Son of God. The heavenly voice addressed Jesus as “my son” in the baptism and transfiguration narratives, and in the Matthean and Markan versions of the crucifixion narrative the guard at the cross acknowledges Jesus as a “son of God” (Matt. 27:54; Mark 15:39). And, most strikingly, in Matt. 16:16 Peter says to Jesus, “You are...the Son of the living God.” While in these examples the title “Son of God” is not used to address Jesus, it is clear that the demons were not the only ones in the Gospels to acknowledge Jesus’ divine sonship. ↩
• ^[185] The title ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὕψιστος occurs as the translation of אֵל עֶלְיוֹן in Gen. 14:18, 19, 20, 22; Ps. 77[78]:35. ↩
• ^[186] In LXX ὁ θεὸς ὁ ὕψιστος occurs as the translation of אֱלֹהִים עֶלְיוֹן in Ps. 56[57]:3, 77[78]:56. ↩
• ^[187] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1420-1421. ↩
• ^[188] See Dos Santos, 156. ↩
• ^[189] The verb δεῖσθαι occurs 8xx in Luke, 0xx in Mark and 1x in Matthew. It also occurs 7xx in Acts. See Moulton-Geden, 191. ↩
• ^[190] See Plummer, Mark, 141; Gundry, Mark, 1:250; Collins, 268; Calpino, “The Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5:1-20),” 18. ↩
• ^[191] On role reversal in Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory, see Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 181. ↩
• ^[192] Cf. Marcus, 1:344. ↩
• ^[193] Some scholars suggest that the author of Matthew picked up the demoniacs’ question from Mark 1:24 (∥ Luke 4:34). However, there is no other evidence of borrowing from Teaching in Kefar Nahum in Matthew’s version of Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory—the author of Matthew did, however, extract the congregation’s reaction to Jesus’ teaching from Teaching in Kefar Nahum in order to incorporate it into the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 7:28-29)—and it is just as likely that the author of Luke wished to avoid repeating the same question (“Have you come to destroy us?”) and that the author of Mark followed Luke in avoiding this repetition. For a different view, see John P. Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel: A Redactional Study of Mt. 5:17-48 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976), 68. ↩
• ^[194] Cf. Nolland, Luke, 1:408. Perhaps we ought also to include here ὁ καιρός μου ἐγγύς ἐστιν (ho kairos mou engūs estin, “my time is near”) in Matt. 26:18. ↩
• ^[195] See Yohanan the Immerser’s Execution, L62. ↩
• ^[196] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:191. ↩
• ^[197] See Sending the Twelve: Commissioning, Comment to L20. ↩
• ^[198] See Marcus, 1:350; Calpino, “The Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5:1-20),” 19. ↩
• ^[199] Nolland, Luke, 1:408. ↩
• ^[200] Cf. Marcus, 1:344; Wolter, 1:351. ↩
• ^[201] See Gundry, Mark, 1:250; Collins, 268. ↩
• ^[202] The author of Matthew may have omitted Jesus’ questioning of the possessed man because allowing Jesus to ask questions undermined his portrayal of Jesus’ omniscience. See Allen, 85; McNeile, 113; Gundry, Matt., 159. ↩
• ^[203] The author of Mark’s replacement of Luke’s παρήγγειλεν γάρ (parēngeilen gar, “for he commanded”) with ἔλεγεν γὰρ αὐτῷ (elegen gar avtō, “for he was saying to him”) is typical of Markan redaction. On the redactional use of the third-person imperfect forms ἔλεγεν/ἔλεγον in Mark, see Mustard Seed and Starter Dough, Comment to L3. ↩
• ^[204] On the author of Mark’s redactional preference for imperfect verbs, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[205] Cf. Gundry, Mark, 1:261. ↩
• ^[206] And note that there is no other instance in the Gospels of Jesus asking a demon for its name. See Knox, 1:41. ↩
• ^[207] See above, Comment to L40-41. ↩
• ^[208] See Fitzmyer, 1:738. ↩
• ^[209] Pace Fitzmyer, 1:738; Guelich, 1:280; Gundry, Mark, 1:251; Kazen, 181. ↩
• ^[210] Λεγιών (Legiōn) is not attested as a personal name in any source more ancient than the Gospels. ↩
• ^[211] Pace Gundry, Mark, 1:260; Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the Historical Jesus (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), 85. ↩
• ^[212] See Swete, 95; H. van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 1965), 388; Theissen, Miracle Stories, 255; Derrett, “Contributions to the Study of the Gerasene Demoniac,” 5; Nolland, Luke, 1:414; Marcus, 1:351. See also Warren Carter, “Cross-Gendered Romans and Mark’s Jesus: Legion Enters the Pigs (Mark 5:1-20),” Journal of Biblical Literature 133.1 (2014): 139-155, esp. 144-145; Hans M. Moscicke, “The Gergesene Exorcism and Jesus’ Eschatological Expulsion of Cosmic Powers: Echoes of Second Temple Scapegoat Traditions in Mark 5.1-20,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 41.4 (2019): 363-383, esp. 374. ↩
• ^[213] See Jastrow, 692; H. Preisker, “λεγιών,” TDNT, 4:68-69. Aus (My Name Is “Legion,” 39) and Witmer (Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 171) claimed that the term “legion” became a Hebrew “loanword in Palestine from at least the time of Pompey in 63 BCE,” but do not cite evidence of early attestations. The noun לִגְיוֹן does not occur in DSS or in the Mishnah. The earliest source in which we have found instances of לִגְיוֹן is the Tosefta. Nevertheless, it is probably true that the term “legion” had entered Hebrew much earlier than the third century C.E. ↩
• ^[214] See Calpino, “The Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5:1-20),” 20. ↩
• ^[215] See Preisker, “λεγιών,” 68. In lieu of λεγιών, Josephus used τάγμα (tagma, “division of soldiers”). ↩
• ^[216] The nickname bestowed upon the possessed man was hardly a term of admiration. ↩
• ^[217] Cf. Carter, “Cross-Gendered Romans and Mark’s Jesus,” 145. ↩
• ^[218] With the Erfurt MS read שאין בו (“that does not have in it”; t. Hul. 8:16 [ed. Zuckermandel, 510]) instead of שיש בו (“that does have in it”) in the Vienna MS. ↩
• ^[219] The sages interpreted the words וְהִוא נִטְמָאָה (“and she defiled herself”) in Num. 5:14 as “and it [i.e., the spirit of jealousy] is impure.” ↩
• ^[220] Delitzsch translated δαιμόνια πολλά in Luke 8:30 as שֵׁדִים רַבִּים. ↩
• ^[221] See France, Mark, 227 n. 3. Gundry (Mark, 1:251) cited b. Ber. 51a as an example of multiple possession, but while the text does mention a band of demons (תַּכְסָפִית [tachsāfit]) and a company of angels of destruction (אִיסְטַגְלִילִית שֶׁל מַלְאֲכֵי חַבָּלָה [’isṭaglilit shel mal’^achē ḥabālāh]), these are said to lie in wait for people, not to possess them. ↩
• ^[222] Outside Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory παρακαλεῖν occurs in the sense of “to urge” or “to entreat” in Matt. 8:5; 14:36; 18:29, 32; 26:53; Mark 1:40; 5:23; 6:56; 7:32; 8:22; Luke 3:18; 7:4; 8:41; 15:28. Our reason for suspecting that many of these instances are redactional becomes clearer when we show the synoptic parallels to each instance:
  

  Matt. 8:5 DT ≈ Luke 7:4 Matt. 14:36 Mk-Mt = Mark 6:56 Matt. 18:29 U Matt. 18:32 U Matt. 26:53 TT (cf. Mark 14:[--]; Luke 22:[--]) Mark 1:40 TT (cf. Matt. 8:2; Luke 5:12) Mark 5:23 TT = Luke 8:41 (cf. Matt. 9:18) Mark 6:56 Mk-Mt = Matt. 14:36 Mark 7:32 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 15:30) Mark 8:22 U Luke 3:18 U Luke 7:4 DT ≈ Matt. 8:5 Luke 8:41 TT = Mark 5:23 (cf. Matt. 9:18) Luke 15:28 U Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [--] = no corresponding word and/or verse

  Most of these instances of παρακαλεῖν are uncorroborated in the synoptic parallels or can be attributed to Lukan or Markan redaction. The presence of παρακαλεῖν in the Lukan and Matthean versions of Centurion’s Slave (Matt. 8:5 ≈ Luke 7:4), however, indicates that παρακαλεῖν in the sense of “to urge” or “to entreat” probably did occur in Anth. ↩

• ^[223] Out of 87 instances of παρακαλεῖν in LXX books corresponding to MT, only a few instances occur with the meaning “to urge” or “to entreat” (Judg. 2:18 [?]; 1 Kgdms. 22:4 [?]; Prov. 1:10; 8:4; Isa. 10:31, 32; 33:7; 57:5). ↩
• ^[224] In Acts, instances of παρακαλεῖν in the sense of “to urge” or “to entreat” occur in Acts 2:40; 8:31; 9:38; 11:23; 13:42; 14:22; 15:32; 16:9, 15, 40(?); 19:31; 21:12; 24:4; 25:2; 27:33, 34; 28:14, 20. ↩
• ^[225] Scholars often point out that Matt. 8:31 contains the only instance of the noun δαίμων (daimōn, “demon”) in NT, the more usual noun being δαιμόνιον (daimonion). See McNeile, 113; Beare, Matt., 218; Davies-Allison, 2:83; Nolland, Matt., 376. But this only shows that δαίμων was not typical of Matthean redaction. There is no reason why δαίμων could not have been present in Anth. ↩
• ^[226] See Plummer, Luke, 213; Bovon, 1:329. ↩
• ^[227] See Taylor, 281. ↩
• ^[228] See Plummer, Mark, 142; Gundry, Mark, 1:261. ↩
• ^[229] Cf. Marshall, 339. ↩
• ^[230] See the instances of παρακαλεῖν in Judg. 2:18; 1 Kgdms. 22:4; Prov. 1:10; 8:4; Isa. 10:31, 32; 33:7; 57:5 and cf. MT. ↩
• ^[231] See Jastrow, 32 [הֵאִיץ], 1206 [פָּצַר]. ↩
• ^[232] See the instances of פָּגַע in Jer. 7:16; 27:18; Job 21:15; Ruth 1:16 in MT and cf. LXX. ↩
• ^[233] Here the midrash reads the Scriptural text וַיִּפְגַּע בַּמָּקוֹם (“and he reached a certain place” with Mishnaic Hebrew meanings (“and he entreated the Omnipresent one”). ↩
• ^[234] See Plummer, Mark, 143; Gundry, Mark, 1:251; Guelich, 281. ↩
• ^[235] On the author of Mark’s stereotypical use of adverbial πολλά, see Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “The Markan Stereotypes”; LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups, under the entry for Mark 1:45. ↩
• ^[236] The closest reconstruction we were able to come up with was וַיָּאִיצוּ בּוֹֹ אֲשֶׁר לֹא יְצַוֶּה אֹתָם לָלֶכֶת אֶל תְּהוֹם (“And they urged him that he will not command them to go to the deep”), but note the departures from Luke’s word order and the awkwardness of אֲשֶׁר לֹא יְצַוֶּה as the reconstruction of ἵνα μὴ ἐπιτάξῃ. ↩
• ^[237] On ἵνα + subjunctive in Luke’s Gospel as largely a product of redaction, see Mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, Comment to L21. ↩
• ^[238] The Tosefta refers to Susita as a city surrounded by the Land of Israel (t. Ohol. 18:4). ↩
• ^[239] When it is understood that in Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory Jesus recapitulates the role of Joshua, the bafflement Gould (91) expressed as to why the demons should prefer “one country over another” finds an answer. ↩
• ^[240] The origin of the demons is described or alluded to in ancient sources such as 1 Enoch 15:8-12; Jub. 10:5; 11Q11 V, 6; Justin Martyr, 2 Apol. 5:2-4. See Michael E. Stone, “The Axis of History at Qumran,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha In Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Esther G. Chazon and Michael E. Stone; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 133-149, esp. 145; James C. VanderKam, “The Demons in the Book of Jubilees,” in Die Dämonen—Demons (ed. Armin Lange, Hermann Lichtenberger, and K. F. Diethard Römheld; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 339-364; Nicholas A. Elder, “Of Porcine and Polluted Spirits: Reading the Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5:1-20) with the Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 1-36),” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 78.3 (2016): 430-446. ↩
• ^[241] According to Josh. 11:22, Joshua did not succeed in driving the giants out of Gath, the city from which the giant Goliath originated. We may infer, therefore, that the purging of the land from the giants was finally completed only in the time of King David. ↩
• ^[242] Collins (270) did not take into account the genetic relationship between the spirits of the giants and the giants who lived among the Canaanites, and therefore thought there was tension between the demons’ desire to remain in the land and the demons’ antediluvian origin. Collins therefore suggested that these demons were “the souls of the local dead.” ↩
• ^[243] Cf. Pesch, “The Markan Version of the Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac,” 375; Fitzmyer, 1:739; Nolland, Luke, 1:410; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 183. ↩
• ^[244] Cf. Beare, Earliest, 122 §106. Did the First Reconstructor conceive of the lake as a portal into the abyss (cf. Conzelmann, 44-45; Fitzmyer, 1:739; Beare, Matt., 219; Bovon, 1:329), or did he think that with the pigs drowned the demons had no alternative but to abide in the abyss? Some scholars have equated the abyss with hell (Gill, 7:380), Gehenna (Gould, 91) and/or Tartarus (A. B. Bruce, 523). A. B. Bruce was closest to the mark. Hell, as it is understood by most Christians, is an amalgamation of several distinct ideas: Sheol/Hades, the abode of the dead; Gehenna, the place where the wicked are finally destroyed after the resurrection; and Tartarus/the abyss, where the angels who rebelled before the flood are imprisoned until the final judgment (Jude 6; 2 Pet. 2:4). See David N. Bivin, “Hebrew Nuggets, Lesson 33: Gehenna.” The demons, who were spirits of the giants drowned in the flood, did not want to be consigned to the abyss where their fathers were imprisoned. ↩
• ^[245] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:141-145. ↩
• ^[246] See Dos Santos, 39. ↩
• ^[247] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:501-502. ↩
• ^[248] See Gundry, Mark, 1:251. ↩
• ^[249] Cf. Bultmann, 224; Marcus, 1:345. ↩
• ^[250] Scholars have offered various explanations as to why the author of Matthew changed the location of the pigs from “there” to “far from them.” Some scholars have suggested that it was in order to distance the Torah-observant Jesus from the impure pigs or to prevent mountains, which in Matthew’s presentation are always holy, from being desecrated by the presence of pigs. See Gundry, Matt., 160; Davies-Allison, 2:82. But if the author of Matthew was concerned about Jesus’ contamination with ritual impurity, why was he not bothered by Jesus healing scale-diseased persons by touch (Matt. 8:3), by a woman suffering from an impure flow of blood touching Jesus’ clothing (Matt. 9:20), or by Jesus taking a dead girl by the hand in order to restore her to life (Matt. 9:25), actions that would certainly have imparted ritual impurity to Jesus, whereas live pigs do not impart any kind of impurity? And how could placing the pigs at a distance preserve the sanctity of mountains, when Matthew’s version of Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory never mentions a mountain to begin with? Nolland (Matt., 376) offered the much more plausible explanation that the author of Matthew placed the pigs and the swineherds at a distance because the author of Matthew had stated that the demoniacs were so fierce that no one was able to pass that way (Matt. 8:28). Thus, placing the pigs and the swineherds at a distance enabled the author of Matthew to avoid a glaring contradiction in his narrative. ↩
• ^[251] See Four Soils parable, Comment to L14. ↩
• ^[252] See Temple’s Destruction Foretold, Comment to L32. ↩
• ^[253] It is also the case that in MT there are no instances of עֵדֶר (‘ēder, “herd”) modified by an adjective similar to Mark’s “big herd.” Perhaps that is why in his Hebrew translation of Mark 5:11 Lindsey omitted an equivalent to Mark’s μεγάλη. See Lindsey, HTGM, 103. ↩
• ^[254] Cf. Bovon, 1:329 n. 58. ↩
• ^[255] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:10. ↩
• ^[256] See Dos Santos, 151. ↩
• ^[257] See LSJ, 1430. ↩
• ^[258] See Guelich, 281; Davies-Allison, 2:82; Gundry, Mark, 1:262; Hagner, 1:227; Nolland, Matt., 376. ↩
• ^[259] See H. B. Tristram, The Natural History of the Bible (9th ed.; London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1898), 145. ↩
• ^[260] See Elisha Qimron, “Chickens and Dogs in the Temple Scroll (11QTc),” Tarbiz 54 (1995): 473-476 (Hebrew). For an English translation of Qimron’s article click here. ↩
• ^[261] Pace Marc Turnage, “Sometimes a Rooster is Not a Rooster,” on his blog at https://www.marcturnage.com/. The story of Peter’s denial of Jesus before the rooster crowed indicates that there was at least one chicken in Jerusalem. The Mishnah similarly refers to cockcrow as the time at which specific duties were fulfilled in the Temple (e.g., m. Yom. 1: 8; m. Suk. 5:4), and it mentions a rooster that was stoned in Jerusalem because it had killed an infant (m. Edu. 6:1). Moreover, archaeological excavations have uncovered chicken bones in Jerusalem from the early Roman period, indicating that chickens were at least consumed, if not raised, in Jerusalem. On the presence of chickens in Jerusalem during the Second Temple period, see Joshua N. Tilton, “Chickens and the Cultural Context of the Gospels,” under the subheading “Chickens in Jerusalem.” ↩
• ^[262] On the tradition concerning the Hasmonean civil war reflected in Josephus and talmudic sources, see Tal Ilan, “Josephus’ ‘Samias-Source,’” in Strength to Strength: Essays in Appreciation of Shaye J. D. Cohen (ed. Michael L. Satlow; Providence, R. I.: Brown Judaic Studies, 2018), 197-217, esp. 215-216. ↩
• ^[263] On the other hand, if the author of Matthew was responsible for relocating the story to the “land of the Gadarenes,” he may also have omitted the reference to mountains for topographical reasons. ↩
• ^[264] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:225. ↩
• ^[265] See Dos Santos, 194. ↩
• ^[266] In LXX ἐν τῷ ὄρει occurs as the translation of בָּהָר in Gen. 19:30; 22:14; 31:23, 25 (2xx), 54 (2xx); 36:8, 9; Exod. 4:27; 24:18; 25:40; 26:30; 27:8; 31:18; 34:32; Lev. 7:38; 25:1; 26:46; 27:34; Num. 14:45; 28:6; Deut. 1:6, 44; 5:4, 22; 9:9, 10; 10:4, 10; 32:50; Josh. 11:3; 12:8; 13:19; 19:50; 20:7 (3xx); 21:11; 24:31[30], 33; Judg. 1:35; 1 Kgdms. 13:2; 14:22; 23:14; 31:1; 2 Kgdms. 1:6; 21:9; 3 Kgdms. 5:29; 19:11; 1 Chr. 10:8; 2 Chr. 2:1; 13:4; Ps. 14[15]:1; Amos 4:1; Joel 3:5; Isa. 8:18; 10:12; 25:7. ↩
• ^[267] However, we cannot say that πέμπειν is characteristic Markan vocabulary, since it only occurs this once in Mark. ↩
• ^[268] Text of Midrash Yelamdeinu according to Jacob Mann, The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue. A Study in the Cycles of the Readings from Torah and Prophets, as Well as from Psalms, and in the Structure of the Midrashic Homilies. Volume I: The Palestinian Triennial Cycle: Genesis and Exodus. With a Hebrew section containing manuscript material of Midrashim to these books (Cincinnati, 1940), 284 [Hebrew section]. ↩
• ^[269] Cf. Pesch, “The Markan Version of the Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac,” 365; Gundry, Mark, 1:252. ↩
• ^[270] Cf. Davies-Allison, 2:83. ↩
• ^[271] See LSJ, 1996; Derrett, “Spirit-Possession and the Gerasene Demoniac,” 290; idem, “Legend and Event: The Gerasene Demoniac: An Inquest into History and Liturgical Projection,” 69; Carter, “Cross-Gendered Romans and Mark’s Jesus,” 151-153. ↩
• ^[272] See Carter, “Cross-Gendered Romans and Mark’s Jesus,” 150-151. ↩
• ^[273] See Marcus, 1:345. ↩
• ^[274] The Greek noun κρημνός (krēmnos) used for the “precipice” in L89 could also be used as a term for female reproductive organs. See LSJ, 994. ↩
• ^[275] See Moscicke, “The Gergesene Exorcism and Jesus’ Eschatological Expulsion of Cosmic Powers,” 373. Cf. Derrett, “Spirit-Possession and the Gerasene Demoniac,” 290. ↩
• ^[276] See Carter, “Cross-Gendered Romans and Mark’s Jesus,” 150. ↩
• ^[277] See Bovon, 1:329 n. 59. ↩
• ^[278] According to Jastrow, both בָּא (bā’, “come,” “enter”) and נִכְנַס (nichnas, “enter”) could have sexual connotations. See Jastrow, 143 (בָּא), 649 (נִכְנַס). ↩
• ^[279] See Applebaum, “Animal Husbandry,” 511. ↩
• ^[280] In the time of Jesus the figure of a wild boar was represented on the military standards of Legio X Fretensis and Legio XX Valeria-Victrix. Later in the first century Legio I Italica, founded by Nero in 66 C.E., also bore the image of a boar on its standards. Cf. Theissen, Gospels, 110. ↩
• ^[281] See Edward Dąbrowa, Legio X Fretensis: A Prosopographical Study of its Officers (I-III c. A.D.) (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1993), 12. ↩
• ^[282] See Jos., Ant. 17:286; Menahem Stern, “The Province of Judea” (Safrai-Stern, 1:308-376, esp. 326). ↩
• ^[283] See Jos., Ant. 18:1-3, 26; Edward Dąbrowa, “The Roman Army in Action in Judea (4 BCE-66 CE),” in Ad Fines Imerii Romani: Studia Thaddaeo Sarnowski septuagenario ab amicis, collegis discipulisque dedicata (ed. Agnieszka Tomas; Warsaw: Instytut Archeologii UW, 2015), 59-68, esp. 61. ↩
• ^[284] Thus, Zeichmann’s geographical concerns do not present an insurmountable obstacle to our supposition that the pigs in Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory were symbolic of the Roman legions. See Christopher B. Zeichmann, “Military Forces in Judaea 6-130 CE: The status quaestionis and Relevance for New Testament Studies,” Currents in Biblical Research 17.1 (2018): 86-120, esp. 99. ↩
• ^[285] See Theissen, Gospels, 110; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 171-172. ↩
• ^[286] See Bovon, 1:329. ↩
• ^[287] We have ascribed παρήγγειλεν (parēngeilen, “he commanded”) to the First Reconstructor’s redaction, but we admit that the verb παραγγέλλειν (parangellein, “to order,” “to command”) occurs with greater frequency in Luke (4xx) than in Mark (2xx) or Matthew (2xx) (see Moulton-Geden, 753), that παραγγέλλειν in Luke is never supported in the Markan or Matthean parallels (see Lindsey, GCNT, 3:78), that the author of Matthew was willing to accept παραγγέλλειν when it appeared in Mark (ibid.), and that παραγγέλλειν is a common verb in Acts (11xx) (see Moulton-Geden, 753). It is therefore likely that παραγγέλλειν also belonged to the author of Luke’s redactional vocabulary. Perhaps παραγγέλλειν in Luke 8:29 is the author of Luke’s substitute for ἐπέταξεν (epetaxen, “he commanded”) in FR (cf. FR’s μὴ ἐπιτάξῃ in L68). ↩
• ^[288] On the author of Matthew's redactional use of ὑπάγειν, see Hidden Treasure and Priceless Pearl, Comment to L7-8. ↩
• ^[289] The source of ἐξελθεῖν in FR’s paraphrase of Jesus’ command (Luke 8:29) was probably the participle ἐξελθόντα (exelthonta, “going out”) preserved in Luke 8:33 (L83). ↩
• ^[290] See “The Harvest Is Plentiful” and “A Flock Among Wolves”, Comment to L48. ↩
• ^[291] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:42-43. ↩
• ^[292] To give a homely example of the distinction we are making, it is possible in English to speak impersonally of a general “Yuletide spirit,” but Dickens’ “Spirit of Christmas Present” was a personal being. ↩
• ^[293] Cf. Hinkley G. Mitchell, John Merlin Powis Smith and Julius A. Brewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912), 337. In his commentary on Zechariah, Rabbi David Kimhi identified the “spirit of impurity” as the evil inclination. See Alexander McCaul, trans., Rabbi David Kimchi’s Commentary upon the Prophecies of Zechariah (London: James Duncan, 1837), 164. ↩
• ^[294] The reference to רוחות ממזרים (“bastard spirits”; 4Q510 1 I, 5) likewise alludes to the antediluvian origin of the evil spirits. Cf. the Hebrew Book of Noah, preserved in the Book of Asaph, which refers to the demons as רוחות ממזרים (“bastard spirits”). For this text, see R. H. Charles, The Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees (Oxford: Clarendon, 1895), 179. The Hebrew Book of Noah may be an adaptation of Jubilees 10:1-14. See VanderKam, Jubilees, 1:398 n. 4. ↩
• ^[295] The Genesis Apocryphon refers to a spirit that afflicted Pharaoh as רוח שחלניא, a purulent or peeling spirit (1QapGen^ar XX, 26). This could be understood as a scale disease-causing spirit. See Kazen, 304. Spirits are also a cause of scale disease in Qumran fragments of the Damascus Document (4Q266 6 I, 6; 4Q269 7 I, 2; 4Q272 1 I, 2, 15; 4Q273 4 II, 11). See Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The 4Q Zadokite Fragments on Skin Disease,” Journal of Jewish Studies 41 (1990): 157-165, esp. 162. ↩
• ^[296] In Tobit, the demon Asmodaeus was powerful enough to kill Sarah’s husbands by strangulation (Tob. 3:7-8). When retelling the story of the evil spirit that oppressed King Saul, both Josephus (Ant. 6:166) and Pseudo-Philo (L.A.B. 60:1) claimed the demon did so by choking him. In Jubilees the demons were capable not only of misleading and harming human beings, but even of killing them (Jub. 10:1-2). Josephus likewise reports that “demons...enter the living and kill them unless other aid is forthcoming” (J.W. 7:185). Cf. Justin Martyr, Dial. chpt. 131. A rabbinic tradition attributes to Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai the opinion that corpse impurity is also caused by impure spirits (Pesikta de-Rav Khana 4:7[18]; cf. Num. Rab. 18:8). ↩
• ^[297] Unlike critical texts, Codex Vaticanus has the variant spelling ἀπῆλθαν (apēlthan, “they went away”). ↩
• ^[298] Gundry (Matt., 160) thought the author of Matthew changed εἰσῆλθον to ἀπῆλθον in order to make the prepositional suffix agree with ἀπόστειλον (aposteilon, “Send!”) in Matt. 8:31 (L78). “This revision,” Gundry explained, “highlights the effectiveness of Jesus’ authoritative command.” But Jesus’ command was ὑπάγετε (hūpagete, “Go!”) not ἀπόστειλον (aposteilon, “Send!”). ↩
• ^[299] Cf. Lindsey, HTGM, 103. Delitzsch’s translation of ὁρμᾶν (“to rush”) as הִשְׂתָּעֵר (histā‘ēr, “storm against,” “blow against”) in Matt. 8:32 ∥ Mark 5:13 ∥ Luke 8:33 is untenable. MHNT, which translated ὁρμᾶν in Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory as הִסְתָּעֵר (histā‘ēr), appears to have followed Delitzsch’s lead, but in Modern Hebrew הִסְתָּעֵר acquired the meaning “charge at” or “assail,” a meaning the root ס-ע-ר/שׂ-ע-ר did not possess in BH (see BDB, 704, 973) or MH (see Jastrow, 1010). See also Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1971), 837. ↩
• ^[300] See HALOT, 195. ↩
• ^[301] See Jastrow, 251. ↩
• ^[302] On the phenomenon of LXX translations reflecting familiarity with Mishnaic Hebrew, see Jan Joosten, “On the Septuagint Translators’ Knowledge of Hebrew,” in his Collected Studies on the Septuagint: From Language to Interpretation and Beyond (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 25-36. Nevertheless, Joosten did not cite גָּלַשׁ as an example of this phenomenon. ↩
• ^[303] See LSJ, 994. ↩
• ^[304] See Lindsey, HTGM, 103. ↩
• ^[305] See Derrett, “Contributions to the Study of the Gerasene Demoniac,” 6; Bovon, 1:329 n. 61; Moscicke, “The Gergesene Exorcism and Jesus’ Eschatological Expulsion of Cosmic Powers,” 371-372. ↩
• ^[306] See Knox, 1:39 n. 1; Moscicke, “The Gergesene Exorcism and Jesus’ Eschatological Expulsion of Cosmic Powers,” 370-373. ↩
• ^[307] We agree with those scholars (cf., e.g., Moscicke, “The Gergesene Exorcism and Jesus’ Eschatological Expulsion of Cosmic Powers,” 369-370) who view the sending of the demons into the pigs as a means of removing impurity from the land. The purpose of sending the demons into the pigs was not to provide visible evidence of the demons’ departure. Pace Dibelius, 89; Bundy, 244 §147; Craghan, “The Gerasene Demoniac,” 531; Gundry, Mark, 1:252; Collins, 271. ↩
• ^[308] Cf. Fitzmyer, 1:739. ↩
• ^[309] See Zeichmann, “Military Forces in Judaea 6-130 CE,” 99. ↩
• ^[310] See Dąbrowa, Legio X Fretensis, 11. ↩
• ^[311] See Hanan Eshel, “The Kittim in the War Scroll and in the Pesharim,” in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. David Goodblatt, Avital Pinnick, and Daniel R. Schwartz; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 29-44; Brian Schultz, “Not Greeks But Romans: Changing Expectations for the Eschatological War in the War Texts from Qumran,” in The Jewish Revolt against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (ed. Mladen Popović; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 107-127. ↩
• ^[312] See Gundry, Mark, 1:252. ↩
• ^[313] See Derrett, “Contributions to the Study of the Gerasene Demoniac,” 12; idem, “Legend and Event: The Gerasene Demoniac: An Inquest into History and Liturgical Projection,” 66. Equally amusing is the suggestion put forward by Aus (My Name Is “Legion,” 66) that Mark’s number derives from Josh. 3:4, where כְּאַלְפַּיִם (k^e’alpayim, “about two thousand”) refers to the distance in cubits the people are to keep from the ark of the covenant during the crossing of the Jordan. Aus justified his opinion on the grounds that Josh. 3:4 was “part of the reading from the Prophets on the first day of Passover in the third year of the triennial cycle,” and therefore would have contributed to the Exodus imagery he detected in Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory. Carmignac, too, regarded ὡς δισχίλιοι in Mark 5:13 as a mistranslation of כְּאַלְפַּיִם. See Jean Carmignac, “Studies in the Hebrew Background of the Synoptic Gospels,” Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute 7 (1970): 64-93, esp. 67. ↩
• ^[314] See Bundy, 244 §147. ↩
• ^[315] Nevertheless, the author of Matthew was surely aware of Mark’s estimate of the size of the herd. He omitted it either because he did not credit Mark’s estimate or because of his desire for brevity, or for both reasons. ↩
• ^[316] See LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[317] The verb ἀποπνίγειν (apopnigein, “to strangle,” “to choke”) could be reconstructed with חָנַק (ḥānaq, “strangle,” “choke”). See Four Soils parable, Comment to L47. ↩
• ^[318] See Schweizer, 223; Gundry, Matt., 160; Luz, 2:25. ↩
• ^[319] The same shift in number occurs in Mark 5:13 (“the herd [sing.] rushed...and they choked [plur.]”). See Conzelmann, 50. ↩
• ^[320] See Hagner, 1:228. ↩
• ^[321] Pace Beare, Earliest, 122 §106; idem, Matt., 219; Elder, “Of Porcine and Polluted Spirits,” 445. ↩
• ^[322] See Luz, 2:25 n. 22. ↩
• ^[323] As has been suggested by some scholars. See van der Loos (The Miracles of Jesus, 391), who rejects the notion. ↩
• ^[324] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:128-130. ↩
• ^[325] See Dos Santos, 107. ↩
• ^[326] See Bultmann, 210; Dibelius, 88; Beare, Earliest, 122 §106; Gundry, Mark, 1:263; Marcus, 1:345; Collins, 271. Guelich (1:283) denies that the motif of outwitting one’s opponent is present in this pericope. Cf. Nolland, Luke, 1:411. ↩
• ^[327] Cf. Gundry, Mark, 1:252-253, 263. ↩
• ^[328] Cf. Marcus, 1:345. ↩
• ^[329] Many scholars have noted that Jewish audiences would take pleasure in the destruction of the pigs. See Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways, 179; Dibelius, 101; Beare, Earliest, 122 §106; idem, Matt., 219; Nolland, Luke, 1:414; Gundry, Mark, 1:262. Nevertheless, few of these scholars have grasped the deeper significance of this act. By removing the pigs from the Girgashite territory, which was understood as part of Israel’s inheritance, Jesus liberated the Holy Land from being trampled by impure animals (and by the Gentiles for whom the pigs were raised). But see Thiessen, Gospels, 110; Calpino, “The Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5:1-20),” 20-21; Witmer, Jesus, the Galilean Exorcist, 174; and Cohen, “The Geresene Demoniac,” 158. ↩
• ^[330] Cf. Marcus, 1:352. ↩
• ^[331] In Quieting a Storm we suspected the author of Mark of having replaced “water” with “sea” in L42 and L57. ↩
• ^[332] Text according to Adolf von Harnack, Kritik des Neuen Testaments von einem griechischen Philosophen des 3. Jahrhunderts (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1911), 40. Translation according to T. W. Crafter, The Apocriticus of Macarius Magnes (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; New York: Macmillan, 1919), 64. ↩
• ^[333] See Nolland, Luke, 1:411; Gundry, Mark, 1:262. ↩
• ^[334] The LXX translators rendered the substantive רֹעֶה (ro‘eh, “shepherd,” “herdsman”) as ποιμήν (poimēn, “shepherd”) in Gen. 4:2; 13:7 (2xx), 8 (2xx); 26:20 (2xx); 46:32, 34; 47:3; Exod. 2:17, 19; Num. 27:17; 1 Kgdms. 25:7; 3 Kgdms. 22:17; 2 Chr. 18:16; Eccl. 12:11; Song 1:8; Amos 1:2; 3:12; Mic. 5:4; Nah. 3:18; Zech. 10:3; 11:3, 5, 8, 15, 16; 13:7 (2xx); Isa. 13:20; 40:11; 63:11; Jer. 2:8; 3:15; 6:3; 10:21; 12:10; 22:22; 23:1, 4; 27[50]:6, 44; 28[51]:23; 30[49]:13[19]; 32[25]:34, 35, 36; 40[33]:12; 50[43]:12; Ezek. 34:2 (4xx), 5, 7, 8 (3xx), 9, 10 (2xx), 12, 23 (2xx); 37:24. ↩
• ^[335] See Bovon, 1:330. ↩
• ^[336] Pace A. B. Bruce, 146; Wiebe, “The Demonic Phenomena of Mark’s ‘Legion,’” 203. ↩
• ^[337] Cf. Wolter, 1:129. The following table shows all the substantival instances of τὸ γεγονός in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Mark 5:14 TT = Luke 8:35 (cf. Matt. 8:34) Luke 2:15 U Luke 8:34 TT (cf. Matt. 8:33; Mark 5:14) Luke 8:35 TT = Mark 5:14 (cf. Matt. 8:34) Luke 8:56 TT (cf. Matt. 9:26; Mark 5:43) Luke 24:12 TT (cf. Matt. 28:[--]; Mark 16:[--]) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [--] = no corresponding word and/or verse

  Compare the use of the substantive perfect participle τὸ γεγονός in the Synoptics with the use of the substantive aorist participle τὸ γενόμενον (to genomenon, “the happening”) and the substantive present participle τὸ γινόμενον (to ginomenon, “the happening”):

  Matt. 18:31 [τὰ γενόμενα] (1st instance) U Matt. 18:31 [τὰ γενόμενα] (2nd instance) U Matt. 27:54 [τὰ γενόμενα] TT = Luke 23:47 (cf. Mark 15:39) Matt. 28:11 [τὰ γενόμενα] U Luke 9:7 [τὰ γινόμενα] TT (cf. Matt. 14:1; Mark 6:14) Luke 13:17 [τοῖς γινομένοις] U Luke 23:47 [τὸ γενόμενον] TT = Matt. 27:54 (cf. Mark 15:39) Luke 23:48 TT [τὰ γενόμενα] (cf. Matt. 27:[--]; Mark 15:[--]) Luke 24:18 [τὰ γενόμενα] U Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [--] = no corresponding word and/or verse

  ↩

• ^[338] The translations of Delitzsch (וַיָּנוּסוּ רֹעֵי הַחֲזִירִים [vayānūsū ro‘ē haḥ^azirim, “and the herders of the pigs fled”]; Mark 5:14) and Lindsey (וְרוֹעֵיהֶם בָּרְחוּ [v^erō‘ēhem bār^eḥū, “and their herders fled”]; HTGM, 103) read as though Mark’s text had καὶ οἱ βόσκοντες αὐτῶν ἔφυγον (kai hoi boskontes avtōn efūgon, “and the herders of them fled”). We would reconstruct Mark’s Greek as וַיָּנוּסוּ הָרוֹעִים מֵהֶם (vayānūsū hārō‘im mēhem, “and fled / the herders / from them”), but notice how different the word order is from Mark’s καὶ οἱ βόσκοντες αὐτοὺς ἔφυγον (kai hoi boskontes avtous efūgon, “and / the / herders / them / fled”). ↩
• ^[339] Cf. Davies-Allison, 2:84. ↩
• ^[340] Cf. McNeile, 113. The table below shows all of the instances of accusative definite article + genitive definite article + genitive noun (not a personal name) in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 8:33 TT (cf. Mark 5:14; Luke 8:34) Matt. 16:23 (1st instance) Mk-Mt = Mark 8:33 Matt. 16:23 (2nd instance) Mk-Mt = Mark 8:33 Matt. 21:21 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 11:22-23) Matt. 22:21 TT = Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25 Mark 8:33 (1st instance) Mk-Mt = Matt. 16:23 Mark 8:33 (2nd instance) Mk-Mt = Matt. 16:23 Mark 12:17 TT = Matt. 22:21; Luke 20:25 Luke 20:25 TT = Matt. 22:21; Mark 12:17 Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope

  The table above shows that the author of Matthew accepted every instance of accusative definite article + genitive definite article + genitive noun he encountered in Mark, added the construction to a pericope he copied from Mark (Faith Like a Mustard Seed [L11-12]; Matt. 21:21), and likely added it in Matt. 8:33, where it lacks support from the Lukan and Markan parallels.

  Despite there being only a single instance of accusative definite article + genitive definite article + genitive noun in Luke’s Gospel, there is an additional instance of this construction in the second half of Acts (Acts 19:27), where the author of Luke’s personal writing style comes to the fore. It is unlikely that the author of Luke would have avoided accusative definite article + genitive definite article + genitive noun had it occurred in his sources. Its paucity in Luke is likely due to its infrequency in Anth. and FR. ↩

• ^[341] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:1019-1021. ↩
• ^[342] On the equivalence of ὅς and אֲשֶׁר, see Choosing the Twelve, Comment to L10-11. ↩
• ^[343] See Dos Santos, 20. ↩
• ^[344] In LXX πάντα ὅσα + aorist occurs as the translation of כָּל אֲשֶׁר + perfect verb in Gen. 1:31; 6:22; 7:5; Exod. 18:1, 8; 19:8; 24:7; 29:35; 34:32; 35:10; 36:1; 40:16; Num. 2:34; 22:2; 30:1; Deut. 1:3, 30, 41; 3:21; 4:34; 5:28; 18:16; 29:1; Josh. 1:17; 22:2 (2xx); Judg. 11:24; 13:14; Ruth 3:6, 16; 1 Kgdms. 3:12; 12:1; 19:18; 25:30; 2 Kgdms. 3:19, 36; 11:22; 21:14; 3 Kgdms. 8:56; 11:41; 4 Kgdms. 8:23; 10:34; 11:9; 12:20; 13:8, 12; 14:3, 28; 15:3, 6, 21, 26, 31, 34; 16:11, 16; 18:3, 12; 21:8, 17; 23:28, 32, 37; 24:3, 5, 9, 19; 1 Chr. 6:34; 17:20; 2 Chr. 23:8; 26:4; 27:2; 29:2; 2 Esd. 15:19; Ps. 113[115]:11[3]; 134[135]:6; Zeph. 3:7; Jer. 27[50]:29; Ezek. 14:23; 16:63; 24:24. ↩
• ^[345] See A. B. Bruce, 147. Cf. Nolland, Matt., 377. ↩
• ^[346] On the frequent omission or replacement of ἰδού by the author of Luke (or the First Reconstructor before him), see Friend in Need, Comment to L6. ↩
• ^[347] Cf. A. B. Bruce, 147. ↩
• ^[348] See Davies-Allison, 2:85; Hagner, 1:226; Nolland, Matt., 378; Marcus, 1:353. ↩
• ^[349] See LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[350] See above, Comment to L40-41. ↩
• ^[351] Note that Lindsey categorized the verb θεωρεῖν (theōrein, “to see”) as a “Markan stereotype” because of its relatively high frequency in Mark and the complete lack of agreement with Luke on its use. See LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups, under the entry for Mark 3:11. Mark’s use of the historical present tense is also typical of Markan redaction. See above, Comment to L40-41. ↩
• ^[352] As we noted above in Comment to L10, there is no Hebrew equivalent to the substantival use of δαιμονιζόμενος (daimonizomenos, “demonized”) to refer to demon-possessed individuals. Mark’s placement of “the one having had the legion” in L113, detached as it is from the noun it modifies, is also un-Hebraic. ↩
• ^[353] Justin Martyr (Dial. §69 [ed. Trollope, 1:142]) noted that some people regarded Jesus as a magician. ↩
• ^[354] See Moulton-Milligan, 304; Taylor, 283. ↩
• ^[355] In Codex Vaticanus ἱματισμένον is spelled εἱματισμένον. Since Codex Vaticanus serves as the base text for the reconstruction document, this variant spelling appears in the Luke column in L111. ↩
• ^[356] See Collins, 273. Plummer (Luke, 229) and Pesch (“The Markan Version of the Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac,” 361) supposed that the author of Mark wanted his readers to infer from his statement that the man was now clothed that he previously lacked garments. ↩
• ^[357] The suggestion that the man’s nakedness was implied by Mark’s description of the man cutting himself with rocks (Gundry, Mark, 1:253; Aus, My Name Is “Legion”, 5) is a feeble attempt to explain away Mark’s mistake. ↩
• ^[358] See Fitzmyer, 1:739; Gundry, Mark, 1:253. Swete (98) suggested that the clothes were supplied by one of the Twelve who had a spare χιτών (chitōn, “tunic”) in his luggage. This suggestion is unlikely for two reasons. First, the allusion to the disciples at the opening of the pericope is probably redactional. Second, carrying an extra tunic would have been a direct violation of Jesus’ instructions to the apostles (see Sending the Twelve: Conduct on the Road, Comment to L74). ↩
• ^[359] See Ulrich Luck, “σώφρων κ.τ.λ.,” TDNT, 7:1097-1104. ↩
• ^[360] Delitzsch rendered σωφρονοῦντα (sōfronounta) in Mark 5:15 and Luke 8:35 as טוֹב שֵׂכֶל (ṭōv sēchel), evidently in imitation of the description of Abigail as טוֹבַת שֶׂכֶל (ṭōvat sechel, “discerning”) in 1 Sam. 25:3 (= ἀγαθὴ συνέσει [agathē sūnesei, “good understanding”]; 1 Kgdms. 25:3). The phrase שֵׂכֶל טוֹב (sēchel ṭōv, “good understanding”) occurs in Ps. 111:10 (= σύνεσις ἀγαθή [sūnesis agathē, “good understanding]; Ps. 110:10); Prov. 3:4; 13:15 (= σύνεσις ἀγαθή); 2 Chr. 30:22 (= σύνεσις ἀγαθή). Lindsey rendered σωφρονοῦντα in Mark 5:15 as רוּחוֹ טוֹבָה עָלָיו (rūḥō ṭōvāh ‘ālāv, “his spirit was good upon him”), which is vaguely reminiscent of the description of Saul’s relief from the evil spirit when David played for him: וְרָוַח לְשָׁאוּל וְטוֹב לוֹ (v^erāvaḥ l^eshā’ūl v^eṭōv lō, “and Saul was refreshed, and it was good for him”; 1 Sam. 16:23). Neither Delitzsch nor Lindsey captured the nuances of the Hellenistic concept of σωφροσύνη, and neither translation is formally similar to the Greek text. Their attempts at translation only show how difficult Hebrew retroversion of L112 is. ↩
• ^[361] See Four Soils interpretation, Comment to L69. ↩
• ^[362] In Acts 26:25 the noun σωφροσύνη occurs in Paul’s defense before Festus. This could be taken as an indication that σωφρονεῖν in Luke 8:35 stems from Lukan redaction, but it does not rule out the possibility that the First Reconstructor was responsible for adding the Hellenistic concept of “self-possession” to Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory. ↩
• ^[363] Cf. Matt. 26:53, which envisions angels as organized into legions. ↩
• ^[364] See Fitzmyer, 1:739; Nolland, Luke, 1:412; Bovon, 1:324, 330. ↩
• ^[365] Cf. Wolter, 1:354. On the rigors of discipleship, see our commentary to the pericopae contained in the complexes entitled “Yeshua’s Selectivity in Accepting Disciples” and “Cost of Entering the Kingdom of Heaven.” ↩
• ^[366] An alternative is to reconstruct παρὰ τοὺς πόδας as תַּחַת רַגְלֵי (taḥat raglē, “under the feet of”), a phrase we find in the following rabbinic saying:

  וכשיהא חכם נכנס לתוך ביתך אל תנהג עמו בבזיון ואל תשב עמו לא על גב מטה ולא על גב ספסל אלא הוי יושב תחת רגליו [על הארץ] ומקבל כל דבריו באימה ויראה כשם שאתה שומעו בביהמ″ד

  And whenever a sage enters your house, do not behave toward him with contempt, and do not sit with him either on a bed or on a bench, but be sitting at his feet [יוֹשֵׁב תַּחַת רַגְלָיו] on the ground and be receiving all his words in awe and fear just as you listen to him in the bet midrash. (Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version B, §11 [ed. Schechter, 28])

  However, תַּחַת (taḥat, “under”) would not be a usual reconstruction of παρά (para, “beside”). ↩

• ^[367] See Gill, 7:380; Plummer, Luke, 232; Lindsey, JRL, 142; Calpino, “The Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5:1-20),” 22. ↩
• ^[368] Cf. Wolter, 1:355. ↩
• ^[369] See Taylor, 284; Fitzmyer, 1:740. Marcus’ suggestion (1:346) that the townspeople attributed Jesus’ exorcism to the “work of the devil” is nonsensical if the townspeople are regarded as Gentiles, as Marcus does. Gentiles would have had no concept of the devil or Satan, which are Jewish ideas that were transmitted to Gentiles primarily through Christianity. ↩
• ^[370] See van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus, 393. ↩
• ^[371] Cf. Return of the Twelve, L5. ↩
• ^[372] See Lindsey, GCSG, 1:49-50. ↩
• ^[373] There are additional instances of ἀπαγγέλλειν in Luke that we have traced back to Anth. See LOY Excursus: Greek-Hebrew Equivalents in the LOY Reconstructions, under the entry for ἀπαγγέλλειν. ↩
• ^[374] Cf. Cadbury, Style, 184. ↩
• ^[375] The table below shows all of the instances of διηγεῖσθαι in the Gospels of Mark and Luke (διηγεῖσθαι does not occur in Matthew) and the synoptic parallels:

  Mark 5:16 TT (cf. Matt. 8:34 [--]; Luke 8:36 [ἀπαγγέλλειν]) Mark 9:9 TT (cf. Matt. 17:9 [λέγειν]; Luke 9:36 [ἀπαγγέλλειν]) Luke 8:39 TT (cf. Matt. 9:1 [--]; Mark 5:19 [ἀπαγγέλλειν]) Luke 9:10 TT (cf. Matt. 14:12 [ἀπαγγέλλειν]; Mark 6:30 [ἀπαγγέλλειν])

  ↩

• ^[376] Here we exclude the two instances of ἀπαγγέλλειν in the spurious ending of Mark (Mark 16:10, 13). ↩
• ^[377] Marshall’s suggestion (340) that the author of Luke substituted Mark’s διηγεῖσθαι with ἀπαγγέλλειν because the author of Luke reserved διηγεῖσθαι “for Christian narration” does not bear up under scrutiny. In Luke 7:18, 22 the author of Luke used ἀπαγγέλλειν for the report of John’s disciples regarding Jesus’ miraculous activity, and in Luke 24:9 the author of Luke used ἀπαγγέλλειν for the report of the women regarding what they had seen at the empty tomb. Neither of these instances of ἀπαγγέλλειν can be regarded as “secular announcements.” ↩
• ^[378] See Gundry, Mark, 1:253. Plummer (Mark, 144) identified οἱ ἰδόντες as “chiefly the Twelve and the swineherds.” ↩
• ^[379] See Nolland, Luke, 1:412. ↩
• ^[380] See Lindsey, LHNS, 80 §106. ↩
• ^[381] See Four Soils interpretation, Comment to L34. ↩
• ^[382] Lindsey classified ἄρχειν + infinitive in Mark as a Markan stereotype. See LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups, under the entry for Mark 1:45. ↩
• ^[383] On the text-critical issue of whether Luke’s text originally read “Gerasenes” or “Gergesenes,” see above, Comment to L3. ↩
• ^[384] On the author of Luke’s redactional preference for ἅπας, see Yeshua’s Testing, Comment to L48. ↩
• ^[385] The noun πλῆθος occurs 0xx in Matthew, 2xx in Mark (Mark 3:7, 8) and 8xx in Luke (Luke 1:10; 2:13; 5:6; 6:17; 8:37; 19:37; 23:1, 27). Note, too, that πλῆθος occurs 16xx in Acts (Acts 2:6; 4:32; 5:14, 16; 6:2, 5; 14:1, 4; 15:12, 30; 17:4; 19:9; 21:36; 23:7; 25:24; 28:3). See Moulton-Geden, 814-815. ↩
• ^[386] Cf. Plummer, Luke, 117. The noun περίχωρος occurs 2xx in Matthew (Matt. 3:5; 14:35), 1x in Mark (Mark 1:28), 5xx in Luke (Luke 3:3; 4:14, 37; 7:17; 8:37) and 1x in Acts (Acts 14:6). See Moulton-Geden, 800. ↩
• ^[387] On ἵνα + subjunctive in Matthew’s Gospel as frequently a product of Matthean redaction, see Lost Sheep and Lost Coin, Comment to L61. ↩
• ^[388] On μεταβαίνειν as a likely indicator of Matthean redaction, see Sending the Twelve: Conduct in Town, Comment to L135. ↩
• ^[389] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 161; Davies-Allison, 2:85. ↩
• ^[390] See LOY Excursus: Greek-Hebrew Equivalents in the LOY Reconstructions, under the entry for “ἀπέρχεσθαι.” ↩
• ^[391] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1012-1013. ↩
• ^[392] See Dos Santos, 32. ↩
• ^[393] On the destabilizing potential of the Gospel as the cause of the hostile reaction to the early Christian movement by Jewish leaders in some Diaspora communities, see Martin Goodman, “The Persecution of Paul by Diaspora Jews,” in The Beginnings of Christianity (ed. Jack Pastor and Menachem Mor; Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Tzvi, 2005), 379-387; Paula Fredriksen, Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2017), 87-93. ↩
• ^[394] While it is true that the verb συνέχειν (sūnechein, “to seize”) occurs with a greater frequency in Luke (6xx) than in the Gospels of Mark or Matthew (1x) (see Moulton-Geden, 922; cf. Bovon, 1:324 n. 14), this may be partially due to Luke’s sources rather than to Lukan redaction. We accepted one instance of συνέχειν from Luke for GR because it agrees with Hebrew usage (see Shimon’s Mother-in-Law, Comment to L14). Another instance of συνέχειν in Luke occurs in Yair’s Daughter and a Woman’s Faith (Luke 8:45), where the author of Luke probably copied it from FR. A more important indicator is the Lukan habit of describing people being seized with strong emotion, such as fear or astonishment. We have found that such descriptions were the product of Lukan redaction. In Bedridden Man (L75) being seized with astonishment was expressed using the verb λαμβάνειν (lambanein, “to take”; Luke 5:26). Likewise, in Widow’s Son in Nain (L19) the seizing with fear was expressed with λαμβάνειν (Luke 7:16). That Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory uses a different verb for “seize” is not sufficient cause to attribute the seizing with fear to anyone but the evangelist. The explanatory nature of the redactional comment is similar to other Lukan explanations, such as those in Yair’s Daughter and a Woman’s Faith (L84 and L131) and The Finger of God (L41-42). ↩
• ^[395] See Nolland’s reference (Luke, 1:406) to Luke’s “apparently illogical reporting of Jesus’ departure before the interchange between the healed man and Jesus.” ↩
• ^[396] Cf. Dibelius (74, 87) and Bundy (243 §147), who attributed Mark 5:18-20 to Markan redaction. ↩
• ^[397] Sentences opening with αὐτὸς δὲ occur in the following verses in Luke:
  • Luke 4:30 Nazarene Synagogue [Anth.?]
  • Luke 5:16 Man With Scale Disease [FR]
  • Luke 6:8 Man’s Contractured Arm [FR]
  • Luke 8:37 Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory [FR]
  • Luke 8:54 Yair’s Daughter and a Woman’s Faith [FR]
  • Luke 11:17 The Finger of God [Anth.]
  • Luke 11:28 A Woman’s Misplaced Blessing [Anth.]
  • Luke 18:39 Man Healed of Blindness [FR?]

  ↩

• ^[398] Scholars often assume that by “his own city” the author of Matthew meant Capernaum (see McNeile, 115; Gundry, Matt., 1:62; Davies-Allison, 2:87; Nolland, Matt., 379; Notley-Rainey, 355), but Matthew’s Gospel does not make this explicit. The identification depends on Matt. 4:13, which states that after leaving Nazareth Jesus lived in Capernaum, and on Mark’s (but not Matthew’s [or Luke’s]!) identification of Capernaum (Mark 2:1) as the site of the healing of the paralyzed man (Matt. 9:2-8 ∥ Mark 2:1-12 ∥ Luke 5:17-26). Capernaum may be the town the author of Matthew intended, but this is not a certainty. ↩
• ^[399] See Mustard Seed and Starter Dough Parables, Comment to L11. ↩
• ^[400] Cf. Taylor, 284; Gundry, Mark, 1:254. See also Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 79. ↩
• ^[401] See Choosing the Twelve, Comment to L12-15. ↩
• ^[402] In Luke’s Gospel Jesus’ refusal to let the liberated man remain with Jesus contrasts with his consent to let Mary Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out—at Jesus’ command?—(Luke 8:2), be σὺν αὐτῷ (sūn avtō, “with him”; Luke 8:1). But then, Mary Magdalene reappears in Luke 24:10. On Mary Magdalene, see Miriam Feinberg Vamosh and JP Staff Writer, “Character Profile: Mary Magdalene.” ↩
• ^[403] See Collins, 273; Peter J. Tomson, “Shifting Perspectives in Matthew: from ‘the House of Israel’ (10:6) to ‘All Gentiles’ (28:19),” in his Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 279-296, esp. 285. Cf. Bivin’s comment in Safrai’s response to a JP reader’s question, “Could Bethsaida Be West of the Jordan?” ↩
• ^[404] Thus, in Rich Man Declines the Kingdom of Heaven, L122, the author of Mark wrote of receiving back houses in this age as recompense for leaving a house for the sake of the Gospel (Mark 10:30). ↩
• ^[405] See above, Comment to L2. ↩
• ^[406] See above, Comment to L116. ↩
• ^[407] Cf. Calpino, “The Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5:1-20),” 16; Ray Pritz, “The Divine Name in the Hebrew New Testament,” under the subheading “Difficult Decisions.” Pace Plummer, Mark, 144; Taylor, 285. ↩
• ^[408] See Yerushalayim Besieged, Comment to L56. ↩
• ^[409] Unless the author of Luke, as a historian, was aware that references to the Decapolis in the time of Jesus were anachronistic (see Comment to L146). But the author of Luke was guilty of other anachronisms, such as the placement of the Judean census during the reign of Herod (Luke 2:1-2) and the anachronisms in Gamliel’s speech (Acts 5:36-37) (on which, see Haenchen, 252-253), so it is doubtful that the author of Luke would have noticed that a reference to the Decapolis in the time of Jesus was unhistorical. ↩
• ^[410] See Bundy, 244 §147. ↩
• ^[411] Cf. Bundy, 279 §168; Theissen, Gospels, 101. Pace Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 79-80. ↩
• ^[412] See Plummer, Luke, 116-117. ↩
• ^[413] Cf. Calpino, “The Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5:1-20),” 16. ↩
• ^[414] See Guelich, 1:286; Rainey-Notley, 362; Kazen, 336. ↩
• ^[415] See Meier, Marginal, 2:667 n. 27. ↩
• ^[416] See LOY Excursus: The Dates of the Synoptic Gospels. ↩
• ^[417] Two ancient inscriptions that mention the Decapolis have been discovered. One refers to a “Diodorus son of Heliodorus from the Syrian Decapolis,” while the other refers to “Agathangelos from Abila of the Decapolis.” They date from 81-96 C.E. and 134 C.E., respectively. See Yoram Tsafrir, “The Decapolis Again—Further Notes on the Meaning of the Term,” Aram 23 (2011): 1-10, esp. 7. ↩
• ^[418] See Rainey-Notley, 362. On the uncertainty of the date of the Decapolis’ founding, see also Tsafrir, “The Decapolis Again—Further Notes on the Meaning of the Term,” 5-6. ↩
• ^[419] In L42-44 there is a ten-word stretch of uninterrupted verbal identity between Luke and Mark, in L86-90 there is a thirteen-word stretch of uninterrupted verbal identity between Luke and Mark, and in L96-99 there is another ten-word stretch of uninterrupted verbal identity between Luke and Mark. ↩
• ^[420] See LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[421] Cf. Calpino, “The Gerasene Demoniac (Mark 5:1-20),” 16. ↩
• ^[422]

  Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  καὶ κατέπλευσαν εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γεργεσηνῶν ἥτις ἐστὶν ἀντιπέρα τῆς Γαλειλαίας ἐξελθόντι δὲ αὐτῷ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ὑπήντησεν ἀνήρ τις ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ἔχων δαιμόνια καὶ χρόνῳ ἱκανῷ οὐκ ἐνεδύσατο ἱμάτιον καὶ ἐν οἰκίᾳ οὐκ ἔμενεν ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τοῖς μνήμασιν ἰδὼν δὲ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀνακράξας προσέπεσεν αὐτῷ καὶ φωνῇ μεγάλῃ εἶπεν τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί Ἰησοῦ υἱὲ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου δέομαί σου μή με βασανίσῃς παρήγγειλεν γὰρ τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ ἐξελθεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πολλοῖς γὰρ χρόνοις συνηρπάκει αὐτὸν καὶ ἐδεσμεύετο ἁλύσεσιν καὶ πέδαις φυλασσόμενος καὶ διαρρήσσων τὰ δεσμὰ ἠλαύνετο ἀπὸ τοῦ δαιμονίου εἰς τὰς ἐρήμους ἐπηρώτησεν δὲ αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τί σοι ὄνομά ἐστιν ὁ δὲ εἶπεν Λεγειών ὅτι εἰσῆλθεν δαιμόνια πολλὰ εἰς αὐτόν καὶ παρεκάλουν αὐτὸν ἵνα μὴ ἐπιτάξῃ αὐτοῖς εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον ἀπελθεῖν ἦν δὲ ἐκεῖ ἀγέλη χοίρων ἱκανῶν βοσκομένη ἐν τῷ ὄρει καὶ παρεκάλεσαν αὐτὸν ἵνα ἐπιτρέψῃ αὐτοῖς εἰς ἐκείνους εἰσελθεῖν καὶ ἐπέτρεψεν αὐτοῖς ἐξελθόντα δὲ τὰ δαιμόνια ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰσῆλθον εἰς τοὺς χοίρους καὶ ὥρμησεν ἡ ἀγέλη κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ εἰς τὴν λίμνην καὶ ἀπεπνίγη ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ βόσκοντες τὸ γεγονὸς ἔφυγον καὶ ἀπήγγειλαν εἰς τὴν πόλιν καὶ εἰς τοὺς ἀγρούς ἐξῆλθον δὲ ἰδεῖν τὸ γεγονὸς καὶ ἦλθαν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ εὗραν καθήμενον τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀφ᾽ οὗ τὰ δαιμόνια ἐξῆλθεν εἱματισμένον καὶ σωφρονοῦντα παρὰ τοὺς πόδας Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν ἀπήγγειλαν δὲ αὐτοῖς οἱ ἰδόντες πῶς ἐσώθη ὁ δαιμονισθείς καὶ ἠρώτησεν αὐτὸν ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος τῆς περιχώρου τῶν Γερασηνῶν ἀπελθεῖν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ὅτι φόβῳ μεγάλῳ συνείχοντο αὐτὸς δὲ ἐμβὰς εἰς πλοῖον ὑπέστρεψεν ἐδεῖτο δὲ αὐτοῦ ὁ ἀνὴρ ἀφ᾽ οὗ ἐξεληλύθει τὰ δαιμόνια εἶναι σὺν αὐτῷ ἀπέλυσεν δὲ αὐτὸν λέγων ὑπόστρεφε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου καὶ διηγοῦ ὅσα σοι ἐποίησεν ὁ θεός καὶ ἀπῆλθεν καθ᾽ ὅλην τὴν πόλιν κηρύσσων ὅσα ἐποίησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς		καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γεργεσηνῶν ἥτις ἐστὶν ἀντιπέρα τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εἰς ὑπάντησιν αὐτῷ ἀνήρ τις ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ἔχων δαιμόνιον καὶ χρόνῳ πολλῷ οὐκ ἐνεδύσατο ἱμάτιον καὶ ἐν οἰκίᾳ οὐκ ἔμενεν ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τοῖς μνήμασιν πολλοῖς χρόνοις ἥρπασεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἔδησαν αὐτὸν ἐν πέδαις καὶ διαρρήσσων τὰ δεσμὰ ἤλασεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὰς ἐρήμους καὶ ἰδοὺ ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγων τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί Ἰησοῦ υἱὲ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου ἦλθες πρός με βασανίσαι με ἐπηρώτησεν δὲ αὐτὸν Ἰησοῦς τί ὄνομά σοι καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Λεγιών ὅτι εἰσῆλθεν εἰς αὐτὸν δαιμόνια πολλά καὶ παρεκάλουν οἱ δαίμονες αὐτὸν λέγοντες μὴ ἀπόστειλον ἡμᾶς ἔξω τῆς χώρας ἦν δὲ ἐκεῖ ἀγέλη χοίρων πολλῶν βοσκομένη ἐν τῷ ὄρει καὶ παρεκάλεσαν αὐτὸν λέγοντες εἰ ἐκβάλλεις ἡμᾶς ἀπόστειλον ἡμᾶς εἰς τὴν ἀγέλην τῶν χοίρων ἵνα εἰσέλθωμεν εἰς αὐτούς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὑπάγετε καὶ ἐξελθόντα τὰ πνεύματα τὰ ἀκάθαρτα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰσῆλθον εἰς τοὺς χοίρους καὶ ἰδοὺ ὥρμησεν πᾶσα ἡ ἀγέλη κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ ἀπέθανον ἐν τοῖς ὕδασιν ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ βόσκοντες ἔφυγον καὶ ἀπελθόντες εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἀπήγγειλαν πάντα ὅσα εἶδον καὶ ἰδοὺ πᾶσα ἡ πόλις ἐξῆλθεν εἰς ὑπάντησιν τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ εὗραν τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἱματισμένον καὶ καθήμενον παρὰ τοὺς πόδας Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν καὶ ἀπήγγειλαν αὐτοῖς οἱ ἰδόντες πῶς ἐγένετο καὶ ἠρώτησεν αὐτὸν ἀπελθεῖν ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρίων αὐτῶν
  Total Words:	292	Total Words:	221
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	141	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	141
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	48.29%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	63.80%

  ↩

• ^[423]

  Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory
  Mark’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  καὶ ἦλθον εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς θαλάσσης εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γερασηνῶν καὶ ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ πλοίου ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν μνημείων ἄνθρωπος ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ ὃς τὴν κατοίκησιν εἶχεν ἐν τοῖς μνήμασιν καὶ οὐδὲ ἁλύσει οὐκέτι οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο αὐτὸν δῆσαι διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν πολλάκις πέδαις καὶ ἁλύσεσιν δεδέσθαι καὶ διεσπάσθαι ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὰς ἁλύσεις καὶ τὰς πέδας συντετρεῖφθαι καὶ οὐδεὶς ἴσχυεν αὐτὸν δαμάσαι καὶ διὰ παντὸς νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ἐν τοῖς μνήμασιν καὶ ἐν τοῖς ὄρεσιν ἦν κράζων καὶ κατακόπτων ἑαυτὸν λίθοις καὶ ἰδὼν τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπὸ μακρόθεν ἔδραμεν καὶ προσεκύνησεν αὐτόν καὶ κράξας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγει τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί Ἰησοῦ υἱὲ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου ὁρκίζω σε τὸν θεόν μή με βασανίσῃς ἔλεγεν γὰρ αὐτῷ ἔξελθε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἀκάθαρτον ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ ἐπηρώτα αὐτόν τί ὄνομά σοι καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ Λεγιὼν ὄνομά μοί ἐστιν ὅτι πολλοί ἐσμεν καὶ παρεκάλει αὐτὸν πολλὰ ἵνα μὴ αὐτὰ ἀποστείλῃ ἔξω τῆς χώρας ἦν δὲ ἐκεῖ πρὸς τῷ ὄρει ἀγέλη χοίρων μεγάλη βοσκομένη καὶ παρεκάλεσαν αὐτὸν λέγοντες πέμψον ἡμᾶς εἰς τοὺς χοίρους ἵνα εἰς αὐτοὺς εἰσέλθωμεν καὶ ἐπέτρεψεν αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐξελθόντα τὰ πνεύματα τὰ ἀκάθαρτα εἰσῆλθον εἰς τοὺς χοίρους καὶ ὥρμησεν ἡ ἀγέλη κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν ὡς δισχίλιοι καὶ ἐπνείγοντο ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ καὶ οἱ βόσκοντες αὐτοὺς ἔφυγον καὶ ἀπήγγειλαν εἰς τὴν πόλιν καὶ εἰς τοὺς ἀγρούς καὶ ἦλθον ἰδεῖν τί ἐστιν τὸ γεγονὸς καὶ ἔρχονται πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ θεωροῦσιν τὸν δαιμονιζόμενον καθήμενον ἱματισμένον καὶ σωφρονοῦντα τὸν ἐσχηκότα τὸν λεγεῶνα καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν καὶ διηγήσαντο αὐτοῖς οἱ ἰδόντες πῶς ἐγένετο τῷ δαιμονιζομένῳ καὶ περὶ τῶν χοίρων καὶ ἤρξαντο παρακαλεῖν αὐτὸν ἀπελθεῖν ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρίων αὐτῶν καὶ ἐμβαίνοντος αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ πλοῖον παρεκάλει αὐτὸν ὁ δαιμονισθεὶς ἵνα μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἦν καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκεν αὐτόν ἀλλὰ λέγει αὐτῷ ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου πρὸς τοὺς σοὺς καὶ ἀπάγγειλον αὐτοῖς ὅσα ὁ κύριός σοι πεποίηκεν καὶ ἠλέησέν σε καὶ ἀπῆλθεν καὶ ἤρξατο κηρύσσειν ἐν τῇ Δεκαπόλει ὅσα ἐποίησεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ πάντες ἐθαύμαζον		καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γεργεσηνῶν ἥτις ἐστὶν ἀντιπέρα τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εἰς ὑπάντησιν αὐτῷ ἀνήρ τις ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ἔχων δαιμόνιον καὶ χρόνῳ πολλῷ οὐκ ἐνεδύσατο ἱμάτιον καὶ ἐν οἰκίᾳ οὐκ ἔμενεν ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τοῖς μνήμασιν πολλοῖς χρόνοις ἥρπασεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἔδησαν αὐτὸν ἐν πέδαις καὶ διαρρήσσων τὰ δεσμὰ ἤλασεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὰς ἐρήμους καὶ ἰδοὺ ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγων τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί Ἰησοῦ υἱὲ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου ἦλθες πρός με βασανίσαι με ἐπηρώτησεν δὲ αὐτὸν Ἰησοῦς τί ὄνομά σοι καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Λεγιών ὅτι εἰσῆλθεν εἰς αὐτὸν δαιμόνια πολλά καὶ παρεκάλουν οἱ δαίμονες αὐτὸν λέγοντες μὴ ἀπόστειλον ἡμᾶς ἔξω τῆς χώρας ἦν δὲ ἐκεῖ ἀγέλη χοίρων πολλῶν βοσκομένη ἐν τῷ ὄρει καὶ παρεκάλεσαν αὐτὸν λέγοντες εἰ ἐκβάλλεις ἡμᾶς ἀπόστειλον ἡμᾶς εἰς τὴν ἀγέλην τῶν χοίρων ἵνα εἰσέλθωμεν εἰς αὐτούς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὑπάγετε καὶ ἐξελθόντα τὰ πνεύματα τὰ ἀκάθαρτα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰσῆλθον εἰς τοὺς χοίρους καὶ ἰδοὺ ὥρμησεν πᾶσα ἡ ἀγέλη κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ ἀπέθανον ἐν τοῖς ὕδασιν ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ βόσκοντες ἔφυγον καὶ ἀπελθόντες εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἀπήγγειλαν πάντα ὅσα εἶδον καὶ ἰδοὺ πᾶσα ἡ πόλις ἐξῆλθεν εἰς ὑπάντησιν τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ εὗραν τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἱματισμένον καὶ καθήμενον παρὰ τοὺς πόδας Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν καὶ ἀπήγγειλαν αὐτοῖς οἱ ἰδόντες πῶς ἐγένετο καὶ ἠρώτησεν αὐτὸν ἀπελθεῖν ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρίων αὐτῶν
  Total Words:	325	Total Words:	221
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	111	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	111
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	34.15%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Mark:	50.23%

  ↩

• ^[424]

  Possessed Man in Girgashite Territory
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  καὶ ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ πέραν εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γαδαρηνῶν ὑπήντησαν αὐτῷ δύο δαιμονιζόμενοι ἐκ τῶν μνημείων ἐξερχόμενοι χαλεποὶ λείαν ὥστε μὴ ἰσχύειν τινὰ παρελθεῖν διὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ ἐκείνης καὶ ἰδοὺ ἔκραξαν λέγοντες τί ἡμῖν καὶ σοί υἱὲ τοῦ θεοῦ ἦλθες ὧδε πρὸ καιροῦ βασανίσαι ἡμᾶς ἦν δὲ μακρὰν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν ἀγέλη χοίρων πολλῶν βοσκομένη οἱ δὲ δαίμονες παρεκάλουν αὐτὸν λέγοντες εἰ ἐκβάλλεις ἡμᾶς ἀπόστειλον ἡμᾶς εἰς τὴν ἀγέλην τῶν χοίρων καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὑπάγετε οἱ δὲ ἐξελθόντες ἀπῆλθαν εἰς τοὺς χοίρους καὶ ἰδοὺ ὥρμησεν πᾶσα ἡ ἀγέλη κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ ἀπέθανον ἐν τοῖς ὕδασιν οἱ δὲ βόσκοντες ἔφυγον καὶ ἀπελθόντες εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἀπήγγειλαν πάντα καὶ τὰ τῶν δαιμονιζομένων καὶ ἰδοὺ πᾶσα ἡ πόλις ἐξῆλθεν εἰς ὑπάντησιν τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν παρεκάλεσαν ἵνα μεταβῇ ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρίων αὐτῶν καὶ ἐμβὰς εἰς πλοῖον διεπέρασεν καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν πόλιν		καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γεργεσηνῶν ἥτις ἐστὶν ἀντιπέρα τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐξῆλθεν εἰς ὑπάντησιν αὐτῷ ἀνήρ τις ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ἔχων δαιμόνιον καὶ χρόνῳ πολλῷ οὐκ ἐνεδύσατο ἱμάτιον καὶ ἐν οἰκίᾳ οὐκ ἔμενεν ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τοῖς μνήμασιν πολλοῖς χρόνοις ἥρπασεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἔδησαν αὐτὸν ἐν πέδαις καὶ διαρρήσσων τὰ δεσμὰ ἤλασεν αὐτὸν εἰς τὰς ἐρήμους καὶ ἰδοὺ ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ λέγων τί ἐμοὶ καὶ σοί Ἰησοῦ υἱὲ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου ἦλθες πρός με βασανίσαι με ἐπηρώτησεν δὲ αὐτὸν Ἰησοῦς τί ὄνομά σοι καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ Λεγιών ὅτι εἰσῆλθεν εἰς αὐτὸν δαιμόνια πολλά καὶ παρεκάλουν οἱ δαίμονες αὐτὸν λέγοντες μὴ ἀπόστειλον ἡμᾶς ἔξω τῆς χώρας ἦν δὲ ἐκεῖ ἀγέλη χοίρων πολλῶν βοσκομένη ἐν τῷ ὄρει καὶ παρεκάλεσαν αὐτὸν λέγοντες εἰ ἐκβάλλεις ἡμᾶς ἀπόστειλον ἡμᾶς εἰς τὴν ἀγέλην τῶν χοίρων ἵνα εἰσέλθωμεν εἰς αὐτούς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὑπάγετε καὶ ἐξελθόντα τὰ πνεύματα τὰ ἀκάθαρτα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰσῆλθον εἰς τοὺς χοίρους καὶ ἰδοὺ ὥρμησεν πᾶσα ἡ ἀγέλη κατὰ τοῦ κρημνοῦ εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ ἀπέθανον ἐν τοῖς ὕδασιν ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ βόσκοντες ἔφυγον καὶ ἀπελθόντες εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἀπήγγειλαν πάντα ὅσα εἶδον καὶ ἰδοὺ πᾶσα ἡ πόλις ἐξῆλθεν εἰς ὑπάντησιν τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ εὗραν τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἱματισμένον καὶ καθήμενον παρὰ τοὺς πόδας Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἐφοβήθησαν καὶ ἀπήγγειλαν αὐτοῖς οἱ ἰδόντες πῶς ἐγένετο καὶ ἠρώτησεν αὐτὸν ἀπελθεῖν ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρίων αὐτῶν
  Total Words:	146	Total Words:	221
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	90	Total Words Taken Over in Matt:	90
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	61.64%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	40.72%

  ↩

• ^[425] The view that the possessed man and his townsfolk were Jewish was also held by Christie, Palestine Calling, 80-81; Derrett, “Contributions to the Study of the Gerasene Demoniac,” 6; idem, “Legend and Event: The Gerasene Demoniac: An Inquest into History and Liturgical Projection,” 70. ↩
• ^[426] Cf. Beare, Matt., 219-220. ↩
• ^[427] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[428] This translation is a dynamic rendition of our reconstruction of the conjectured Hebrew source that stands behind the Greek of the Synoptic Gospels. It is not a translation of the Greek text of a canonical source. ↩