186 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



The really important points to be noticed, however, in the nar- 

 rative of the first Gospel, are these — that there are two possessed 

 men instead of one ; and that while the story is abbreviated by 

 omissions, what there is of it is often verbally identical with the 

 corresponding passages in the other two Gospels. The most un- 

 abashed of reconcilers can not well say that one man is the same 

 as two, or two as one ; and, though the suggestion really has been 

 made, that two different miracles, agreeing in all essential particu- 

 lars, except the number of the possessed, were effected immedi- 

 ately after the storm on the lake, I should be sorry to accuse any 

 one of seriously adopting it. Nor will it be pretended that the 

 allegory refuge is accessible in this particular case. 



So, when Dr. Wace says that he believes in the synoptic evan- 

 gelists' account of the miraculous bedevilment of swine, I may 

 fairly ask which of them does he believe ? Does he hold by the 

 one evangelist's story, or by that of the two evangelists ? And 

 having made his election, what reasons has he to give for his 

 choice ? If it is suggested that the witness of two is to be taken 

 against that of one, not only is the testimony dealt with in that 

 common-sense fashion against which theologians of his school 

 protest so warmly ; not only is all question of inspiration at an 

 end, but the further inquiry arises, after all, is it the testimony of 

 two against one ? Are the authors of the versions in the second 

 and the third Gospels really independent witnesses ? In order to 

 answer this question, it is only needful to place the English ver- 

 sions of the two side by side, and compare them carefully. It will 

 then be seen that the coincidences between them, not merely in 

 substance, but in arrangement, and in the use of identical words 

 in the same order, are such, that only two alternatives are con- 

 ceivable: either one evangelist freely copied from the other, or 

 both based themselves upon a common source, which may either 

 have been a written document, or a definite oral tradition learned 

 by heart. Assuredly, these two testimonies are not those of inde- 

 pendent witnesses. Further, when the narrative in the first 

 Gospel is compared with that in the other two, the same fact 

 comes out. 



Supposing, then, that Dr. Wace is right in his assumption that 

 Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote the works which we find attrib- 

 uted to them by tradition, what is the value of their agreement, 

 even that something more or less like this particular miracle oc- 

 curred, since it is demonstrable, either that all depend on some 

 antecedent statement, of the authorship of which nothing is known, 

 or that two are dependent upon the third ? 



Dr. Wace says he believes the Gadarene story; whichever 

 version of it he accepts, therefore, he believes that Jesus said what 

 he is stated in all the versions to have said, and thereby virtually 



