(Luke 8:26) Why do some manuscripts say “Gerasenes” while others say “Gadarenes,” raising questions about the account’s historical accuracy?

Manuscript Variation and Geographic Names

Luke 8:26 reads, “Then they sailed to the region of the Gerasenes, across the lake from Galilee.” However, certain manuscripts feature “Gadarenes” instead of “Gerasenes.” This discrepancy has led to questions about the precise location and the historical accuracy of the account. Yet a closer study of the manuscript tradition, the geography of the region, and parallel Gospel passages offers a coherent explanation that upholds the reliability of the text.

Geographical Background of Gerasa and Gadara

Gerasa (modern Jerash) was a prominent Decapolis city situated roughly thirty miles southeast of the Sea of Galilee, while Gadara (near modern Umm Qais) lay about six miles southeast of the Sea of Galilee. Both cities were influential centers in the region called Decapolis—a league of ten Hellenistic cities. Because the Decapolis covered a large swath of territory east of the Jordan River and the Sea of Galilee, regional names sometimes overlapped.

For ancient writers (and for New Testament authors), it was not unusual to associate a broader region with the name of its most prominent local city, whether Gerasa or Gadara. Thus, someone could refer to roughly the same territory by more than one city name depending on which city was more renowned or which boundary was in view.

Parallel Passages and Regional Descriptors

The parallel Gospel accounts indicate how this same region was described variably:

• Mark 5:1 states: “They went across the sea to the region of the Gerasenes.”

• Matthew 8:28 says: “When Jesus arrived on the other side in the region of the Gadarenes…”

These references show that both “Gerasenes” and “Gadarenes” appeared across the manuscripts and in different Gospel accounts. Because both Gerasa and Gadara were part of the same Decapolis area, the mention of either city can refer to a general eastern territory adjacent to the Sea of Galilee. The Gospels often identify events using notable city names in that region, even if the main city was not right on the shoreline.

Manuscript Evidence and Textual Tradition

1. Early Manuscripts: Some of the earliest Greek manuscripts prefer “Gerasenes” in Luke 8:26. There are also strong manuscript lines that opt for “Gadarenes,” indicating that both readings have deep historical roots.

2. Copyist Tendencies: Ancient copyists sometimes smoothed out geographical references, choosing a name of a city that was better known or believed to be closer to the location being described. This could explain shifts to “Gadarenes,” since Gadara is geographically nearer the Sea of Galilee than Gerasa.

3. Scribes and Harmonization: In the interest of harmonizing Luke’s account with Matthew or Mark, copyists may have introduced or replaced one name for another. Over time, such variations would appear in the manuscripts used in different church regions.

Archaeological Insights

Archaeological research in the vicinity of both sites attests to the extensive boundaries of each Decapolis city:

• Gadara (Umm Qais) included farmland, tombs, and settlements extending toward the shoreline. Artifacts and inscriptions confirm a thriving metropolitan area that oversaw smaller villages along the Sea of Galilee.

• Gerasa (Jerash), though more distant, still influenced an expansive region because of trade routes. Excavations reveal robust fortifications and structures, showing it was a significant cultural and commercial hub.

These findings support the notion that either city name might be used to indicate domain over a broad hinterland. Despite the distance, Gerasa was nonetheless recognized throughout the Decapolis, making it possible for scribes or Gospel writers to use “the region of the Gerasenes” as a legitimate descriptor.

Consistency in the Gospel Narrative

The small variation of “Gerasenes” vs. “Gadarenes” does not interfere with the main event in Luke 8—the dramatic healing of a demon-possessed man. In every variant, the location is a Gentile area east of the Sea of Galilee. The core historical claim remains: Jesus goes to a region across the lake, encounters a possessed man near tombs, and miraculously delivers him.

Addressing Historical Accuracy Concerns

1. Multiple Name Usage: In antiquity, multiple names often referred to overlapping territories, sometimes using a major city name to describe an entire region.

2. Geographical Oversight?: Calling the region “Gerasenes” is not a historical oversight. The Decapolis bound Gerasa to much of the area east of the Sea of Galilee, even if the shoreline was more immediately in Gadara’s sphere.

3. Reliability Upheld: Because both names are firmly rooted in the region’s geography, neither term undermines the historical integrity of Luke’s Gospel. Textual studies consistently show that small variations rarely affect major historical claims.

Historical and Cultural Parallels

Writings from the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (ca. 37–100 AD) reference Gadara as significant within the Decapolis, noting the city’s broad influence over surrounding districts (cf. Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, 4.7.3). Early Christian writers like Eusebius (ca. 260–340 AD) recognized these cities in his Onomasticon, describing how the territory under the Decapolis extended inland.

These external ancient sources align with the New Testament’s depiction of a multi-city region. They confirm that readers in the first or second century would not be surprised to hear Matthew speak of “Gadarenes” and Mark or Luke of “Gerasenes” because both cities possessed well-known cultural and administrative significance.

Conclusion: Harmonizing the Variant Readings

Whether “Gerasenes” or “Gadarenes” appears in one’s copy of Luke 8:26, the account remains consistent regarding the broader territory east of the Sea of Galilee. From a manuscript perspective, both readings are well attested, and from a historical perspective, both city names accurately reflect overlapping domains in the Decapolis.

No contradiction arises from these minor geographic variations. They demonstrate the authenticity of firsthand or early accounts that pointed to the same event, providing independent word choices reflecting how widespread city names could be used to describe nearby territories. This minor variation does not overturn the reliability of Scripture. Rather, it showcases how regional names in the ancient Near East could interchangeably designate a shared locale.

These textual, geographical, and archaeological factors reinforce that the Gospel writers testified accurately to real locations, real encounters, and real events—upholding the continued integrity and historical credibility of Luke 8:26.