88 PSYCHOTHERAPY : SCIENTIFIC AND RELIGIOUS chap.
material before him and because of the necessity of compressing it into a small enough space to be written on one papyrus roll ; or it may have been that he had a similar story elsewhere. On the other hand, he may have wished to avoid the demoniac's testimony to the Messiahship of Jesus. The writer of the first Gospel, a serious student of Judaism and the Talmud, as mentioned in the previous chapter states quite definitely that epilepsy is not due to i demon possession \ Matthew was well aware of this and in xvii, 14-20, where he recapitulates the Marcan story of the lad who was ' possessed by a dumb spirit ', he quite clearly speaks of the boy as an epileptic. The author of the Fourth Gospel also refrains from mentioning this incident. Thought by some critics to have been a Palestinian Jew, he shows in his Gospel a profound knowledge of Hebrew literature, and does not appear to share the belief in ' demon possession ', never referring to any such case. Mark was obviously no scholar ; he even stumbles in his Old Testament quotations. Moreover, he wrote what Peter told him and Peter was neither scholar nor critic ; but would almost certainly have accepted the popular ideas of his time. On the other hand, he may not have dictated this passage to Mark as it is clear from the narrative that he was not with Jesus in the synagogue, a fact which lends support to Crum's theory. Luke, being a physician, would be expected to have given a more accurate interpretation, but it is evident that he did not belong to the Hippo-cratic school. It is traditional that Luke was of Gentile birth and this, if true, would account for his ignorance of the Talmudic teaching.
There is another feature of this case which is of importance. After the coma the epileptic usually complains of fatigue but his psychic state seems to be better