There are two sets of parallel Synoptic passages in which Mark and Luke speak of a man that Jesus healed while Matthew speaks of two men. In the first, Mark and Luke record that Jesus cast demons out of a man (Mark 5:1–20; Luke 8:26–39), and Matthew speaks of Jesus casting demons out of two men (Matt 8:28–34). In the second, Jesus restores sight to whom Mark records as Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46–52; Luke 18:35–43), and Matthew again has two men who are healed (Matt 20:29–34).1
Which number is correct – one, two, or both? And why the difference in number?
The first question is relatively easy to answer. Mark and Luke said nothing incorrect, and the same may be said for Matthew. There was indeed a (that is, one) man who was a demoniac and another who was blind. Mark and Luke did not say there were more. Matthew, however, clarifies in both stories that there were two men for his own specific purpose (more below). We have to remember that, when it comes to reporting a story, the ancient authors and readers did not expect details to be given as we do today such as when we read the news. This lack of detail does not make the story historically inaccurate. It simply shows that Mark and Luke chose some details for the theological purposes of writing their Gospels, and Matthew did so for his.2
So then, why does Matthew differ?
A common answer given, which is plausible enough, is that Matthew wrote His Gospel for a Jewish audience, and when establishing the authenticity of remarkable stories, the fact that two men could attest to Jesus’ healings and not just one would have satisfied the Jewish requirement of having two witnesses to confirm something remarkable (cf. Deut 19:15; Num 35:30).3 The fact that Mark and Luke chose to focus on a representative for the two was simply because it was unnecessary to include the other of the two for the purposes of their Gospels. They were not primarily writing for Jews.
Seeming discrepancies in Scripture often find simple solutions, and one does not have to lose his belief in inerrancy over complexities such as those related to the passages above.
- To clarify, Matt 9:27–34 records a healing of two men’s sight, an instance distinct from Matt 20:29–34. Though the statements by the blind men to Jesus are similar (Matt 9:27; 20:30), as well as the fact that Jesus touched their eyes in the process of healing (Matt 9:29; 20:34), the passages obviously have significant differences. In one, Jesus is near Capernaum (cf. Matt 9:1), but in the other, He is between Jericho and Jerusalem (Matt 20:29; 21:21). In one, the blind men come to Jesus in the privacy of a house (Matt 9:28), but in the other, Jesus heals by the roadside alongside a crowd (Matt 20:29–30). In the one, the blind men went about spreading His fame (Matt 9:31), but in the other, the blind men followed Him (Matt 20:34). [↩]
- For an introductory discussion on these issues, see Andreas Köstenberger and Richard D. Patterson, Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2011), 375–82. For a more in-depth discussion of these issues, see Andreas Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2009), 143–58. [↩]
- Craig Blomberg, Matthew (NAC; Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1992), 151; John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 2005), 375. [↩]