Q: In Matthew 20:29-30, as Jesus and the disciples leave Jericho, Matthew reports that two blind men cried out to Jesus, and that Jesus healed them. But both Mark 10:46 and Luke 18:35 say that there was only one blind man there. Isnt this a contradiction?
A: No; this is a miscitation by the objector. Neither Mark nor Luke states that there was /only/ one blind man. Mark takes the time to name the blind man he mentioned -- Bartimeus, son of Timeus. This suggests to me that Bartimeus himself was the source of this pericope (Mk. 10:46-52) in the early Christian church in Jerusalem, and as a circulating healing-story the focus was put on Bartimeus simply because it was known as his testimony. But this does not preclude the presence of another blind man at Jericho.
That sufficiently deals with the contradiction-claim. At the same time, though, I think it's worthwhile to consider the theory that Matthew has combined two historically separate incidents in which Jesus healed a blind man, by pasting Blind Man #2 into the story of Bartimeus. It seems significant to me that Matthew presents two blind men here at Jericho, and yet only one in the parallel-passages, and Matthew also presented two demoniacs at Gergesa, and the parallel-passages mention only one. In both cases, the difference may have arisen along the lines mentioned in the previous paragraph -- the focus was put on the person who preserved the pericope as his own personal testimony -- but it is also possible that Matthew knew of another blind man whom Jesus healed, who had expressed faith in Jesus like Bartimeus did, and Matthew, not wanting to entirely forget about this unnamed blind man, mentioned him here.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
A: No; this is a miscitation by the objector. Neither Mark nor Luke states that there was /only/ one blind man. Mark takes the time to name the blind man he mentioned -- Bartimeus, son of Timeus. This suggests to me that Bartimeus himself was the source of this pericope (Mk. 10:46-52) in the early Christian church in Jerusalem, and as a circulating healing-story the focus was put on Bartimeus simply because it was known as his testimony. But this does not preclude the presence of another blind man at Jericho.
That sufficiently deals with the contradiction-claim. At the same time, though, I think it's worthwhile to consider the theory that Matthew has combined two historically separate incidents in which Jesus healed a blind man, by pasting Blind Man #2 into the story of Bartimeus. It seems significant to me that Matthew presents two blind men here at Jericho, and yet only one in the parallel-passages, and Matthew also presented two demoniacs at Gergesa, and the parallel-passages mention only one. In both cases, the difference may have arisen along the lines mentioned in the previous paragraph -- the focus was put on the person who preserved the pericope as his own personal testimony -- but it is also possible that Matthew knew of another blind man whom Jesus healed, who had expressed faith in Jesus like Bartimeus did, and Matthew, not wanting to entirely forget about this unnamed blind man, mentioned him here.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
