Q: In Matthew 8:28, when Jesus and His disciples came to the country of the Gergesenes, two demon-possessed men met Jesus. But the parallel-accounts in Mark 5:2 and Luke 8:27 say that there was only one demoniac there. A plain contradiction, right?
A: Wrong. Mark 5:2 says that there was a demon-possessed man, and focuses on him, and so does Luke 8:27, but neither Mark nor Luke claims that there was one and only one demoniac. This point sufficiently answers any allegation of a contradiction here. If Reporter A said, The President visited New Orleans this morning, and it was true that the President had done so, that statement would not become false if Reporter B truthfully attested, The President and the First Lady visited New Orleans this morning."
However, while that approach may deflect the charge of contradiction, I think that theres more to the picture. This is not the only case where Matthew has two individuals, and the other Synoptic Gospels mention one. The case of the blind men in Matthew 20:30-34 is another example -- Mark presents one blind man and preserves his name (Bartimaeus) and Luke 18:35-43 also presents one blind man. One way of accounting for this is to posit that Matthew used some source besides the Gospel of Mark (or, besides the Gospel of Mark /as we know it/) -- which conveyed a very early and concise account of the exorcism, and an early and concise account of the healing of the blind men at Jericho. By the time Mark wrote the final draft of the Gospel of Mark, and by the time Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke, the pericopes about these demoniacs and these blind men had been tinged and influenced by the continued impact of the testimony of one of the exorcised/healed individuals, whose own accounts were used to supplement and reshape the original apostolic form of the pericope. In other words, Mark focused on the individual demoniac simply because he had more information about him, and for the same reason, Mark focused on Bartimaeus. (Then Luke adopted and adapted Marks form of the pericopes.)
Another resolution which some interpreters seem to find appealing -- is to propose that Matthews entire presentation involves a super-imposement of one of the demoniacs. In other words, Matthew took two similar accounts of two demoniac-exorcisms which historically occurred separately, and rather than arrange one account next to the other account sequentially, he made one of the accounts part of the other one. The result is sort of like what one would get if one arranged two pictures of each exorcism, painted on panes of glass, in the same frame, with one on top of the other: the arrangement is not historical, but the healings that it presents did occur, and the portraiture of Christ that it conveys is accurate. Modern reporters probably would not think of using such an approach, because modern audiences expect sequential, and not superimposed, arrangements. But Matthews original readers may have regarded such compression as nothing unusual.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
A: Wrong. Mark 5:2 says that there was a demon-possessed man, and focuses on him, and so does Luke 8:27, but neither Mark nor Luke claims that there was one and only one demoniac. This point sufficiently answers any allegation of a contradiction here. If Reporter A said, The President visited New Orleans this morning, and it was true that the President had done so, that statement would not become false if Reporter B truthfully attested, The President and the First Lady visited New Orleans this morning."
However, while that approach may deflect the charge of contradiction, I think that theres more to the picture. This is not the only case where Matthew has two individuals, and the other Synoptic Gospels mention one. The case of the blind men in Matthew 20:30-34 is another example -- Mark presents one blind man and preserves his name (Bartimaeus) and Luke 18:35-43 also presents one blind man. One way of accounting for this is to posit that Matthew used some source besides the Gospel of Mark (or, besides the Gospel of Mark /as we know it/) -- which conveyed a very early and concise account of the exorcism, and an early and concise account of the healing of the blind men at Jericho. By the time Mark wrote the final draft of the Gospel of Mark, and by the time Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke, the pericopes about these demoniacs and these blind men had been tinged and influenced by the continued impact of the testimony of one of the exorcised/healed individuals, whose own accounts were used to supplement and reshape the original apostolic form of the pericope. In other words, Mark focused on the individual demoniac simply because he had more information about him, and for the same reason, Mark focused on Bartimaeus. (Then Luke adopted and adapted Marks form of the pericopes.)
Another resolution which some interpreters seem to find appealing -- is to propose that Matthews entire presentation involves a super-imposement of one of the demoniacs. In other words, Matthew took two similar accounts of two demoniac-exorcisms which historically occurred separately, and rather than arrange one account next to the other account sequentially, he made one of the accounts part of the other one. The result is sort of like what one would get if one arranged two pictures of each exorcism, painted on panes of glass, in the same frame, with one on top of the other: the arrangement is not historical, but the healings that it presents did occur, and the portraiture of Christ that it conveys is accurate. Modern reporters probably would not think of using such an approach, because modern audiences expect sequential, and not superimposed, arrangements. But Matthews original readers may have regarded such compression as nothing unusual.
Yours in Christ,
Waterrock
