There are four Gospels, and they are all slightly different because they were written by other people who either witnessed or spoke with witnesses of the same events. Some variation is natural, so it should be expected; however, the Bible remains spiritually inspired, and minor variations are not contradictions. Nevertheless, some Bible skeptics will make a big deal out of them. The story of Jesus exorcising the legion of demons is one of the most famous stories associated with Jesus. There are two men possessed by a legion of demons in Matthew 8:28-34, but only one demon-possessed man is mentioned in Mark 5:1-20 and Luke 8:26-39. Additionally, there are two blind men in Matthew 20:29-34, but only one blind person is mentioned in Luke 18:35-43, and he is identified as Bartimaeus in Mark 10:46-52. Is this a contradiction?
If I had a box facing down on a table and told one group of people that there were two balls in the box, and another group that there was a blue ball in the box, and then flipped the box over to reveal a red and blue ball, did I lie? Was there a contradiction between what one group heard and what another heard? No, I said there were two balls to the first group of people, and there were, and I said there is a blue ball in the box to the other group of people, and there was. Matthew mentions the whole picture; remember, he is an apostle, so he had both eyewitness testimony and direct access to Jesus, as well as inside information from the other apostles. Meanwhile, Mark and Luke were not apostles and relied on testimony from others so they wouldn’t have had as many details. In addition, each gospel writer had unique motives for writing their accounts, so some of them left out what they considered unnecessary information that other writers deemed necessary enough to expound upon.
There are two men in both stories, but only one is mentioned in two of the gospel accounts because the one did most of, if not all of, the talking in both cases. Mark even has more information than Luke about the blind men, as he knows the name of one of them, Bartimaeus. Perhaps he had an encounter with a Bartimaeus or a relative of Bartimaeus who told him one of the blind men’s names. Meanwhile, Luke only knew of the blind man who spoke. In the case of the demoniacs, it’s likely only one of the two said, but all the demons were exorcised from both. Since Matthew was a tax collector, meaning he was likely a numbers-oriented individual, given his role in handling money, it seems natural that he focuses on those kinds of details and makes a point to record the numerical information accurately. Meanwhile, the other gospels focus on the theological implications or the personal reactions of the people in the stories.
One may notice that in Matthew’s version of many gospel events, there is usually a more straight-to-the-point summarization. He doesn’t usually get into the details of people’s back-and-forth conversations, for example, in the story of the synagogue leader Jairus, who asked Jesus to revive his daughter. In Matthew’s account, he asked Jesus to heal his dead daughter (Matt 9:18-26). However, in Mark and Luke’s accounts, the daughter’s death is not yet known to Jairus, as he learns about it from his servants while Jesus is talking to the bleeding woman after she has been healed (Mark 5:21-43, Luke 8:40-56). Matthew’s account of that story is only eight verses long. In contrast, Mark’s account is 22 verses long, and Luke’s is 16 verses long, so Matthew is summarizing, which is why it omits the minute details about the Jairus servants telling him that his daughter is dead after Jesus heals the woman.
A unique aspect of Mark’s account is that he sometimes leaves words and phrases untranslated, perhaps for a specific linguistic effect. For instance, when Jesus revived Jairus’ daughter, he said “Talitha koum,” which means “Little girl, get up!” in Mark 5:41, but neither Luke nor Matthew left the Aramaic untranslated. Jesus called Levi (Matthew), the tax collector, to join him after his encounter with the demon-possessed men in Gadarenes. Although Matthew didn’t witness it, he obtained the information from the source or those who did witness it. However, he was there for the blind men at Jericho, as that event occurred after his call to discipleship. Mark and Luke were not apostles, and their accounts were built on the testimony of various eyewitnesses. Luke admits this at the beginning, as his Gospel account is written to an audience of one, a man named Theophilus. He gathered eyewitness testimony to clarify certain aspects for Theophilus about the other Gospels, such as the Christmas story, filling in the gaps in Matthew’s account. Mark and Luke would have heard of these stories from one of the apostles or others and used that information to write the details. Meanwhile, John would have been a witness to both of these events, but he did not focus on that in his Gospel; his Gospel was not meant to be a chronological retelling, but rather a revelation of some things Jesus did and said, and the significance of these things for believers in the future. It’s no wonder that John also wrote the book of Revelation.
One may wonder why there are four gospels anyway; wasn’t one enough? Each gospel author writes from a different perspective and for specific reasons. There are four different perspectives on the story of Jesus’ ministry. Additionally, two of these accounts (Mark and Luke) are not single eyewitness accounts, but rather a collection of eyewitness accounts. John’s Gospel is unique and highlights specific moments from Jesus’ ministry that reveal the interconnectedness of Jesus and God. As well as Jesus’ fulfillment of the law was demonstrated through his teaching during specific holidays and conversations with particular people.
Meanwhile, the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are more chronological in their narrative. Still, Mark is the shortest, and Luke includes additional parables and sermons that are not presented in a particular chronological order. Despite being different in how much they tell, they all complete one another. Luke presents Jesus from the perspective of his humanity, featuring a genealogy that traces back to Adam. Luke also wrote the book of Acts to Theophilus as a sequel to his account of the Gospel.
Meanwhile, Matthew focuses on Jesus as a new Moses, since he is ushering in a New Covenant, and Matthew lays out his account in five sections, much like the Torah. Lastly, Mark focuses on the coming of the Kingdom and emphasizes Jesus as the redeemer, delivering people from sickness and oppression by dark spiritual forces. That’s why the extended ending of this account says, “These signs will follow those who believe” (Mark 16:15-18), referring to the gifts of the Spirit being used to exorcise demons from and heal people by believers in the New Covenant, as recorded in the book of Acts. There may be more in-depth reasons for the differences in the purpose of their writings, but these are some simple observations.
Resources:
On the two blind men
Another article on the two blind men
On the two demonic men
On Contradictions in the Bible