What do we make of passages like Matthew 8:28-34, which says that Jesus healed two demon-possessed men in the country of the Gadarenes, while Mark 5:1-20 and Luke 8:26-39 record Jesus healing one? An agnostic, atheist, or even a Jew might cry, “CONTRADICTION! The Bible is false!” A closer look with some critical thinking, however, will reveal otherwise.
There are at least three reasons why I don’t think these passages are contradictory:
- In narrative accounts — even non-biblical ones — there are always different aspects of a story that authors choose to focus on. Mark and Luke focus on the man who desired to follow Jesus and the command given to him to be a missionary at home rather than a traveling one with Jesus (Mark 5:18-19; Luke 8:38-39). Matthew focuses on the fact that Jews in the nearby town rejected him by begging him to leave their region (8:34). This fits well into the context because Jesus had just said that “many will come from east and west [that is, Gentiles] and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom [that is, the Jews] will be thrown into the outer darkness” (8:11-12). Remember that Matthew’s account is the most “Jewish,” in that its goal is to present and proclaim Jesus as Israel’s Messiah.
- Mark and Luke never say that Jesus healed only one man. Both write that Jesus met “a man” who was possessed by demons. By choosing to ignore the second man mentioned in Matthew they do not deny his existence in the story. Rather, perhaps Mark and Luke focus their attention on the one because he was compelled to follow Jesus, unlike the other.
- There seems to be a difference in the particular kind of demon-possession both men experienced. Mark 5:15 says, “And [the townspeople] came to Jesus and saw the demon-possessed man, the one who had had the legion, sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, and they were afraid.” Why would Mark write “the one who had had the legion” if there was only one man healed? Wouldn’t he have just written that they “saw the demon-possessed man,” and left it at that? He would have — unless there were two men with different types of demon-possession. Further, Luke 8:30 tells us that the name of the demon in this man was “Legion,” because “many demons had entered him.” Perhaps the other man only had one or two and not a multitude. It makes sense then that the man in Mark and Luke would be the one to follow Jesus. For he loved much because he was forgiven much, “but he who is forgiven little, loves little” (Luke. 7:47).
jesus is a myth
You don’t seem to think you need to provide much evidence for why that’s true.
Why do you think he’s a myth?
“An agnostic, atheist, or even a Jew might cry, “CONTRADICTION! The Bible is false!” A closer look with some critical thinking, however, will reveal otherwise.”
I find this reference to agnostics, atheists, and Jews completely extraneous to the point of your post. You’re better off just presenting your explanation without resorting to attacking some hypothetical people for what you’ve imagined them saying about it.
Cheryl,
I apologize if I came across as polemical. However, I wasn’t criticizing anyone’s worldview (which I don’t think would be wrong; and to boot, my worldview gets critiqued daily on this blog). I didn’t actually say anything rude about those particular groups. And I am certainly not imagining that these particular groups have said what I wrote.
My intention was not to attack. My intention was to set up a framework for why this post is even important. Why do we need to figure out why Matthew says Jesus healed one man while Mark and Luke said he healed two? Because people who want to attack Christianity — atheists, agnostic, and yes, Jews — think that this would be a reason to doubt the Bible. If there wasn’t an explanation, and it was a contradiction, the Bible would be false, my faith would be in vain, and this blog would be pointless.
I’m working through apparent contradictions — contradictions that I’ve heard from these particular groups (maybe not this specific example, but these groups (and most others!) point out “contradictions” in the gospels all the time). My point is that people (especially the groups I named) go to extreme lengths to find these “contradictions” in the Bible without actually studying the text. But if we actually put our nose in text and do some digging, we’ll see that the Bible doesn’t really have contradictions after all.
I hope that explains why I wrote that.
james
Wouldn’t it be important to explain this, to further Christians’ understanding of the text, even if other groups didn’t ever attack Christianity?
Yes. But people *do* attack Christianity and the text of Scripture.
If I had just left out the particular groups and said “people,” would you have taken offense at that?
I’m saying, I think the post would be stronger if what I quoted was omitted entirely. It’s just beside the point, which is explaining how this apparent contradiction can be resolved (or at least, that’s my impression of the point of the post). Those two sentences seem to be more about casting aspersions on the critical thinking skills of atheists, agnostics, and Jews than about answering the question posed in the title.
I will readily grant you that some atheists attack Christianity on the basis of contradictions in the Bible, because I’ve seen it myself. (They attack Judaism and Islam for that reason as well, btw.) I’m not sure about agnostics – it doesn’t seem like a person whose position is “we’ll never know” is apt to go on the attack. But Jews definitely do not belong in this list. The most cursory reading of the Talmud will show that the Rabbis were well aware of the many contradictions in the Torah and applied extensive study of the text to resolve them, just the same as you are doing. That being the case, it would make no sense to criticize Christianity on that basis. Yes some Jews do criticize Christianity, but not for that. In general though, speaking as someone who’s avidly studied Judaism and Jewish writings for a few years now I have not seen criticism of other religions as something Jews are even concerned with. (I know a few years is not that long, and there’s still a ton I don’t know, but if it existed in any significant amount, I’d have encountered it by now.) There are some famous examples of debates between Jews and Christians in Renaissance Europe but they were all at the command of the Christians which made it a no-win situation for the Jews. As I think we’ve discussed before, Judaism is not an exclusivist, singular religion, so other religions really have no bearing on it. It is just not of interest that it be THE SOLE TRUTH the way Christianity needs to be in order for it to even be internally consistent, so there just is not the urge to disprove all other religions that many Christians and Muslims seem to have. You also don’t see that in Pagaism, Hinduism or Buddhism, or any other far-Eastern religions.
Anyway, if I missed the point of your post and it’s actually just for the purpose of proving wrong all those people “out there” who attack Christianity based on contradictions, I still think you ought to remove “or even a Jew”. And I think, if that really is your main point, that’s not entirely in keeping with your principles as I understand them. I say that because I genuinely respect the high standards you set for yourself, and how seriously you take living up to them.
James, your assessment is accurate except the part about “Matthew focuses on the fact that Jews in the nearby town rejected him by begging him to leave their region (8:34).”
The Scripture states in verse 33 “And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.”
The Jews had nothing to do with swine. This event happened in Decapolis which was a Gentile country composed of ten Gentile cities. This was one of the few Gentile places that Jesus visited. So it was Gentile people who begged Jesus to leave and not Jewish people.
Kurt,
Thanks for the correction. I glossed right over that while studying. I appreciate it.
How do you think that fits in with Matthew’s narrative, since it seems that Jews continually fail to see Jesus as their Messiah, and here, even Gentiles reject him?
james