Healing of two blind men at Jericho. (Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43.) The miracle narrated in this passage is common to the three synoptists, but with some remarkable differences, not one of them agreeing altogether in details.
St. Matthew speaks of two blind men, St. Luke and St. Mark of one only, and the latter mentions this one by name as Bartimaeus. St. Matthew and St. Mark make the miracle performed as Jesus quitted Jericho; St.
Luke assigns it to the approach to the city. Thus the number of the cured and the locality of the miracle are alike variously stated. It is an easy solution to say, with St. Augustine, Lightfoot, and Greswell, that two, or perhaps three, distinct facts are here related; and it is not absolutely impossible.
though altogether improbable, that in the same locality, under identical circumstances, like sufferers made the same request, and received the same relief in the same manner. But we are not driven to this extravagant hypothesis; and the unity of the narrative can be preserved without doing violence to the language of the writers.
As to the number of the blind men, we have seen the same discrepancy in the case of the demoniacs at Gadara solved by supposing that one of the two was the more remarkable and better known than the other.
Hence, in this incident, the tradition followed by some of the synoptists preserved the memory of this one alone, who may have become known in the Christian community as a devoted follower of Jesus, the other passing into obscurity and being heard of no more.
Another hypothesis is that a single blind man first addressed Christ as he entered Jericho, but was not cured at that time. Jesus passed that night in the city at the house of Zacchreus (Luke 19:1-10); and on the morrow, when leaving Jericho, was again entreated by the blind man, who meantime had been joined by a companion, and healed them both.
There are other solutions offered, e.g. that there were two Jerichos—an old and a new town—and that one blind man was healed as they entered one city, dud the other as they left the other; or that the term rendered "was come nigh" (Luke 18:35) might mean "was nigh," and might therefore apply to one who was leaving as well as to one entering the city.
But we weary ourselves in vain in seeking to harmonize every little detail in the Gospel narratives. No two, much less three, independent witnesses would give an identical account of an incident, especially one which reached some of them only by hearsay.
Inspiration extends not to petty circumstances, and the credibility of the gospel depends not on the rectification of such minutiae.