There is no such thing as THE natural reading of a text. There are usually many natural readings of a text. Reference to THE natural reading is usually a reference to the reading that the writer prefers for his or her own philosophical purposes. I’m not saying that that’s what you are up to here roohif, I’m criticizing the locution, not you.

“Neither the detailed description of the demoniac, nor the conversation with Jesus make sense if there are two demoniacs.”

Not sure what aspect of the conversation with Jesus you are referring to here. It seems obvious to me that both accounts only summarize what went on between the demons and Jesus. So different accounts are liable to include the details that are best suited to emphasize what they want to emphasize.

It is highly likely that the details regarding the two demoniacs differed. If only one of the demoniacs showed any inclination to follow Jesus, it is also likely that the apostles had no later access to the other former demoniac to learn his details. An account that mentions both demoniacs, but spells out the details of only one of them because the other demoniac had no later acquaintance with the apostles would probably be pretty complicated. This would explain why Matthew, concerned to get the number of the demoniacs right, did not refer to any of those details. It also explains why Mark, concerned to spell out the details for the one demoniac that was better known to the apostles, left out the other demoniac.

Omission and additions of details are common to these accounts. Only if one does not believe the truthfulness of the accounts does this pose a problem.

The main difficulty is a grammatical one. The use of the plural and singular pronouns in the two differing accounts. “us,” Matthew 8:29, “. . . art thou come hither to torment us before the time?” And “me,” Mark 5:7, “. . . that thou torment me not.” Luke 8:28, “. . . torment me not.”

The fact that plural pronouns in the Greek are used in a less personal way, would be a reason to limit an account to one of the individuals. (As “ye” in Matthew 24:33. “Thee” and “ye” in John 3:7. And “we” as in 1 Corinthians 15:51.) The plural being used to refer to others beyond the group or individuals being addressed.

I also reject the idea that both Mark and Luke simplified the narrative by removing one demoniac, since both passages are much longer than Matthew’s account. Neither the detailed description of the demoniac, nor the conversation with Jesus make sense if there are two demoniacs.

The evidence for Matthean embellishment is strong – the blind men at Jericho seems too much of a coincidence.

That said, I can’t think of a reason why Matthew would embellish these accounts – I am guessing there is some prophetic reference in the OT that is a little obscure … ?

If you are right, and you are assuming Markan priority, then you’ve ruled out your most promising explanation of why Matthew would add a second demoniac. The remaining explanations are that Matthew added the second demoniac…:

1)…because exorcising two demoniacs is more impressive than exorcising one.

2)…to make up for not telling about the exorcism of an earlier demoniac.

Neither of these reasons for adding the second demoniac are very good. I’m not sure which is worse.

For starters, the second demoniac doesn’t really demonstrate any additional power in Christ. But there is more to say. Maybe it’s just me, but I find Mark’s account far more impressive because it so vividly describes the terrible bondage in which the Legion held their victim(s) and from which Christ freed him. Matthew says next to nothing about that. Apart from making the demoniac(s) live in the tombs, you might think that demon-possession was not a big deal.

I don’t know where to start with alternative #2. According to that alternative, Matthew is trying to remedy the fact that he overlooked an earlier demoniac. Clearly, there is another, better, remedy for that oversight: don’t overlook the other demoniac…tell his story also.

On the other hand, if Matthew is first, then there were two demoniacs, and Luke and Mark edited out one of them. This doesn’t seem as hard to explain. In fact, we may even have an explanation in Mark 5:18 where the demoniac begs to follow Jesus. Perhaps the second demoniac is not mentioned by Mark because that demoniac did not try to follow Jesus.

I’m still not convinced that this account (assuming Matthean priority) harmonizes the passages. But I’m warming up to it.

Matthew’s account is very similar to Mark’s in its language, suggesting close dependence. It isn’t another account of the incident, it’s the same account with an extra demoniac.

Interestingly, Matthew’s account is much shorter than Mark’s and Luke’s. Compared to Mark’s, Matthew heavily cuts the description of the demoniac (which contains lots of singular pronouns), heavily cuts the conversation between Jesus and the man (which contains lots of singular pronouns), includes the conversation with the demons and the demise of the swine in full (no singular references to the man there), heavily cuts the reaction of the locals (lots more singular references to the demoniac), and omits completely the response of the man (lots more problematic singular references).

If Matthew had started with Mark’s account but wanted to add a second demoniac, cutting as many of the singular references to the original demoniac as possible while leaving everything else untouched would have been an easy way to do it, and would have resulted in exactly what we read in Matthew.

If Matthew had been working from memory, but only half-remembered Mark, it would be surprising for him to remember the sections that work with a second demoniac so well, and the sections that don’t so poorly.

This looks to me like deliberate editing with full access to the text, rather than accidental divergence due to limited access to the text, particularly given that this isn’t the only case where Matthew adds an extra character.

Still, the explanation you get from Matthean priority seems much more natural in this case.

Well. The suggestion that Matthew had read Mark – but didn’t actually have the text before him at that particular moment – seems within reason.

The idea that Matthew would add a second demoniac or a second blind man to make up for one he’d left one out seems like quite a stretch. It’s not like readers would be keeping a demoniac score card or something. At least Allen doesn’t argue that Matthew added a second donkey to make up for the donkey he’d left out ;-).

And arguing from an assumption of Markan priority that, in essence, (the author of) Matthew didn’t consult Mark seems somehow self-stultifying.

On the other hand, if Matthew is first, it makes some sense (though doesn’t make me particularly happy as an inerrantist) to say that Luke and Mark just left out the extra demoniac and extra blind man for narrative purposes.

Unlike demoniacs-living-in-tombs-whose-demons-are-cast-into-swine-who-run-headlong-into-the-sea, blind men were more prevalent. I’m more willing to suppose that there are multiple healings of blind men in the Gospels. There may even be multiple healings of blind men on the road to or on the road from Jericho. So I view this as a more serious problem than the blind men near Jericho.

1. The author of Matthew, summarising Mark, was perhaps relying on memory and did not bother to unroll the gospel all the way to Mark 5.

2. The author of Matthew had already omitted one story of a demoniac (I imagine this means Mark 1:23ff) and so adds a second one here to compensate. A similar explanation applies to the two blind men at Jericho (since the author of Matthew omits Mark 8:22-26).