Morning blue, Me thinking that I'd find lots of passages where one gospel account added detail that corroborated another gospel account... the NIV then punked me because it adds the word "courts" to "temple", when it isn't there in the original. If you look at my original OP in your first reply you'll see what happened!
Anyway, I'd say you were stood right next to the dragon and were really scared, so you didn't notice the bonnet it was wearing; the other person was further away and therefore was less scared, so he was able to notice the bonnet.
As you say, the story could be true or fictitious, and your word embellish almost assumes it is fictitious so let's just say "detail".
Embellish, schembellish. The points made by blue etc are valid in themselves, but I can't see how in the particular instance you cited. Mark's gospel was written first, and he quotes Isaiah (Septuagint version no doubt) pretty well. Matthew then uses Mark as the basis of his own gospel, and
cuts out the bit referring to "for all nations" - for purposes of his own. In part, this is because Matthew's message is particularly directed towards Jews, though he doesn't portray them in a very rosy light.
The peculiarity of Matthew's gospel is that it seems to suggest that Jesus had a message for the Jews alone, and then at the end seems to have changed his mind and adopts a more universalist message. I'm not sure why this is so, but a number of theories have been put forward.
All in all, these matters don't go any further to sustaining your idea about each gospel corroborating each other: what they do suggest is that each evangelist had his own
agenda, through which he was quite prepared to manipulate the materials at his disposal (whether they reflected actual historical truth or not).
