Robert said
Thank you, again, for this example of Matthew’s concise revisionary style:

Καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς Ἰεριχώ. Καὶ ἐκπορευομένου αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ Ἰεριχὼ καὶ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ ὄχλου ἱκανοῦ ὁ υἱὸς Τιμαίου Βαρτιμαῖος, τυφλὸς προσαίτης, ἐκάθητο παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν. καὶ ἀκούσας ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζαρηνός ἐστιν ἤρξατο κράζειν καὶ λέγειν· υἱὲ Δαυὶδ Ἰησοῦ, ἐλέησόν με. καὶ ἐπετίμων αὐτῷ πολλοὶ ἵνα σιωπήσῃ· ὁ δὲ πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἔκραζεν· υἱὲ Δαυίδ, ἐλέησόν με. καὶ στὰς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· φωνήσατε αὐτόν. καὶ φωνοῦσιν τὸν τυφλὸν λέγοντες αὐτῷ· θάρσει, ἔγειρε, φωνεῖ σε. ὁ δὲ ἀποβαλὼν τὸ ἱμάτιον αὐτοῦ ἀναπηδήσας ἦλθεν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν. καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· τί σοι θέλεις ποιήσω; ὁ δὲ τυφλὸς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ραββουνι, ἵνα ἀναβλέψω. καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὕπαγε, ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε. καὶ εὐθὺς ἀνέβλεψεν καὶ ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ.

Καὶ ἐκπορευομένων αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Ἰεριχὼ ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ ὄχλος πολύς. καὶ ἰδοὺ δύο τυφλοὶ καθήμενοι παρὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ἀκούσαντες ὅτι Ἰησοῦς παράγει, ἔκραξαν λέγοντες· ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς, [κύριε,] υἱὸς Δαυίδ. ὁ δὲ ὄχλος ἐπετίμησεν αὐτοῖς ἵνα σιωπήσωσιν· οἱ δὲ μεῖζον ἔκραξαν λέγοντες· ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς, κύριε, υἱὸς Δαυίδ. καὶ στὰς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐφώνησεν αὐτοὺς καὶ εἶπεν· τί θέλετε ποιήσω ὑμῖν; λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· κύριε, ἵνα ἀνοιγῶσιν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἡμῶν. σπλαγχνισθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἥψατο τῶν ὀμμάτων αὐτῶν, καὶ εὐθέως ἀνέβλεψαν καὶ ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ.

Matthew, despite his own additions, tells the story with 79 words compared with Mark’s 123 words, ie, a reduction in word count of 38%.  

But Mark being more wordy than Matthew was never in question. The question is whether this indicates Mark adding to Matthew or Matthew subtracting from Mark. 

The section “καὶ φωνοῦσιν τὸν τυφλὸν λέγοντες αὐτῷ· θάρσει, ἔγειρε, φωνεῖ σε. ὁ δὲ ἀποβαλὼν τὸ ἱμάτιον αὐτοῦ ἀναπηδήσας ἦλθεν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν.” isn’t in Luke either. But it can’t be said that this was removed because it was too wordy or careless in word placement. There’s nothing wrong with it, but it surely looks like an addition to Matthew/Luke rather than both subtracting for no particular reason.

And what do you think of “And they come to Jericho and as he was leaving Jericho … “? is this not a little embarrassing for Markan priority? 

Coimbra1982 said

Allright, let me humbly engage in this discussion.

Obviously the same story cannot have taken place while Jesus left Jericho but also approached it. So is there a contradiction in the Bible or can this be explained? I´m not sure, but one thing I am sure indeed, that it cannot contradict one another. But here are 2 main answers that are usually cited:

1) that this was 2 different healings. This answer is not supported by the texts. Close examination regarding the details show the accounts are far too similar including the same wordings spoken by the begger/s  clearly show that all three are referring to the same healing.

To dismiss these as separate healings is disingenuous and those honest enough can see straight through this dismissal as such. This is not the answer at all.

2) There were 2 different Jerichos at the time of Jesus. The old Jewish city and the newer Roman one not far away. Matthew and Mark referred to Jesus leaving the Jewish city while Luke refers to the approaching the Roman city. There are many that postulate this theory I would suggest a proper study into the plausibility of this claim. Although this may answer the question I do not believe that this is what is in reference in these verses.

There is in fact another answer, one that I think much better suits the texts.

I am not really sure, but I do believe that they are the exact same event and I also believe they are the exact same Jericho. I also believe that all 3 are in reference to Jesus LEAVING Jericho.

This point is not in question when it comes to Matthew and Mark, but what about Luke. Luke says that it was as Jesus approached Jericho not leaving it.  

I think any book can be interpreted in such a way as to be non self-contradicting. So if usual interpretations of bible passages can be found to maintain consistency its not particularly impressive.

Better instead to see the contradictory accounts as supporting a historical journey of Jesus from Jericho to Jerusalem with contemporary claims of healing along the way.