Matthew 20:29-30 As they were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed them.  Two blind men were sitting by the road. When they heard that Jesus was passing by, they shouted, “Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David!”

Mark 10:46 They came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho, Bartimaeus the son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the road.

Luke 18:35 As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the road begging.

According to Matthew and Mark, this healing happened as they were leaving Jericho.  According to Luke, it happened as they were entering Jericho.

Like so many apparent discrepancies, this one is relatively trivial.  If unresolved, it would make little difference to the overall flow of the narrative, or detract from the miracle that is recorded.  All three Evangelists agree that it took place just outside Jericho.

(a) Some interpreters allow that there is a real, if trivial, discrepancy between the accounts.

Brooks (NAC):

‘Exact accuracy of detail simply was not the purpose of the Gospel writers, and a recognition of this fact in no way compromises the integrity of their accounts.’

Such commentators might suggest that Luke has Jesus approaching Jericho because he plans to tell of the dinner with Zacchaeus, which took place in the town (Lk 19:1-10).

(b) Others point out that there was, in fact, an old city and a new city, and so it is possible that this event occurred between the two.

So A.T. Robertson (Word Pictures):

‘It is probable that Mark and Matthew refer to the old Jericho, the ruins of which have been discovered, while Luke alludes to the new Roman Jericho. The two blind men were apparently between the two towns.’

So also the Reformation Study Bible.  Carson inclines to this explanation, as does Robert Gundry and others.

Schnabel (on Mark) notes that Jericho at that time comprised several spread-out settlements, and thinks that this may account for the difference between Luke’s account and the other two.

Blomberg (Historical Reliability), however, counters:

‘No-one reading Mark or Matthew by itself would ever guess that the old city was implied. Unless they were told otherwise, a first-century audience would automatically assume that the city an Evangelist called Jericho, in which he described throngs of people flocking to Jesus, was the new, plentifully inhabited site.’

(c) Some postulate a re-translation of Luke’s version.

So Matthew Henry:

‘Luke says it was en tō engizein auton—when he was near to Jericho, which might be when he was going out of it as well as when he was coming into it.’

Among modern interpreters, Blomberg (in Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon) cites Hiebert as suggesting that Luke’s ἐγγίζειν refers to Jesus being in a general vicinity, rather than his necessarily drawing near.  The NET offers a translation note offering this as a possibility.  Schnabel (on Mark) also mentions this theory.  But it is difficult to say why Luke would have made the alteration.

This was also the view of Calvin, and of some modern scholars, including Stanley Porter.

(d) Still others suggest that the difference between Luke’s description and that of Matthew’s and Mark’s description may be explainable by Bartimaeus’s actions.  When Bartimaeus heard of Jesus’ approach to Jericho, he followed him through the city, during which time Jesus had his encounter with Zacchaeus (Lk 19:1-10).

While not committing himself to any particular theory, Knox Chamblin notes that:

‘It may be that Luke 18:35 only sets the stage for a meeting and a healing that occurred when Jesus departed from Jericho.’

He then waited for Jesus as he left the city.  This seems to me to be possible, but conjectural.

(e)  Some interpreters seem content to leave the matter unresolved.

Licona, for example, (Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?) judges that

‘chronological precision does not appear to have been very important to ancient biographers.’

For some, these differences simply point to the limits of harmonisation:

‘The story of Jesus healing a blind man near Jericho illustrates the futility of some efforts at harmonization (Matt. 20:29–34; Mark 10:46–52; Luke 18:35–43). In Luke, Jesus heals a blind man on the way to Jericho, while in Matthew and Mark he does this on the way out of Jericho. Luke and Mark have one blind man, while Matthew has two blind men. The setting, the plea of the blind man, the rebuff of the crowd, and Jesus’ response in all three versions make it clear that it is the same story. Matthew just likes doublets and often turns ones into twos, and Luke has altered the account on an incidental detail.’  (Michael Bird, in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy)

Hendriksen thought that a solution to the problem must exist, but it is as yet unknown.

Morris briefly reviews a handful of possibilities, without expressing a firm opinion about any of them.

With regard to the differences between the accounts of the three Evangelists, the 19th-century expositor William Taylor remarks:

‘As it usual in all such cases, many hypotheses have been devised by the Harmonists, with the view of showing that there is no contradiction involved in the several accounts.  But I cannot say that I am satisfied with any one of them.  If we were in possession of all the facts as they really occurred, it is quite likely that we should see at once how all the three accounts are consistent with truth, and with each others; but as it is, I prefer to make no attempt at removing the difficulties.’

This, adds Taylor, is because all such attempts involve unnatural straining of the accounts, and also because the existence of such diversities demonstrates the independence of the Gospel writers, and shows that they did not collude in foisting a forgery upon their readers.  David Brown (JFB) makes very similar observations.

Ryle demonstrates awareness of most of the theories set out in this note, and eschews dogmatism about which, if any, might be correct.  However, he favours the explanation that:

‘the blind man began crying to our Lord as He was approaching Jericho, but was not healed until our Lord was leaving Jericho, and was accompanied by the second blind man at the time of his healing, though he was alone when he first cried.’

It is interesting that these staunch 19th-century evangelicals take a more relaxed approach than many modern inerrantists.

Craig Blomberg (Historical Reliability of the Gospels) suggests that Luke abbreviates Mark, as is his wont, leaving out the reference to Jesus leaving Jericho.  In doing so, Luke tidies up Mark’s  somewhat inelegant language according to which ‘they come to Jericho, and as he is going out of Jericho …’ (Mk 10:46).

When Luke omits the mention of Jesus departing from Jericho, we must not suppose that the miracle necessarily took place immediately following what is recorded in v35.  Luke merely records Jesus’ arrival, and then (along with Mark) records the healing that took place as Jesus exited the town.

The blind man would have sat by the roadside, as beggars customarily did, all the while (18:35), but would have realized the significance of the passing visitor only when crowds were accompanying him upon his departure (18:36). The type of gap that must be presupposed between verses 35 and 36 is hinted at by Luke’s omission of any mention of crowds as Jesus was entering, and is consistent with the type of literary abridgment that occurs throughout the Gospels.’

It might be objected, adds Blomberg, that the Zacchaeus episode took place while Jesus was passing through Jericho (Lk 19:1).  But Luke does not say that it took place after the previous miracle.  It is therefor reasonable to suppose that Luke has relocated it topically, in order to form the middle item in a series of passages, all of which record how Jesus turned conventional Jewish expectations upside down.

But why does Luke mention Jericho at all?  In Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon, Blomberg observes that in Lk 9:51-18:34 there are few geographical markers.  The situation changes markedly thereafter however.  From the reference to Jericho in Lk 18:35 onwards:

‘Luke locates each succeeding pericope in or near a specific city until Jesus and His entourage finally enter Jerusalem (Lk 18:35; 19:1, 11, 28–29). The proximity of all cities to Jerusalem (Jericho, Bethphage, and Bethany) reinforces the previously dormant emphasis of Lk 9:51 and prepares the reader for the climactic arrival in the holy capital and the events that await Jesus there.’

Geisler and Howe (When Critics Ask) consider a number of alternative explanations to be plausible:

An initial contact took place as Jesus approached Jericho (Lk 18:35).  The blind man followed Jesus through the city (he was continually asking him to heal him, vv38f), and the healing took place as Jesus was leaving Jericho.  (The objection to this interpretation – that Lk 19:1 implies that Jesus entered Jericho after healing the blind man – has been dealt with by Blomberg – see above).

There were two Jerichos – the old and the new.  So Jesus was leaving one as he entered the other.

These were two distinct events, one taking place as Jesus entered the city, and the other taking place as he left it.  Perhaps the first blind man went quickly to tell his friends.  Or, possibly, the other blind men were already situated at the other end of the city in their usual begging position.