Bartimaeus

Bartimae’us. (son of Timeus). A blind beggar of Jericho who, Mar 10:46, ff., sat by the wayside begging, as our Lord passed out of Jericho, on his last journey to Jerusalem.

("son of Timaeus or Timai".) A blind beggar of Jericho, who had his sight restored by Christ as He was going out of the town (Mar 10:46); Luke (Luk 18:35; Luk 19:1; Luk 19:5) describes the cure as Christ was entering Jericho the day before. Probably the beggar, with the persevering faith which characterized him, applied to Jesus first as He was entering Jericho, and renewed his petition the next day, as Jesus was leaving Jericho. Eliciting, as He was wont, first of all from the blind man the expression of his want, "What wilt thou that I shall do unto thee?" Christ next grants his prayer, and praises his faith "Receive thy sight; thy faith hath saved thee." Matthew (Mat 20:29-34) describes it, as Jesus was going from Jericho; and mentions two blind men.

Probably Bartimaeus, after applying on the day of Jesus’ entry into Jericho, was joined by the second blind man while Jesus was passing the night with Zacchaeus; so both shared in the cure on Christ’s leaving Jericho. Bartimaeus, being the more prominent, is alone mentioned by Mark and Luke; just as they mention only the colt, Matthew both the donkey (the mother) and the colt; Luke (Luk 24:4) the two angels, Matthew and Mark the one alone who spoke. Seeming discrepancies establish the independence of the witnesses and the absence of collusion. Substantial agreement of many witnesses, amidst circumstantial variety, is the strongest proof of truth. Modes of reconciling seeming discrepancies may not be the true ones, but they at least prove the discrepancies not to be irreconcilable and that they result only from our ignorance of all the facts of each case.

(Βαρτιμαῖος, for the Chald. בִּר טַמָּאַי, an son of Timmai), one of the two blind beggars of Jericho who (Mar 10:46 sq.; comp. Mat 20:30) sat by the wayside begging as our Lord passed out of Jericho on his last journey to Jerusalem, A.D. 29. Notwithstanding that many charged him to be quiet, he continued crying, “Jesus, thou son of David, have mercy on me!” Being called, and his blindness miraculously cured, on the ground of his faith, by Jesus, he became thenceforward a believer.

[Bartimae’us]

The blind beggar of Jericho, to whom the Lord gave sight. Mar 10:46.

BARTIMaeUS (Βαρτίμαιος).—Named only in Mar 10:46-52, where he is described as a blind beggar who was cured by Jesus as He left Jericho on His last journey to Jerusalem. But there can be little doubt that we have also accounts of the same miracle in the closely parallel narratives Mat 20:29-34, Luk 18:35-43. There are, however, various divergences between the three narratives which have caused difficulty. Thus St. Matthew, while agreeing with St. Mark that the miracle took place on the Lord’s departure from Jericho, speaks of two blind men as having been healed; but St. Luke, reverting to the mention of a single sufferer, says his cure took place as the Lord drew nigh to the city. And again, while St. Mark is content to describe the healing as the result of a word of comfort, ‘Go thy way, thy faith hath made thee whole,’ St. Matthew tells us that it was effected by a touch, ‘Jesus … touched their eyes’; and St. Luke assigns it to a direct command, ‘Receive thy sight.’ The divergences, no doubt, are very considerable, and have taxed the ingenuity of the harmonists both in ancient and modern times. Thus it has been supposed that St. Matthew combines the cure of one blind man at the entrance into Jericho (so St. Luke) with the cure of another at the departure from Jericho (so St. Mark), or that Bartimaeus, begging at the gate, became aware of Jesus’ entrance into the city, and, seeking out a blind companion, along with him intercepted the Saviour the next day as He was leaving Jericho, and was then healed. But it cannot be said that any such explanations are very satisfactory. And it is better simply to content ourselves with noting the divergences between the three accounts as an additional proof of the independence of the Evangelists in matters of detail, without, however, abandoning our belief in the genera trustworthiness of their narratives. There are few miracles, indeed, in the Gospel story better vouched for than the one before us, authenticated as it is by the triple Synoptic tradition and by the preciseness of the details, while the very mention of the name of the healed man has been regarded as a proof that he must still have been known in the time of the Apostles (‘valde notus Apostolorum tempore Bartimaeus,’ Bengel).

It has been conjectured, indeed, that Bartimaeus is not really a proper name, but a designation derived from an Aramaic root samya, ‘blind,’ so that ‘Bartimaeus the son of Timaeus’ might mean no more than ‘the blind son of a blind father’ (see Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. on Mar 10:46; and for the various derivations that have been proposed, Keim, Jesus of Nazara, English translation v. p. 61 f.). But the word, as St. Mark interprets it for us, is clearly a patronymic (cf. Βαρθολομαῖος), and the defining clause ὁ υἱὸς Τιμαίου is quite in the style of the Second Evangelist, though it is placed before the patronymic and not after it as usually (cf., however, v. 48; and see Swete, St. Mark, p. 228).

It is unnecessary to recall further the details of the Gospel narrative; but, from whatever point of view we regard it, it is full of instruction. Thus, in the case of Bartimaeus himself, we have a notable instance of a determination that resolved to let no opportunity of being healed escape it; of a perseverance that continued its efforts notwithstanding the difficulties placed in its path; of an eagerness that cast off all that hindered its free approach; of a faith that recognized in Jesus the Divinely-appointed Messiah (‘Thou Son of David’) before and not after the cure; and of a thankfulness that showed itself in ready obedience and triumphant praise when the cure was complete (‘followed him, glorifying God’). And if thus the narrative has much to tell us regarding Bartimaeus, no less does it throw a vivid light on the character of our Lord Himself, when we remember the sympathy with which, notwithstanding His own approaching sufferings, He regarded the beggar’s cry; the readiness with which He placed Himself at his disposal (‘What wilt thou …?’); and the saving power with which He bestowed on the sufferer even more than he asked.

Literature.—In addition to the relative sections in the well-known works on our Lord’s Miracles by Trench, Laidlaw, and W. M. Taylor, see, for the above and other homiletic details, S. Cox, Biblical Expositions, pp. 155–167, and The Miracles of Jesus by Various Authors (J. Robinson, Manchester). We may refer also to Longfellow’s poem ‘Blind Bartimaeus.’

George Milligan.

BARTIMÆUS (Mar 10:45).—A blind man whom Jesus, on His way to the last Passover, healed at the gate of Jericho—as He was leaving the city, according to Mt. (Mat 20:29) and Mk. (Mar 10:46), who condense the story of what befell at Jericho; as He approached, according to Lk. (Luk 18:35), whose fuller narrative preserves the proper order of events. Bartimæus is not a name but a patronymic (cf. Bartholomew), and St. Mark, for the benefit of his Gentile readers, gives the interpretation of it, ‘the son of Timæus.’

David Smith.

bar-ti-mē´us (Βαρτίμαιος, Bartı́maios): A hybrid word from Aramaic bar = “son,” and Greek timaios = “honorable.” For the improbability of the derivation from bar-tim’ai = “son of the unclean,” and of the allegorical meaning = the Gentiles or spiritually blind, see Schmiedel in Encyclopedia Biblica. In Mk (Mar 10:46-52) Bartimeus is given as the name of a blind beggar, whose eyes Jesus Christ opened as He went out from Jericho on His last journey to Jerusalem. An almost identical account is given by Lk (Luk 18:35-43), except that the incident occurred “as he drew nigh unto Jericho,” and the name of the blind man is not given. Again, according to Mt (Mat 20:29-34), “as they went out from Jericho” (like Mk) two blind men (unlike Mk and Lk) receive their sight. It is not absolutely impossible that two or even three events are recorded, but so close is the similarity of the three accounts that it is highly improbable. Regarding them as referring to the same event, it is easy to understand how the discrepancies arose in the passage of the story from mouth to mouth. The main incident is clear enough, and on purely historical grounds, the miracle cannot be denied. The discrepancies themselves are evidence of the wide currency of the story before our Gospels assumed their present form. It is only a most mechanical theory of inspiration that would demand their harmonization.