In favour of the identification are the following points. (1) Bartholomew being a patronymic, the Dearer may easily have had another name ; (2) the Sjmoptists never mention Nathanael, St. John never mentions Bartholomew ; (3) the Synoptists in their lists place Bartholomew next to Philip, as James next to his probable caller John, and Peter (in Mt. and Lk.) next to his caller Andrew ; (4) all the other disciples mentioned in Jn l^'*-^'-' became apostles, and none of them is so commended as Nathanael ; (5) all the companions of Nathanael who are named in Jn 21" are apostles. But all these reasons do not make the identification more than probable. St. John nowhere calls Nathanael an apostle, and we are not obliged to find room for liim among the Twelve. The conjecture that lie is Matthew or Matthias (Hilgenfeld) is supported by no reasonable evidence ; and that he is John himself under a symbolical name (Spiith) is con- tradicted by Jn 2P, where the sons of Zebedee are mentioned in addition to Nathanael.
On the other hand, there is nothing against the identification : it creates no difficulty. To say that a Galiliean would have remembered Is 9', and therefore would not have asked whether any good could come out of Nazareth, is unsound criticism. A person with Is 9' in his mind, and convinced that rich blessings would come from Galilee, might nevertheless think that Nazareth was not a likely place to be the dwelling-place of the Messiali. And who can tell whether a particular Galila'an would or would not remember a particular text?
A. Plummer.
BARTIM^US (BapW^a.os).— Named only in Mk lQi6-02^ 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 Mt 20-'-*', Lk IS'^"'^. There are, however, various diver- gences between the three narratives which have caused difticulty. Thus St. Matthew, while agree- ing with St. Mark that the miracle took place on the Lord's departure from Jericho, speaks of Uvo blind men as having been healed ; but St. Luke, re- verting to the mention of a single sufferer, says his cure took place as the Lord dreiv 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 marie thee whole,' St. -Matthew tells us that it was ettected by a touch, ■ Jesus . . . touched their eyes ' ; and St. Luke
" On the possibility that there was another Bartholomew identical with the apostle Matthias, among tlie Seventy, see note by Dr. Nestle in Expos. Times, ix. [1898] p. 500 f.
assigns it to a direct command, 'Receive thy sight.' The divergences, no doubt, are very con- siderable, and have taxed the ingenuity of the harmonists both in ancient and modern times. Thus it has been supposed that St. Matthew com- bines 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 Bartimasus, 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 satis- factory. And it is better simply to content our- selves with noting the divergences between the three accounts as an additional proof of the inde- pendence of the Evangelists in matters of detail, without, however, abandoning our belief in the general 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 nmst still have been known in the tmie of the Apostles ('valde notus Aposto- loruni tempore Bartimasus,' Bengel).
It has been conjectured, indeed, that Barlimmus is not really a proper name, but a designation derived from an Aramaic root samj/a, ' blind,' so that ' Bartimaius the son of Timseua ' might mean no more than 'the blind son of a blind father' (see Lightfoot, Hoi: Heb. on Mk 10« ; and for the various deriva- tions that have been proposed, Keim, Jesus of Nazara, Eng. tr. V. p. 61 f.). But the word, as St. Maris interprets it for us, ia clearly a patronymic (cf. BnpeaXc^uccTin), and the defining clause 0 w'« T./*«i'ei; 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.-ia ; and see Swete, St. Math, 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 Bartimseus himself, we have a notable instance of a determination that resolved to let no opportunity of being healed escape it ; of a perse- verance^ that continued its efforts notwithstanding the difficulties jjlaced in its path ; of an eagernes.i that cast ofl' all that hindered its free approaoli ; 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 prai.se when the cure was complete ('followed him, glorifying God '). And if thus the narrative has much to tell us regarding Bartimseus, 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 sufl'erer even more than he asked.