Chapter LXV.—Of the Absence of Any Antagonism Between Matthew and Mark, or Between Matthew and Luke, in the Account Offered of the Giving of Sight to the Blind Men of Jericho.

125. Matthew continues thus: “And as they departed from Jericho, a great multitude followed Him. And, behold, two blind men sitting by the wayside heard that Jesus passed by, and cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David;” and so on, down to the words, “And immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed Him.”628    Matt. xx. 29–34. Mark also records this incident, but mentions only one blind man.629    Mark x. 46–52. This difficulty is solved in the way in which a former difficulty was explained which met us in the case of the two persons who were tormented by the legion of devils in the territory of the Gerasenes.630    See chap. xxiv. § 56. For, that in this instance also of the two blind men whom he [Matthew] alone has introduced here, one of them was of pre-eminent note and repute in that city, is a fact made clear enough by the single consideration, that Mark has recorded both his own name and his father’s; a circumstance which scarcely comes across us in all the many cases of healing which had been already performed by the Lord, unless that miracle be an exception, in the recital of which the evangelist has mentioned by name Jairus, the ruler of the synagogue, whose daughter Jesus restored to life.631    Mark v. 22–43. And in this latter instance this intention becomes the more apparent, from the fact that the said ruler of the synagogue was certainly a man of rank in the place. Consequently there can be little doubt that this Bartimæus, the son of Timæus, had fallen from some position of great prosperity, and was now regarded as an object of the most notorious and the most remarkable wretchedness, because, in addition to being blind, he had also to sit begging. And this is also the reason, then, why Mark has chosen to mention only the one whose restoration to sight acquired for the miracle a fame as widespread as was the notoriety which the man’s misfortune itself had gained.

126. But Luke, although he mentions an incident altogether of the same tenor, is nevertheless to be understood as really narrating only a similar miracle which was wrought in the case of another blind man, and as putting on record its similarity to the said miracle in the method of performance. For he states that it was performed when He was coming nigh unto Jericho;632    Luke xviii. 35–43. while the others say that it took place when He was departing from Jericho. Now the name of the city, and the resemblance in the deed, favour the supposition that there was but one such occurrence. But still, the idea that the evangelists really contradict each other here, in so far as the one says, “As He was come nigh unto Jericho,” while the others put it thus, “As He came out of Jericho,” is one which no one surely will be prevailed on to accept, unless those who would have it more readily credited that the gospel is unveracious, than that He wrought two miracles of a similar nature and in similar circumstances.633    [Various other solutions are suggested. Comp. Robinson’s Greek Harmony, rev. ed. pp. 234, 235.—R.] But every faithful son of the gospel will most readily perceive which of these two alternatives is the more credible, and which the rather to be accepted as true; and, indeed, every gainsayer too, when he is advised concerning the real state of the case, will answer himself either by the silence which he will have to observe, or at least by the tenor of his reflections should he decline to be silent.

CAPUT LXV. De caecis Jericho illuminatis, quemadmodum non adversetur Matthaeus vel Marco, vel Lucae.

125. Sequitur Matthaeus: Et egredientibus eis ab Jericho, secuta est eum turba multa. Et ecce duo caeci sedentes secus viam audierunt quia Jesus transiret, et clamaverunt, dicentes: Domine, miserere nostri, fili David, etc., usque ad illud ubi ait, Et confestim viderunt, et secuti sunt eum (Matth. XX, 29-34). Hoc et Marcus commemorat, sed de uno caeco factum (Marc. X, 46-52). Quae ita solvitur quaestio, ut illa soluta est de duobus, qui legionem daemonum patiebantur in regione Gerasenorum (Supra, cap. 24, n. 56). Nam duorum etiam caecorum, quos modo interposuit, unum fuisse notissimum et in illa civitate famosissimum, ex hoc etiam satis apparet, quod et nomen ejus et patris ejus Marcus commemoravit: quod in tot superius sanatis a Domino non facile occurrit, nisi cum Jairum archisynagogum 1138 etiam nomine expressit, cujus filiam resuscitavit Jesus (Marc. V, 22-43). In quo etiam magis iste sensus apparet, quia et ille archisynagogus utique in loco isto nobilis fuit. Procul dubio itaque Bartimaeus iste Timaei filius ex aliqua magna felicitate dejectus, notissimae et famosissimae miseriae fuit, quod non solum caecus, verum etiam mendicus sedebat. Hinc est ergo quod ipsum solum voluit commemorare Marcus, cujus illuminatio tam claram famam huic miraculo comparavit, quam erat illius nota calamitas.

126. Lucas vero quamvis omnino eodem modo factum, tamen in alio caeco intelligendus est par commemorare miraculum, et ejusdem miraculi parem modum. Ille quippe hoc factum dicit, cum appropinquaret Jericho (Luc. XVIII, 35-43): at isti cum egrederetur ab Jericho. Sed nomen civitatis et facti similitudo putari suadet semel esse factum: sed Evangelistas in hoc sibi adversari, quod alius dicat, Cum appropinquaret Jericho, alii, Cum egrederetur ab Jericho, non sane hoc persuadet, nisi eis qui proclivius credi volunt mentiri Evangelium, quam duo similia similiterque miracula fecisse Jesum. Quid autem sit credibilius, et quid potius verum, et omnis fidelis filius Evangelii facillime videt; et omnis contentiosus saltem cum admonitus fuerit, vel tacendo, vel etiamsi tacere noluerit, cogitando sibi ipse respondet.