Was Jesus Leaving or Entering Jericho When He Healed Bartimaeus?

[lunarWood]

The relevant passages in the synoptic Gospels are Mt. 20:29, Mk. 10:46, and Lk. 18:35.

I stand unsatisfied with the following reconciliations:

• Calvin: Bartimaeus indeed cried out when Jesus drew near Jericho, but he wasn’t heard because of the crowd. To keep the account clear, Luke bypassed the record of Jesus’ stay in Jericho (which is Lk. 19), and when Jesus was finally departing, Bartimaeus was able to place himself in the way, to cry out, and was finally received by Christ.
  • Weakness: Luke’s account seems to be a continuous event with no break. Jesus would stay at Zacchaeus’ house that night and depart the next day. In order for Barimaeus to place himself in the way on Jesus’ way out of the city, he had to hear of Jesus’ departure and get ahead of the crowd (as a blind man).
• Lenski: The account occurred when Jesus, having met Zacchaeus after He had gone out of the city, was now returning to the city to stay at Zacchaeus’ house.
  • Weakness: This does not solve the difficulty. If Jesus’ met Bartimaeus in this manner (returning into the city), then in no way did the account occur when “he was leaving Jericho,” since He would then very much be entering the city.
• Chadwick: He mentions this is the most difficult account to reconcile among the synoptics. But Chadwick himself offers no solution.

I am more comfortable with Matthew Henry’s. However, I am no expert in Greek, so I am not sure how much weight I can put on Henry’s translation. I am not aware of any translation that renders “when he was near Jericho”:

• Henry: The phrase in Lk. 18:35, ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν αὐτὸν, is saying when he was near, and so is ambiguous to whether Jesus was entering or departing.

Since Chadwick mentioned that this is the most difficult account, I thought it’s worth posting this. I tried searching out past posts on this, but only found Ed’s reposting of Lenski’s explanation.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

I wasn't even aware of this difficulty in harmonizing the synoptic Gospels.

I looked up Poole and he seems to side with Calvin. He essentially says that Luke doesn't specify that Christ healed Bartimaeus immediately, leaving open the idea that he followed Christ out of Jerusalem as He was leaving. This doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility.

Hendriksen contents himself with not knowing and not being able to reconcile the difficulties with the given data, and rests in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture. I see wisdom in this.

I'll have to read up on this more! Thanks for bringing it up!

 

[lunarWood]

I just did a bit more digging, and the notes in the NET on Lk. 18:35 reads, “It is also possible the term merely means ‘is in the vicinity of.’”

 

[Christodulus]

“he was near” does not appear a viable interpretation. First, if such a meaning was accessible, it surely would have been preferred by far more commentators. Second, the underlying Greek word appears 42 times in the New Testament, and all of them carry the sense of approaching.

 

[lunarWood]

“he was near” does not appear a viable interpretation. First, if such a meaning was accessible, it surely would have been preferred by far more commentators. Second, the underlying Greek word appears 42 times in the New Testament, and all of them carry the sense of approaching.

Noted. I won’t die on that particular interpretation.