Historical Commentary Two chiastic structures make up this pericope. The structure of the first one is tricky but appears to be Markan, now that I have unravelled it. However, the opening A bracket is wordy and very unMarkan. In most of the pericopes where there is a serious action, the writer opens and closes with concrete location changes. Here the redactor substituted Jesus explaining a miracle to his disciples before he actually did it, quite unusual in Mark. For example, in Mark 5 he raises the dead girl but does not explain to his disciples that he will attempt such an act. Additionally, the location is not specified, and the phrase "in those days" is used, which seems to put some distance between the writer and the time of the action, something that the writer of Mark does not normally do either. In short, while the rest of the structure is Markan, the A bracket has been extensively tampered with. The second structure seems quite normal for Mark, a typical ABBA chiasm with a saying in the center. A In those days, when again a great crowd had gathered, and they had nothing to eat, he called his disciples to him, and said to them, "I have compassion on the crowd, because they have been with me now three days, and have nothing to eat; and if I send them away hungry to their homes, they will faint on the way; and some of them have come a long way." B And his disciples answered him, "How can one feed these men with bread here in the desert?" C And he asked them, "How many loaves have you?" D They said, "Seven." E A And he commanded the crowd to sit down on the ground; and he took the seven loaves, and having given thanks he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people; B and they set them before the crowd. E A And they had a few small fish; and having blessed them, he commanded that these also should be set before them. B And they ate, and were satisfied; D and they took up the broken pieces left over, seven baskets full. C And there were about four thousand people. B And he sent them away; A  and immediately he got into the boat with his disciples, and went to the district of Dalmanu'tha. A And he sent them away; and immediately he got into the boat with his disciples, and went to the district of Dalmanu'tha. B The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven, to test him. B And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, "Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation." A And he left them, and getting into the boat again he departed to the other side. Also taken from the Elijah-Elisha Cycle (see discussion on 6:35-44), and unhistorical. Some exegetes see 8:12 as evidence of later interpolation as it appears to contradict the miracle tradition in the Gospel, although its source seems to be Paul, and thus, in accord with the normal practices of the writer of Mark. There is no support for historicity anywhere in this pericope.

Historical Commentary Malbon (1993) points out that this passage actually forms a tryptich of three events that take place on the sea, the Stilling of the Storm, a Water Walk, and a Conversation. A chiasm can be constructed, but it makes no sense at all, merely an artistic arrangement of the sentences. The less said about it, the better. The writer of Mark never had a hand in this one. A And he left them, and getting into the boat again he departed to the other side. B Now they had forgotten to bring bread; and they had only one loaf with them in the boat. C And he cautioned them, saying, "Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod." D And they discussed it with one another, saying, "We have no bread." E And being aware of it, Jesus said to them, "Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" E They said to him, "Twelve." D "And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" C And they said to him, "Seven." B And he said to them, "Do you not yet understand?" A And they came to Beth-sa'ida. And some people brought to him a blind man, and begged him to touch him. The pericope is invention based on fictional events in Mark 6 and previously in this chapter. It is entirely unhistorical, being derived from previous supernatural events.  There is wide disagreement on how to interpret this parable, which Donahue and Harrington (2002, p253-54) describe as "enigmatic." For historical purposes, nothing in this pericope supports historicity.

Historical Commentary This account shares many similarities with the healing of the blind man in Mark 7:31-7. Not only is spitting and touching common to both, the opening and closing are similar. Both make a common reference to Isaiah 35:5-6 (Donahue and Harrington 2002, p258). The vocabulary is also similar (Meier 1994, p691). The overall context of healing and reversal of (ill) fortune is associated with the kingdom of justice in many ancient Near Eastern traditions (Thompson, 2005). A number of apologetic magazines have claimed that this is a proven miracle, based on v24, which they argue reflects a real experience of recovered sight. One version of this can be found in "Modern sciences helps us understand a puzzling miracle" (Russell Grigg, Creation 21(4):54-55). Unfortunately this is a classic example of mistaking detail for evidence of historicity. Case studies of agnosics show that there is no way that newly-recovered sight could express itself as men looking like trees walking, unless one wants to postulate a second miracle, in which the man's visual processing system was also completely updated (that would invalidate the argument that the 'men like trees walking' is a naturalistic sign of historicity). The pericope does not in fact state that the blind man was blind from birth, and Donahue and Harrington (2002, p256) point out that the fact that he could tell the difference between humans and trees indicates that he was not. The ancients could heal certain types of blindness, and treat glaucomas by surgery, and were familiar with the idea of recovered sight. The presence of this detail is a signal that, contrary to the thinking of many, a high level of detail does not indicate historicity.  The story has been redacted and may even be an addition to the gospel text; there is a high concentration of unique vocabulary in the central three verses (Meier, p741-2). Taylor (1996, p368-9) and Beavis (1989, p123) are among many who have argued that this is a doublet of the earlier healing of the deaf-mute in 7:31-37. Not only is the Greek of the two stories similar, but both stories take place in great privacy, spittle is used, hands are laid on, the cure takes place in stages, and the healed person is told to keep it a secret. Additionally, this closely parallels the next pericope as well. Beavis (1989) lays out the structural similarities between this pericope and the next one: Structure (after Beavis 1989, p121) Mark 8:22-26 Mark 8:27-30 Setting 22: And they came to Beth-sa'ida. And some people brought to him a blind man, and begged him to touch him. 27: And Jesus went on with his disciples, to the villages of Caesare'a Philip'pi; First Attempt 23: And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the village; and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands upon him, he asked him, "Do you see anything?" and on the way he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that I am?" First Response 24: And he looked up and said, "I see men; but they look like trees, walking." 28: And they told him, "John the Baptist; and others say, Eli'jah; and others one of the prophets." Second Attempt 25: Then again he laid his hands upon his eyes; 29: And he asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Second Response ....and he looked intently and was restored, and saw everything clearly. Peter answered him, "You are the Christ." Command 26: And he sent him away to his home, saying, "Do not even enter the village." 30: And he charged them to tell no one about him. I have constructed a tenative chiasm for this pericope. The center is arguably Markan. A And they came to Beth-sa'ida. And some people brought to him a blind man, and begged him to touch him. B And he took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the village; C A and when he had spit on his eyes and laid his hands upon him, he asked him, "Do you see anything?" B And he looked up and said, "I see men; but they look like trees, walking." C A Then again he laid his hands upon his eyes; B and he looked intently and was restored, and saw everything clearly. B And he sent him away to his home, saying, "Do not even enter the village." A And Jesus went on with his disciples, to the villages of Caesare'a Philip'pi; and on the way he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that I am?" This pericope contains signs of Markan redaction ("Do not even enter the village"), magical procedures common in Mediterranean magical systems (Aune, cited in Crossan 1991, p325, see also Morton Smith). Structurally the healing of the blind man serves to set off the next pericope, in which the disciples' "blind" eyes are opened to the real identity of Jesus as the Messiah. An interesting note is that Jesus is never mentioned in this passage. Denis Nineham (1963) identified a parallel in an inscription to the Greek healing god Asclepios at Epidaurus, which says that after a certain Alcetas of Halice was cured of blindness, the first thing he saw were trees. There is no way to demonstrate that the writer of Mark was aware of this inscription. The Bethsaida section (see notes to Mark 6:45) ends here. See the Excursus on Mark without Bethsaida for further information. Paul Achtemeier's proposed set of 5 parallel miracle stories also terminates here. A number of exegetes have noted the constructed nature of this passages. Not only are there five parallel miracles, but one set occurs on Jewish soil and the other on Gentile. F. F. Bruce (1943) observes: "These two feedings belong respectively to two parallel series of similar incidents, one series being enacted on Jewish soil, the other on Gentile soil to the north and east of Galilee. The incidents are selected in order to show how Jesus repeated on this occasion among the Gentiles acts which He performed among the Jews." Due to the presence of the supernatural, literary structures on several levels, and conventional magical formulae, nothing in this pericope supports historicity.

Historical Commentary According to most exegetes, structurally, the Gospel makes a transition to a new part with this pericope. Hence, in most exegetical schemes, this is one of most important pericopes in the Gospel. Davies and Johnson (1996) write: "Verses 30, 31, 32 are textbook cases of Markan redaction, and probably verses 27, 28, 33 are as well. In fact the whole of Mark 8:27-33 probably should be regarded as a Markan construction influenced conceivably by a tradition of a Petrine confession (cf. John 6:69)."  By the embarrassment criterion one can see that Jesus' insult to Peter should be historical. But Davies and Johnson (1996) point out: "In essence Mark 8:27-33 is a seeming confession that might lead toward the idea of Petrine primacy (cf. Matthew's and Luke's redaction of it) but no -- in fact we hear that it led to Jesus' condemnation of Peter as Satan. That is parody. Norman Petersen (1994) has argued that in other principal ways Mark's gospel is written as a parody of pre-existing textual traditions." and also: "In light of Mark 3:22-29, where it is the unforgivable sin to call someone Satan who has received the Spirit, when Jesus calls Peter Satan he thereby unequivocally denies the possibility that Peter has the Spirit of God." Mary Tolbert's (1989) analysis of the Parable of Sower explains why Jesus condemns Peter as Satan. Returning to Mark 4:1-20, where Satan is mentioned for the only other time in the Gospel of Mark: 15: And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown; when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word which is sown in them. By opposing the plan of God, Peter has made himself as one who becomes the victim of Satan's attempt to take away the word that has just been sown in them. Paul Danove (2003) discusses how the Greek here reveals the way in which the writer of Mark has constructed this passage: "The former context presents Jesus' question to the disciples, "But, who do you say that I am"? (8,29a) and Peter's response, "You are the Christ" (8,29b). Jesus' rebuke (e)pitima/w) of Peter and the other disciples and order that they not speak to anyone about him (8,30) negatively evaluates the disciples and, especially, Peter by directly aligning them with unclean spirits (1,25; 3,12; cf. 9,25) and the wind (4,39) which previously were rebuked."(p33) Looking at the Gospel as a whole, 8:27-33 parallels the trial before the Sanhedrin in important ways. Structure (after Beavis 1989, p117) Mark 8:27-33 Sanhedrin Trial Mark 14:53-65 Setting 27: And Jesus went on with his disciples, to the villages of Caesare'a Philip'pi; 53: And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes were assembled. First Question & Conflicting Reports and on the way he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that I am?" 28: And they told him, "John the Baptist; and others say, Eli'jah; and others one of the prophets." 55: Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none. 56: For many bore false witness against him, and their witness did not agree. 57: And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying, 58: "We heard him say, `I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'" 59: Yet not even so did their testimony agree. 60: And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?" 61: But he was silent and made no answer. Second Question & Confession 29: And he asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered him, "You are the Christ." 30: And he charged them to tell no one about him. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" 62: And Jesus said, "I am; Son of Man Saying 31: And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32: And he said this plainly.  and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." Condemnation And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. 33: But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter, and said, "Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men." 63: And the high priest tore his garments, and said, "Why do we still need witnesses? 64: You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death. 65: And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to strike him, saying to him, "Prophesy!" And the guards received him with blows. Smith (1999) points out how this pericope constitutes a recognition scene, a type scene from Greek drama. "In the Gospel of Mark the recognition scene is both anticipated and delayed in just the same way as in Greek tragedy. People begin to recognise the distinctiveness of Jesus from the beginning of his ministry...The disciples, in particular, are privy to his inside teaching...and marvelous signs. Potentially, each such episode provides them with an opportunity to recognise who Jesus is, but they fail to do so, and Jesus becomes increasingly exasperated at their lack of understanding...."(p235) An important difference, observes Smith, is that while in Greek tragedy it is the hero who accidently discovers his own identity, in Mark it is Jesus himself who initiates the recognition scene by asking the disciples who he is. Weeden (1971) observes that in the entire Gospel prior to this moment, the disciples have no idea who Jesus is and exhibit a complete inability to understand Jesus. Suddenly they have a moment of insight, fleeting, as it becomes apparent that the disciples and Jesus have a totally different idea of what messiahship might mean. Weeden also notes that until this moment there has been no clue that the Messiah is supposed to suffer and die. Mark 3:6 warns of the plot against Jesus only. It contains nothing about his messianic role. The presence of literary structures, redactive elements, and supernatural prophecy, all indicate that there is no support for historicity from this pericope.

Historical Commentary I have constructed a chiasm for this pericope: A And Jesus went on with his disciples, to the villages of Caesare'a Philip'pi; and on the way he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that I am?" B And they told him, "John the Baptist; and others say, Eli'jah; and others one of the prophets." C And he asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" D Peter answered him, "You are the Christ." E And he charged them to tell no one about him. F And he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. F And he said this plainly. E And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. D But turning and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter, and said, "Get behind me, Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men." C And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? For what can a man give in return for his life? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." B And he said to them, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power." A And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart by themselves; and he was transfigured before them, Note that it contains Mark 9:1-2. Mark is wrongly pericoped; let the discussion over 9:1 end here. The B bracket here is especially interesting. If you read Mark 9:1 against its opposite, you get another take on the identity of the "some" standing there who will not taste of death. The center is classic Markan style, where a pithy comment recapitulates or remarks on a prolix one. The long speech in the C bracket is itself a chiasm, as is so often the case in the sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark: A "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. B A For whoever would save his life will lose it; B and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. B A For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? B For what can a man give in return for his life? A For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." Note too that each of the sayings is a chiasm as well, a brilliant work of art. I've already noted Dewey's comments above on the verse in the opening bracket. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? For what can a man give in return for his life? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." This pericope is filled with supernatural prophecy and Hellenistic/Cycnic philosophical concepts. There is nothing in it that supports historicity.