Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:35:45.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mark VIII. 22–26: The Blind Man from Bethsaida

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

E. J. Johnson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Short Studies
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , April 1979 , pp. 370 - 383
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Taylor, Vincent, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London, 1952, 1969), p. 369Google Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., The Gospel According to Saint Mark (Cambridge, 1959), p. 254CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The argument of Synge, F. C. (‘Common Bread, The Craftsmanship of a Theologian’, Theology 75 (1972), 534)CrossRefGoogle Scholar that vii. 31–7 also describes a two-stage healing and that vii. 34a refers to the deaf-mute's initial unsuccessful attempt to speak, is unconvincing.

2 Recent studies demonstrate Matthew's familiarity with Mark viii. 22–6 and suggest that he used it to compose Matt. ix. 27–34 and xx..29–34. See Held, H. J., ‘Matthew as Interpreter of the Miracle Stories ’, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (London, 1963), p. 209 n. iGoogle Scholar; Gibbs, J. M., ‘Purpose and pattern in Matthew's use of the title “Son of David”’, N.T.S. 10 (1963–1964), 453 fGoogle Scholar.; Fuchs, A., Sprachliche Untersuchungen zu Matthäus und Lukas: Ein Beitrag zur Quellenkritik (Rome, 1971), pp. 143–5.Google Scholar

3 This theme has been discussed in detail in my Ph.D. dissertation at the University of St Andrews: ‘The Theme of Blindness and Sight in the Gospel According to Mark’ (completed 1973).

4 Cf. Bultmann, R., Die Geschichte des synoptischen Tradition (Göttingen, 1921, 1957), p. 227Google Scholar; Klostermann, E., Das Markusevangelium (Tübingen, 1950), p. 77Google Scholar; Schweizer, E., Das Evangelium nach Markus (Göttingen, 1968), p. 92Google Scholar; Kertelge, K., Die Wunder im Markusevangelium: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (München, 1970), p. 161.Google Scholar

5 See Bultmann, p. 369. For manuscript evidence see Legg, S. C. E., Nouum Testamentum Graece, Euangelium Secundum Marcum (Oxford, 1935).Google Scholar

6 Snoy, T., ‘La Rédaction marcienne de la marche sur les eaux (Mc. VI. 45–52)’, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 44 (1968), 209 n. 6Google Scholar, gives an extensive list of scholars who support this point of view.

7 See Avi-Yonah, M., ‘Bethsaida’, The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 1, 397Google Scholar. Mark's use of κώμη and πóλις elsewhere does not indicate his attitude towards their relative size since they appear in indefinite contexts (vi. 6, 36, 56, xi. 2, i. 33, 45, v. 14, xi. 19) and only refer to specific places in viii. 27, xiv. 13, 16.

8 Cf. Bultmann, p. 227; Kertelge, p. 161. Some scholars think that the reference to Bethsaida is traditional: Schmidt, K. L., Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (Berlin, 1919), pp. 207 fGoogle Scholar.; Cranfield, p. 264; Haenchen, E., Der Weg Jesu (Berlin, 1966, 1968), p. 291Google Scholar; Marxsen, W., Der Evangelist Markus (Göttingen, 1956, 1959), pp. 42f.Google Scholar, leaves the matter open.

9 Snoy, pp. 208–41.

10 Snoy, pp. 234 ff. Achtemeier, P., ‘Toward the isolation of pre-Markan miracle catenae’, J.B.L. 89 (1970), 265–91Google Scholar, builds on this interpretation and suggests that the reference to the landing in Bethsaida in viii. 22a was also in the tradition and that viii. 22–6 followed vi. ff. in a pre-Markan collection of miracles. It is more likely that viii. 22–6 circulated independently or was associated with vii. 31–7; see discussion below.

11 Snoy, pp. 231 ff., thinks that the lack of harmony between the two incidents demonstrates that Mark joined them. He points to an alleged conflict between υ. 45 and υ. 32 in which both seem to describe a journey across the sea in the same direction. Verse 32 does not specifically say, however, that Jesus and the disciples crossed the sea and it probably only refers to a short trip up the coastline (see υ. 33). The tension between υυ. 35 and 37, moreover, does not necessarily indicate that Mark joined the two pericopes. The time reference in υ. 35 may have been inserted by him in order to harmonize it with viii. i.

12 So Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Markus (Göttingen, 1967), p. 332CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Klostermann, p. 64; Schmidt, pp. 193 f.; Taylor, p. 327; Best, E., The Temptation and the Passion: The Markan Soteriology (Cambridge, 1965), p. 78Google Scholar; Schweizer, pp. 76 f. Kuhn, H.-W., Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium (Göttingen, 1971), pp. 203 fGoogle Scholar., thinks that Mark vi. 45 ff. followed vi.32 ff. but without designation of time or place.

13 It is generally agreed that both vi. 54–6 and iii. 7–12 are Markan summary statements: see Dibelius, M., From Tradition to Gospel (London, 1934), p. 224Google Scholar; Bultmann, p. 341; Taylor, pp. 225, 331; Schweizer, pp. 43, 80.

14 Nineham, D. E., Saint Mark (Harmondsworth, 1969), p. 186Google Scholar. Tagawa, K., Miracle et évangile: La Pensée personnelle de l'évangéliste Mare (Paris, 1966), p. 27Google Scholar, also considers this possibility but suggests that Mark may have inserted the reference to Gennesaret because there was an important church there.

15 Cf. Quesnell, Q., The Mind of Mark: Interpretation and Method Through the Exegesis of Mark 6: 52 (Rome, 1969), pp. 266–8, for a similar interpretation.Google Scholar

16 According to Taylor, p. 360, the identity of Dalmanoutha is unknown. The number of variant readings suggests that some of the later editors of the Markan text also found this reference difficult or unnecessary.

17 Turner, C. H., ‘Marcan Usage: Notes, Critical and Exegetical, on the Second Gospel’, J.T.S. o.s. 26 (1924–1925), 18Google Scholar; xxix (1927–1928), Taylor, pp. 372 f.; Couchoud, P.-L., ‘Notes de critique verbale sur St Marc et St Matthieu’, J.T.S. o.s. 34 (1933), 122 fGoogle Scholar.; Lohmeyer, p. 158, n. 4; Nineham, p. 219; Allen, W. C., on the other hand, The Gospel According to St. Mark, With Introduction and Notes (London, 1915), p. 116Google Scholar, prefers the reading in D.

18 Westcott, B. F. and Hort, F. J. A., The New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction (London, 1896), pp. 99 fGoogle Scholar., paragraph 140; also see Luz, U., ‘Das Geheimnismotiv und die markinische Christologie’, Z.N.W. 56 (1965), 14.Google Scholar

19 Z.N.W. lvi (1965), 14 f. See n. 21 below for references to scholars who think that υ. 26b is a Markan insertion.

20 Bultmann, p. 239, points out that the device of withdrawing from the public is characteristic of miracle stories in other literature and contends that it has nothing to do with the Messianic secret in Mark's gospel.

21 Wrede, , Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (Göttingen, 1901), p. 324Google Scholar; Taylor, p. 373; Burkill, T. A., Mysterious Revelation (Ithaca, 1963), p. 81Google Scholar; Nineham, pp. 219 f.; Kertelge, p. 161; Horstmann, M., Studien zur markinischen Christologie, Mk 8:27–9:13 als Zugang zum Christusbild des zweiten Evangeliums (Münster, 1969), p. 123.Google Scholar

22 The last two points would also apply to (b) if it were to be accepted as original.

23 Luz, p. 15. See Ebeling, H. J., Das Messiasgeheimnis und die Botschaft des Marcus-Evangelisten, B.Z.N. W. 19 (Berlin, 1939), 140 ffGoogle Scholar., who also denies that Mark is interested in the Messianic secret in this passage.

24 Scholars are generally agreed that viii. 23–5 is pre-Markan. Sundwall, , Die Zusammensetzung des Markusevangeliums (Åbo, 1934)Google Scholar, thinks that Mark has revised the verses and reconstructs the original version on the basis of readings taken from D. Taylor, p. 370 suggests that Mark may have composed viii. 22–6 on the basis of vii. 31–7, but the lack of signs of Markan redaction in vv. 23–5 and the evidence of an Aramaic Vorlage behind v. 24 indicates the non-Markan origin of these verses; see p. 376 n. 36 below.

25 See Hawkins, J. C., Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem (Oxford, 1899, 1909), p. 13Google Scholar, for a discussion of Mark's use of π⋯λιν.

26 See Taylor, pp. 368 ff. For a comparison of the healing techniques used in these miracles with other miracles in the NT and miracles in other religions see van der Loos, H., The Miracles of Jesus, Supplement Nov. T. 9 (Leiden, 1965), 31 ffGoogle Scholar., Bultmann, pp. 237 f.; for discussions of the use of spittle as a healing medium see Jacoby, A., ‘Zur Heilung des Blinden von Bethsaida’, Z.N. W. 10 (1909), 185–94Google Scholar; Bultmann, p. 237 n. 1; Strack, H. L. and Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (München, 5 vols., 1922–1928), 11, 15 fGoogle Scholar.; Schrage, W., ‘τυφλóς, τυφλóω’, T.W.N.T. 8, 273 ff.Google Scholar

27 So also Kertelge, p. 163.

28 Cf. Jenkins, L. H., ‘A Markan Doublet ’, Studies in History and Religion, Presented to Dr. H. Wheeler Robinson, M.A., On His Seventieth Birthday (London and Redhill), pp. 87–111Google Scholar; Taylor, pp. 628–32 and Quesnell, pp. 28–36, list other scholars who hold similar views.

29 Cf. the discussions of Allen, p. 112; Taylor, pp. 628 ff.; Lohmeyer, p. 154; Nineham, pp. 206 f.; Cranfield, pp. 204 f.

30 Burkill, T. A., ‘Mark 6: 31–8: 26: The Context of the Story of the Syrophoenician Woman ’, The Classical Tradition: Literary and Historical Studies in Honor of Harry Caplan, ed. Wallach, L. (Ithaca, 1966), pp. 330 f.Google Scholar

31 Allen refers to the passage as an ‘epoch in the training of the disciples’, p. 117; Best, p. 121, says that with viii. 27 ‘we enter into a “new” atmosphere’, whereas Schweizer, E., ‘Die theologische Leistung des Markus’, Ev. T. 7 (1964), 348Google Scholar, calls it ‘die Wasserscheide in Jesu Wirksamkeit’. Pesch, R., Naherwarlungen, Tradition und Redaktion in Mk 13 (Düsseldorf, 1968), pp. 69 fGoogle Scholar., considers viii. 27–30 to be the statistical as well as the theological centre of the gospel.

32 See the detailed discussion below. Some scholars reject this line of interpretation. See Rawlinson, A. E. J., St. Mark (London, 1925), p. 108Google Scholar; Schmid, J., The Gospel According to Mark, trans. Condon, K. (Staten Island, New York, 1968), p. 153Google Scholar; Roloff, J., Das Kerygma und der irdische Jesus: Historische Motive in den Jesus-Erzählungen der Evangelien (Göttingen, 1970), pp. 127–31Google Scholar; also see the warning of Robbins, V. K., ‘The Healing of Blind Bartimaeus (10: 46–52) in the Marcan Theology’, J.B.L. 92 (1973), 226.Google Scholar

33 See Kuby, A., ‘Zur Konzeption des Markus-Evangeliums’, Z. N. W. 49 (1958), 58 fGoogle Scholar.; Nine-ham, pp. 218 f.; Beauvery, R., ‘La Guérison d'un aveugle à Bethsaïde’, Nouvelle Revue Théologique 90 (1968), 1085.Google Scholar

34 Cf. Moulton, J. H., Milligan, G., The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (Edinburgh, 1929), p. 448.Google Scholar

35 Plato, Rep. 7, 533d; 7, 518c, e; 516a; 517a; Philo, De Sobrietate 1, 3; De Congressu Eruditionis Gratia 135 (Alexandre, M., Lies (Evres de Philon d'Alexandrie, vol. 16, Paris, 1967Google Scholar); 1 Clem. 19:3.

36 Variant readings are obviously designed to make it smoother. Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (Oxford, 1967), pp. 53 fGoogle Scholar., points out that it is probably an example of Aramaic emphatic hyperbaton which has been mistranslated.

37 Pallis, A., Notes on St. Mark and St. Matthew (London, 1932)Google Scholar, points to a parallel in Judg. ix. 36 (LXX), τήν σκι⋯ν τ⋯ν ⋯ρήων σὑ βλήπεις Ως ⋯νδρας (B). Cf. the Hellenistic parallel in which Alcetas of Halice is healed of blindness and first sees the trees in the temple area, Dittenberger, G., Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3 (Leipzig), 1168, 120 ff.Google Scholar

38 Klostermann, p. 77; Lohmeyer, pp. 158 f.; Taylor, p. 371.

39 Lagrange, M.J., Evangile selon Saint Marc (Paris, 1942), p. 213Google Scholar. Blind men, Lagrange argues, usually have their heads lifted up already.

40 Cf. Justin Martyr, Dialogue, 56, 2, who cites this text.

41 Cf. Justin, Dialogue, 58, 5.

42 Cf. Justin, Dialogue, 62, 5.

43 Euripides, ii, Loeb Classical Library.

44 For the use of the verb in the Church Fathers see Lampe, G. W. H., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford)Google Scholar; for a non-Christian parallel see Corpus Hermeticum 7, 1 f.

45 Taylor, p. 372.

46 A. M. Harmon (Lucian, ii, Loeb Classical Library, pp. 448 f.) translates, ‘Slowly and gradually, therefore, as if you could then distinguish things for the first time in the indistinct light…’.

47 Swete, H. B., The Gospel According to St Mark (London, 1902), p. 174.Google Scholar

48 This verb refers to the complete healing of the man's hand in Mark iii. 5; Matt. xii. 13; Luke vi. 10.

49 Although πηλυγ⋯ς is not found elsewhere in the NT or in the LXX it is used with verbs of seeing in other literature and means ‘clearly’. See Strabo Geographicus 17,1,30; Diodorus Siculus 1,501; Philo, De Congressu Eruditionis Gratia 143. The variant δηλαυγ⋯ς has the same meaning.

50 There are exceptions. See Isa. xvii. 7, xxii. ii, li. i f.; Job ii. 10, Sir. xlii. 19(18).

51 Milligan, G., Selections from the Greek Papyri (Cambridge, 1922), p. 10.Google Scholar

52 For additional references see Headlam, W., Herodas, the Mimes and Fragments (Cambridge, 1922) n. on 6, 44Google Scholar; Moulton and Milligan, p. 206.

53 Cf. Lagrange, p. lxxx.

54 In Matt. vi. 26 the verb simply means ‘see, observe’; cf. Acts xxii. 11; Barnabas v. 10.

55 Cf. Brown, R., The Gospel According to John (Garden City, New York, 1966), 1, 74.Google Scholar

56 Cf. Cranfield, p. 265.

57 See Marxsen, pp. 12 ff.; Rohde, J., Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists, trans. Barton, D. M. (London, 1968), pp. 21 ffGoogle Scholar.; Stein, R. H., ‘What is Redaktionsgeschichte?’, J.B.L. 88 (1969), 48 ff.Google Scholar

58 See Reploh, K.-G., Markus – Lehrer der Gemeinde: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zu den Jünger-perikopen des Markus-Evangeliums (Stuttgart, 1969)Google Scholar; Hawkins, D. J., ‘The Incomprehension of the Disciples in the Marcan Redaction’, J.B.L. 91 (1972), 491–500.Google Scholar

59 Tyson, J. B., ‘The Blindness of the Disciples in Mark’, J.B.L. 80 (1961), 261–8.Google Scholar

60 Weeden, T. J., ‘The Heresy That Necessitated Mark's Gospel’, Z-N-W. 59 (1968), 145–58Google Scholar; Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia, 1971)Google Scholar; Budesheim, T. L., ‘Jesus and the Disciples in Conflict with Judaism’, Z.N.W. 62 (1971), 190–209.Google Scholar

61 Lee, H. C., ‘Aretalogy and the Gospel’, J.B.L. 92 (1973), 402–22Google Scholar, convincingly argues against the claims of Weeden and others that Mark's gospel is based on the aretalogies of ‘divine men’.

62 So also Taylor, p. 370.

63 This may explain why, although Matthew and Luke include references to the healing of the blind in their summaries of Jesus' healing activities (Matt. xi. 5, xv. 30 f., xxi. 14; Luke vii. 21 f., cf. John v. 3) Mark never does (i. 32–4, iii. gf., vi. 55 f., vii. 37). For Mark references to the healing of the blind must be held in reserve since they have important metaphorical connotations.

64 Most scholars agree that these verses are composed by Mark from a number of separate traditions, perhaps as many as four (viii. 27–9, 31b–33, 34–8, ix. 1). Markan redaction is particularly evident in the following:

1. The characteristic use of a compound of ερχομαι and the phrase εν τῇ ⋯δῷ in υ. 27.

2. The reference to the disciples in υ. 27a (they were already mentioned in the tradition in υ. 27b).

3. The typical command to silence in υ. 30.

4. The customary emphasis on Jesus' role as teacher in υυ. 31 f.

5. The introduction of new pieces of tradition in viii. 34 and ix. i. For recent discussions of these verses see Haenchen, E., ‘Die Komposition von Mk vii[i]: 27–ix: 1 und Par.’, Nov.T. 6 (1963), 81ff.Google Scholar; de Tillesse, G. M., Le Secret messianique dans l'éhangile de Marc (Paris, 1966), pp. 293–302Google Scholar; Reploh, pp. 90 ff.

65 History and Interpretation in the Gospels (London, 1935), pp. 90 ffGoogle Scholar. See Beauvery, , Nouvelle Revue Théologique 90 (1968), 1090Google Scholar; Achtemeier, , J.B.L. 39 (1970), 286 fGoogle Scholar.; Harris, , J.B.L. 91 (1972), 496 n. 15.Google Scholar

66 Lightfoot accepts the reading μηδενì εἴπης εíς τήν κώμην. See discussion of υ. 26 above.

67 The Miracle-Stories of the Gospels (London, 1941), p. 86.Google Scholar

68 Nineham, pp. 37 f. 214, 217f., 227.

69 Z.N.W. 49 (1958), 53 f., 58–60Google Scholar. For somewhat similar interpretations see Burkill, , Mysterious Revelation (Ithaca, 1963), pp. 3 f., 149 ffGoogle Scholar.; Luz, , Z.N.W. 56 (1965), 23Google Scholar; de Tillesse, pp. 272 f.

70 ‘Discipleship in Mark: Mark 8:22–10:52’, S.J.T. 23 (1970), 32 f.Google Scholar

71 The Temptation and the Passion, p. 108.

72 Elsewhere in the gospel Mark demonstrates that the Christ-title must be correctly defined if it is to be a proper designation for Jesus. See xii. 35, xiii. 21 f., xiv. 61 f., xv. 32.

73 ήρξατο διδ⋯σκειν in υ. 31 does not indicate that this scene is the beginning of Jesus' teaching about his suffering: Mark uses αρχομαι as a redundant auxiliary verb throughout the gospel and it is not to be taken literally here. See Wrede, pp. 20 f.

74 Kähler, M., The So-Called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ, trans, and ed. Braaten, C. E. (Philadelphia, 1964), p. 80 n. 11.Google Scholar

75 So also Tagawa, pp. 52 f. Knowledge of the passion is also presumed in other early passages (i. 14 f., ii. 20, iii. 5 f.).

76 Cf. Wrede, pp. 115 f., who also denies that Peter's confession is an epoch in the life of Jesus.

77 So Wrede, p. 118, argues. Wrede sees a full parallel between this passage and the silencing of the demons. His interpretation, however, fails to take account of the differences between the rebukes: the demons are silenced because they are hostile to Jesus and Mark knows that Jesus' identity is not to be proclaimed by unclean spirits; the disciples are rebuked because their confession is incorrect. See Taylor, p. 175; Leitch, J. W., ‘The Injunctions of Silence in Mark's Gospel’, Exp.T. 66 (1954–1955). 178–82.Google Scholar

78 Cf. Knigge, H.-D., ‘The Meaning of Mark, the Exegesis of the Second Gospel’, Interpretation 22 (1968), 70.Google Scholar

79 Cf. Taylor, p. 370.