Peter's Declaration of Jesus' Identity as a Test-case
Peter's Declaration of Jesus' Identity as a Test-case
An example of this distinction is said to be found in the incident in Jesus' Galilean ministry where the apostle Peter acted as spokesman for the Twelve and declared that Jesus was the Christ, the Greek expression for “Messiah” (Mark 8:29–30; cf. Matt 16:16; 9:20).1 Among Christians this has long been a benchmark for ascertaining the apostles' understanding of Jesus' identity and also for understanding Jesus' own self-understanding. But from early in the twentieth century up to recent years, modern critics have subjected Peter's declaration to radical critical examination, and many have declared it not to be a historical event. They contend that it must have been a later interpolation of the church's beliefs by the evangelists back into the narrative of Jesus' ministry, and so they view it as theological fiction.
Rudolf Bultmann viewed the incident as a legend of faith, a retrojection of the church's belief in the resurrection back into the Gospel accounts. He concludes, “The scene of Peter's Confession (Mk. 8:27-30)…is an Easter-story projected backward into Jesus' life-time, just like the story of the Transfiguration (Mk. 9:2–8).”2
Hans Conzelmann rejected any note of historicity in the declaration: “Any assumption of a historical nucleus makes the texts incomprehensible. The scene is not a story, but a piece of christological reflection given the form of a story. Peter utters the creed of the community, ‘You are the Messiah.’”3
This is similar to the more recent view of Robert Funk and the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar, who unhesitatingly indicate that the episode is largely or entirely fictive. In their view this is “a stylized scene shaped by Christian motifs.”4 They contend that the Caesarean declaration narrative is the product, in all likelihood, of later Christian imagination, and that the two events actually coincided—i.e., Peter had his Easter vision and came to the conclusion that Jesus was Messiah at the same time.5 In their distinctive color-coding of Gospels material, the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar gave the incident a “black” reading, which indicates, “I would not include this narrative information in the primary database for determining who Jesus was,” or, “This information is improbable. It does not fit verifiable evidence; it is largely or entirely fictive.”6
Burton Mack likewise contends that Peter's declaration, linked with the later actions of Jesus in the temple cleansing, are theological fiction. He maintains that “Mark's fiction of an anti-temple messiahship (a contradiction in terms) could have worked only after the temple had already been destroyed. The gospel theme must therefore be a post-AD 70 fabrication. Before that time the scenario would have appeared ridiculous.”7