51 Markan Christology and the Omission Of υἱοῦ θεοῦ in Mark 1:1 positive interpretation of Jesus as the Christ developed from geography, change of genre, the equal division of the text around this event, and a possible chiastic structure can, as we have demonstrated, all be effectively countered. The turning point of Mark’s gospel is not Peter’s confession of faith (8:27-30) but the larger section that includes the introduction of the suffering Son of Man (8:31), Peter’s rebuke when he does not accept this designation (8:33), and the role of the cross in discipleship (8:34-38). Whereas Matthew and Luke26 present Peter’s confession in a purely positive light, in Mark there is “No praise, no recognition of divine ins- piration, no conferral of a new name, no granting of leadership within the church, not even a hint that Peter answered the question correctly”27. Since in the following verses Peter is forcefully rebuked and identified with Satan himself (8:33)28, his confession demands supplementation. The introduction of the suffering Son of Man by Jesus in 8:31 provides this needed Christological formulation. Certainly, Matthew has promoted Peter’s confession to the dramatic turning point of the narrative. But Matthew is completely positive concerning Peter’s confession since he adds the words “the Son of the Living God” to Peter’s confession in Mark. Therefore, because of this alteration of titles by Matthew, the overwhel- mingly positive nature of Peter’s confession in Matthew’s gospel cannot be used to argue for a purely positive interpretation of Peter’s confession in Mark’s gospel, Matthew’s source. But the decisive key in recognizing the turning point to Mark’s gospel is the context, especially the healing of the blind man in 8:22-26. Lightfoot promoted the theory that this healing parallels Peter’s confession in 8:27- 30. Then “the opening of the blind man’s eyes will symbolize also the enlightenment of the disciples by their understanding of the Messiahship and even diabolical temptation.” But the so-called Markan redactions indicate that for Mark the neglect of a confession of Jesus as the suffering Son of Man (8:31-33) was the diabolical temptation. Additional evidence against a negative view of Peter’s confession include the facts that the title “Christ” is contrasted with the insufficient expressions of Jesus’ identity listed in 8:28 (Jesus as John the Baptizer, Elijah, or one of the prophets) and that the Messianic secret is included by Mark (8:30) only when secret but true information is communicated in the gospel. Luke paints Peter in a positive light by eliminating his misunderstanding of the suf- 26 fering nature of Jesus’ Messiahship so that Lk. 9:22-23 omits Mk. 8:33. David J. Ourisman, From Gospel to Sermon: Preaching Synoptic Texts (St. Louis: 27 Chalice 2000) 4. In fact, since Peter’s response is labeled demonic, his confession must parallel the 28 Christological utterances of the demons (1:24-25; 3:11-12) which Jesus also silences (8:30), since they similarly omit any allusion to the passion of the Messiah.