Re: Did Peter walk on water?

From: George Murphy (
Date: Mon Sep 30 2002 - 13:01:49 EDT

  • Next message: Graham Morbey: "Re: St. Michael & All Angels"

    Terry M. Gray wrote:
    > Any reason to think that Matthew isn't giving an eyewitness account
    > here? Sure, he may be using Mark as source material but if he was
    > there to witness the event for himself he could be adding details
    > that he saw for himself.
    > No doubt some of our scholars will have a good laugh with the
    > suggestion that Matthew wrote Matthew and that it was written prior
    > to AD 70 within Matthew's lifetime. But there is a good body of
    > respectable conservative scholarship (scholars who even know the
    > meaning of "haggadaic midrash") who would agree with this suggestion.

            There is nothing funny about the suggestion but also no
    reason to consider it
    terribly likely. 1st, there is nothing in the Gospel of Matthew, or
    indeed in the NT as
    a whole, that ascribes this gospel to the apostle Matthew. There is
    tradition going
    back to at least the 2d century to that effect but it's questionable
    whether it can be
    taken back any further. (In fact the only one of the canonical
    gospels that claims to
    be by an eyewitness is the 4th, & that is not ascribed - at least
    directly - to John.)
            2d, one wonders why he would have used Mk here as a source if
    he had been an
    eyewitness. While Mt.14:22-27 is not identical with Mk.6:45-51, it
    seems clear from the
    use of the same words and phrases that Mt is indeed using Mk's
    account as his basic
    framework. (In contrast, Jn.6:16-20 is told very differently.)


    George L. Murphy

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 13:46:10 EDT