Re: Did Peter walk on water?

From: Michael Roberts (
Date: Mon Sep 30 2002 - 17:07:09 EDT

  • Next message: Jim Eisele: "Jesus on water? (was Re: Did Peter walk on water?)"

    Or try a liberal scholar like John Robinson (Redating the New Testament) who
    dated the whole NT before AD70 but sees Matt as later than Mark. I found
    Robinson made more sense than most critics, especially those who reduce the
    historical content eg Barrett (my old professor) and Haenchen on Acts.

    I have kept out of this but see midrash as too slick. However we should not
    expect "biblical History" to be like we expect in history today. Anyway in
    all history there is interpretation and selection.

    Before long we will be onto the Jesus of History and Christ of Faith
    dichotomy which still rears its ugly head after DF Strauss put it forward in
    the 1860s. (Today my wife marked an essay [for Nottingham Univ] citing this

    Some years ago I suggested to some historians I should write an article
    demonstrating that Darwin never lived using the same canons as the Jesus
    Seminar and other NT critics, AIG and ICR would love it!

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "George Murphy" <>
    To: "Terry M. Gray" <>
    Cc: <>
    Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 6:01 PM
    Subject: Re: Did Peter walk on water?

    > 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.)
    > Shalom,
    > George
    > George L. Murphy

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 22:30:31 EDT