Re: Did Peter walk on water?

From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
Date: Mon Sep 30 2002 - 20:05:50 EDT

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "Re: Deceptive God? from AiG..."

    Terry 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.
    >>

    Along similar lines, I was thinking that
    Matthew's editing may have consisted of exageration
    more than fabrication.

    For example, we all know the cartoons where Willy
    Coyotee goes flying over the edge of a cliff but
    keeps going in a parallel direction for some time.
    Then he looks around, and then down, and it is that
    moment that he makes the vertical drop. All this
    defies physics, but it gets its point across.

    So could we take the "haggadic midrash" (or what ever), to mean that
    Peter actually did jump out of the boat
    (that is certainly consistent with the character of
    Peter in the four gospels), and in actually, he _immediately_ sank
    into the water, but Matthew, in
    a mode of exaggeration, described it as "getting down and walking
    toward Jesus (NIV)", looking around ("seeing the winds"), then
    looking down ("was afraid"), and then plumps ("beginning to sink").

    In that case, rather than "fabrication", I would see the "theological
    editing" to be a case where Peter
    didn't in fact walk on the water, but it describes
    in very graphic terms something we all understand very
    well. Admittedly, the purpose for the editing may have been for much
    deeper reasons than simply to add that
    memory factor, but that is all part of the best kind of writing.

    Just a thought,

    By Grace alone we proceed,
    Wayne (speculating) Dawson



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 30 2002 - 22:40:39 EDT