Re: faithfulness vs factualness

From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Sat Oct 05 2002 - 08:49:01 EDT

  • Next message: Dawsonzhu@aol.com: "Re: faithfulness vs factualness"

    Dawsonzhu@aol.com wrote:
    .........................................
    > I'm not insisting that the Peter walked on the water and this
    > discussion has persuaded me to recognize the value of literary
    > embellishment (be it for theological reasons or for impressing a
    > moral point), but if Peter did not even jump out of the boat, then
    > it is hard for me to see how I can do more than mince words for
    > "fabrication"..........................................

    OK, if I say that Jesus did actually walk on the Sea of Galilee and
    that the part about
    Peter in Mt's account is a theological elaboration of the meaning of
    that event, it's
    "fabrication."
    If you say that Peter actually stepped out of the boat, but the part
    about him actually
    taking a few steps on the surface was an elaboration of some sort, I
    can use the same
    logic to say that the latter part is "fabrication" as well.
    The insistence that there must be an historical kernel in every
    single account seems at
    first to be a weaker demand than the requirement that everything is
    historically
    accurate. But if pursued to its logical conclusion it just won't work.
                                                                    Shalom,
                                                                    George

    George L. Murphy
    gmurphy@raex.com
    http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 05 2002 - 19:47:12 EDT