Peter walking on water seems like a pretty big deal and truthfully something that I can’t imagine anyone would choose to leave out in a gospel account, yet no one else mentions Peter walking on water except for Matthew. Luke doesn’t even mention Jesus walking on water (strange as) but what are some legitimate reasons that the authors of John and Mark would not include Peter walking on water?
Re: “Peter walking on water seems like a pretty big deal and truthfully something that I can’t imagine anyone would choose to leave out in a gospel account, yet no one else mentions Peter walking on water except for Matthew. Luke doesn’t even mention Jesus walking on water (strange as) but what are some legitimate reasons that the authors of John and Mark would not include Peter walking on water?”
Is Matthew saying something about God’s spirit taming the waters at creation?
Maybe the question should be why did Matthew include it.
Matthew builds the legend of Peter. The second hero of Christianity. The first was Paul thanks to the letters. But to change the order, several steps were taken. The anonymous author of the gospel was named Matthew to ensure the author’s personal and time priority over Paul’s letters. Anyway, for some unknown reasons, the patristic fathers claimed that it was the first gospel. A creative false concept laid bare by biblical scholars. And so the new hero Peter was elevated.
As for the differences between Mark and Luke, we have two conflicting stories.
In the first, Luke omits 2 chapters Mark 6:45 – 8:26 in which Jesus’ disciples are ridiculed. This version is shared by most biblical scholars.
In the second, Mark uses *Ev (limited edition of Luke-BDE) to supplement it with these stories of his own invention. Bart did not specify *Ev dating and dating of canonical Luke .
However, he was skeptical about Marcion deleting entire chapters. I wonder what he thinks about Luke skipping entire chapters from Mark?
I have no problem with the Cephas=Peter equation. Paul uses the Aramaic name for the rock as a nickname for a guy named Simon the evangelists use the Greek word. Evangelists Mark and Matthew build various literary characters for Peter. For Paul, Peter is some kind of leader, an apostle, the word disciple does not come up. Fake Letters plus ahistorical Acts and then the Roman church herds both of them to Rome to be martyred. The direction of the character’s literary development is visible – it began with the leader, an apostle whom Paul treated as a partner and rival.The reason seems clear – political theology.
I admit I haven’t read the posts in this thread. I was going to but ran into one from Jarek and started getting dizzy. But I thought I’d nevertheless take a stab at the original question.
Matthew’s author is relying primarily on Mark for his narrative. Yet Matthew has a problem with Mark’s harsh treatment of The Twelve. Just as Luke does, Matthew tries to soften that portrayal in a variety of ways.
So, in verses 10:35-45 of Mark, the author has John and James ask Jesus for positions of honor in the kingdom to come. It’s a selfish, self-aggrandizing request presumably designed by Mark’s author to denigrate the brothers.
Matthew’s author, on the other hand, in verses 20:20-28, tries to soften this by having the request come from the mother of the brothers rather than directly from them. They clearly seek such status in Matthew, but they don’t have the temerity to approach Jesus about it.
In the pericope at hand, Matthew 14:22-34, could it be that the author is seeking to rehabilitate Peter from his harsh treatment in Mark’s narrative?
It’s true Peter lacks faith in this pericope, but he apparently gains it by taking Jesus’ hand.
I’m not sure but think this explanation is in the realm of possibilities.
Thoughts?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)