TedM

Are there clues for historicity in the accounts of Jesus walking on water, found in Mt, Mk, and Jn?

From Mark 6:47-51

John 6:15-21

Why were the disciples astonished?
1. Jesus walked on the water
2. Jesus had looked like a ghost but wasn’t
3. The rough wind stopped as soon as Jesus got into the boat
4. As soon as Jesus got into the boat they were at their destination (see John 6:21)

Historically readers have understood this account to be of a miracle of Jesus walking on top of the water. Might it be that the account was originally derived from a naturalistic event? Note that the other 3 possible explanations for their astonishment are naturalistic, not requiring a miracle. Consider the following arguments to that end.

1. The actual Greek word used is “epi�, which often means “in� (120 times in the NT). Jesus could have walked “in� the water if it was shallow enough.

2. The account says nothing of Jesus’ clothes being dry.

3. Jesus may have simply decided to walk to his destination, meeting the disciples there. According to John they went to Capernaum, which was just a few miles down the shoreline from Bethsaida, where they had left (in Mark)--well within walking distance for Jesus.

4. Vision from the disciples perspective may have been very poor. It was dark according to John. Mark says it was the 4th watch, which is daybreak. Also, the rough winds are stressed in each account. Both may have contributed to poor vision, and an inability to tell how close they were to their destination, as well as how close they were to the shore.

5. Mark says that Jesus “intended to pass by them�. This would be more consistent with the idea that Jesus wasn’t intentionally walking directly to the boat, but was walking along the shore, and the boat drawing nearer to it. And, why would Jesus intend to pass them by if they were struggling against the rough wind?

6. John says that as soon as Jesus got into the boat they were at their destination. Why would Jesus pass them by if they were at their destination? Might it be that he hadn’t originally intended to get into the boat at all because he was already near Capernaum?


If Mark and John were making up the account to make it sound as though Jesus had walked on top of the water, then:

1. Why was the setting at night, and complicated by a rough wind if the goal was to highlight Jesus’ ability to walk on water? Wouldn’t it have been much better to described the conditions as being still, clear and sunny?

2. Why didn’t they stress that Jesus’ was completely dry when he got in the boat?

3. Why did Mark say that Jesus intended to pass them by, when they were clearly struggling?

4. Why were they suddenly at their destination in John’s account? Why would Jesus need to walk out to them if they were already there?


Might the disciple’s astonishment better be explained by the unexpected sight of Jesus walking along the shore after their long hard struggle through the night, just at the time the wind was dying down and their arrival at their destination, and that when the wind dyed down Jesus walked out to them to meet them in the shallow water as they approached the shore? Don't the accounts provide better clues for this than a miraculous intention to walk on top of water?

If Mark were making the story up as fiction, are there good reasons why the portrayal is as it is?

ted

Doug Shaver

I can't see any.

If (1) I had some reason independent of the gospels to believe in a historical Jesus, and (2) I had some reason to suppose that every incident recorded in the gospels corresponded in some way to a real event in Jesus' life, and (3) I had to imagine some real incident that the walking-on-water episode might have represented, then one of your hypotheses might serve that purpose.

yalla

I agree with Doug.
Plus:
You can find historical precedents for the elements of this story in the Tanakh from which the author of "Mark" took his inspiration.
Can't remember all of the precise source material, the story of Job is in there and some of it is from Exodus whatever where god splits the sea , walks on water and all that stuff, it shouldn't be too hard to find the Tanakh bits on which this is founded, someone will know them.

IIRC some of the lines are verbatim, or nearly so, from the Tanakh.
Once the author of "Mark" got the ball rolling his later followers just embroidered.

So no I don't think it's historical and I suggest it's clearly meant to be miraculous so rationalising it as a misunderstood natural event is missing the author's point.
cheers
yalla

TedM

1. Josephus, others..
2. Why every?
3. I gave you something to imagine which could have been real.

It appears to me that rather than reading and considering the existence of clues in the account, you would rather dismiss the possibility outright because you have concluded that 1. Josphus/others are not "good enough" independant clues and 2. not every incident recorded in the gospels really happened, so there is no reason to believe that any one of them could have happened.

In other words, your prior conclusions appear to preclude any inclination to interact with what I've written. I'm not sure why you responded.


I'd like to see this as I'm unaware of anything very close (an Exodus comparison is not even in the ballpark). If you or someone else can show me a very close account, I'd have to rethink my interpretation.

You, like Doug are interacting based on a prior conclusion about it, with the added factor that the author's point wasn't to present a natural event. The author's point is irrelevant to my suggestion that it contains clues that what the author presented as miraculous in the disciples eyes, was really a natural event. That isn't "rationalizing" at all considering that if something happened which is interpreted to have been a miracle it is more likely to have happened naturalistically and misinterpreted as a miracle. The bottom line is that your response is based on a belief that the author has made up the story. My response does not rely on such a prior belief. It looks at the story itself for clues to its origin.

ted

Julian

Επι almost always refer to being 'on' or 'on top of' something. A better choice for being in the water would have been εν. Both are common prepositions and used extensively in the NT so frequency becomes useles in this case.
So? Less emphasis than you would like is hardly an argument. An author can add emphasis ad nauseam but must stop eventually. It is not like Mark is generous with his word usage.
The problem is that in at least one instance in Mark, Jesus is walking along the shore and Mark has no problems using clear language to describe it. Like Mark 2:13: παλιν παÏ?α την θαλασσαν (emphasis mine)
Why? It sounds like more of a miracle if the seas were rough. Besides, without the wind Jesus wouldn't have to opportunity of calming it in 6:51.
Again, you would have to provide a reason for why the extra emphasis was needed. Again, you can always add emphasis. When do you stop?
Sure. When read in Greek it quickly becomes apparent that Mark is a frightfully bad writer. He writes about as well as a 10-12 year old writes today. I think you are expecting far too much from Mark literary skills.

Julian

Ben C Smith

True. However, it is certain that Matthew did not read Mark that way; he seems to have regarded this way of putting it as meaning that Jesus really walked on top of the waves.

Walking on the waves in a stiff wind would probably get your clothes wet anyway.

But, if it was obvious to Matthew, for instance, that Jesus really walked on the water in the Marcan story, then dry clothes would not need to be mentioned.

This is one detail that is explained magnificently on the hypothesis that the whole pericope comes from the Hebrew scriptures. Passing by is what a deity does in a theophany. See Exodus 33.19; 1 Kings 19.11; Job 9.8; 38.16. Jesus intended to reveal his divine glory to them, to pass them by.

The symbolism of nighttime was too rich to pass up. Jesus guides us through the stormy night.

As soon as Jesus gets into the boat they reach their destination. More symbolism.

Walking on water is the prerogative of Yahweh in the Hebrew scriptures. The story is making a statement about the divinity of Jesus.

I highly recommend the second volume (IIRC) of Meier, A Marginal Jew. Stunning work on this pericope.

Ben.

TedM

I don't know Greek, but according to the Blue Letter Bible, the word chosen is used 120 times in the NT to mean "in", so why do you say it almost always refers to something else?

Not mentioning the dryness of his clothes--something which would definitely have been an indicator that Jesus had walked on top of the water--is a factor to consider, though I agree it isn't a big factor since we can't assume a high expectation for its mention.

"along the shore" doesn't have to mean "along the shore in the water", so your example doesn't make a case. It is a factor to consider though.

What we have is a combination of possible "miracles" to explain the disciples astonishment. This reduces our ability to be certain how much of their reaction was due to the perception that Jesus walked on top of the water. That's "why".

I don't know how this relates to the comment about Jesus intending to pass the boat by. I consider that to be a strange thing for him to have done intentionally if he were simultaneously walking on top of the water toward them while they were struggling against a storm. This is IMO perhaps the strongest evidence for an original story with a natural basis. What do you make of GMark's comment?

ted

Amaleq13

I seem to recall it being argued that this is actually a misplaced resurrection sighting. Does that idea have any merit?

Mark Mc

Unless you were a vision.

Julian

You will note that I didn't reply to all of your points in the post I originally replied to. Ben did a better job on those than I would have in any case.
I am not sure how that blue letter bible thing works, however, there are frequent overlaps of meaning in the Greek prepositions. However, επι is definitely the best word to chose if you were to describe someone walking upon the water. As Ben pointed out, the church fathers and other evangelists read it as walking upon the water. I see no way of reading it as 'in' in this context.
Like Ben said, why point out the dry clothes if he had been walking upon the water? It would be stating the obvious.
I was merely pointing out that Mark does know how to clearly state it when someone is walking besides the sea rather than on it.
Too much assumption of historicity in that statement for my taste. We'll only end up confused.
I didn't comment on passing by the boat since I didn't feel I was qualified to comment intelligently on something that was outside my area of knowledge and was clearly figurative or methaphorical in some sense. Ben addressed that issue.

My only point regarding Mark's writing style is that what we have today are hundreds of very intelligent experts interpreting the writings of a near illiterate. One is bound to come up with far more meaning than was ever intended by the author. YMMV.

Julian