He (Simon Peter/ Cephas) tried (Matthew 14. 28 on) but sank. Interestingly, neither Mark nor John have the Sinking Simon episode, which indicates that this is yet another of Matthew's silly additions to the story. An interesting slant on how (notably in Matthew, who also has the slagging off of Simon -Matthew 16.22)- by Jesus which again none of the others have) Simon was regarded with some ambivalence by early Christianity.
But what interests me is that Luke does NOT have the walking on the water. There it isn't, at Luke 9. 40 onwards where the disciples should be boating back to Capernaum and Jesus catches them up walking on the water. It isn't there. It is in Matthew and Mark, and moreover in John. That should indicate that Luke ought to have it before him in his copy of the synoptic gospels, though without the Mark/ Matthew additions, of course and without Matthew's nativity as Luke could never have written what he did at Luke 2. 1-20 if he'd had Matthew's nativity in front of him.
And maybe that's the clue. It is rather a daring suggestion, and I have some doubts, but it is the only suggestion I can think of as to why Luke didn't have the walking on water. As I say, Luke doesn't have the Mark/Matthew additions, such as the two similar feastings and the Syrio - phoenecian woman. That suggests that they were not in the Synoptic original and so Luke reflects more how the synoptic original read. Since he doesn't have the walking on water, and I find it hard to believe that he would simply omit it as being too fantastical, I suggest that it wasn't part of the gospel story and perhaps only started to circulate after Luke's time.
At any rate, the synoptic original which Mark most resembles, was updated with all the material common to Matthew and Mark, including the walking on water. Matthew of course went even further, adding the star and Bethlehem massacre, sinking Simon, the Shekel eating fish, the walking dead and the resurrection appearance.
But how then could John agree with them? Surely that proves it must be true? This is where I have to be a bit daring. I have already proposed that there were some 'floating' stories about Jesus, as well as collections of sayings, like the 'gospel of Thomas' or the 'Q' document, which Matthew and Luke both used, rather differently, in their gospel revisions.
One of these 'floating' stories said that Jesus appeared after his burial in solid form, showing the wounds of crucifixion and eating a bit of fish. Luke and John both pick up on this and use it in their Gospels (Matthew doesn't
His disciples leave immediately to meet Jesus in Galilee). But while the appearance after the crucifixion is at the same time (though there are serious discrepancies in the telling) the eating of the bit of fish is totally contradictory. Luke has it that same evening (24.43) but John has it in a totally different context and time in Galilee (21. 12) This is more providing the fishers with fish and bread for breakfast but the relation with Luke is rather pointed up by the preceding episode of the miraculous haul of fish (John 21.11) which Luke also has, but again in a totally different place - the calling of the disciples (Luke 5.6) and since neither Mark nor Matthew has that story, it must have been added by Luke to his text (1) .
Therefore, is it not likely that the miraculous tale of walking on water might have been one of these 'floating' stories about Jesus, though this was in a definite context - the return to Capernaum after the transfiguration (though John does not have that transfiguration, being something that appears only in the synoptic gospel text) and so while it was made part of the Mark/Matthew additions (which Luke didn't have) John also added it to his gospel.
Luke didn't come across it or, if he did, he thought it a bit too fantastical. At any rate he did not use it in his rewriting of the synoptic original.
So Luke's gospels did not have the walking of water story as a floating story as used by John, not as used as part of the identical Mark/Matthew addition, none of which appear in Luke.
If that is correct, it means of course that the walking on water was never part of the original tales about Jesus as Christ, let alone Jesus as failed messiah; and that means, of course, that it never happened.
Have a
lovely Christmas, all
(1) though Matthew does use a simile of a netful of fish as a parable
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
