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