walking on sea or on shore

by peacefulpete 5 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  Some have suggested that ?walking upon the sea? story of Mark 6:45-51 was based upon an older resurrection appearance story that Mark misinterpreted. The similarity to Luke 24:36-7 (surprised disciples seeing what they took to be a spirit) suggests that Mark misunderstood his source?s use of the expression (epi)?on? ?on the edge of? the sea, changing the meaning from a sighting of the dead Jesus walking by on the seashore to walking around on the water surface. The new version had great attraction as it mirrored the tales of rival sects and cults whose godmen and sages had walked upon the sea and calmed the winds.

  I seem to remember Leolaia discussing this possibility in an earlier thread and would welcome any further thoughts.
• 

  Leolaia

  I am away from my resources at the moment (being on a weekend trip to L.A.), but the question is tied to the "missing ending" of Mark, and the resemblance of the resurrection appearance in John 21 and the appearance at the sea assumed in the Gospel of Peter with both the "walking on the sea" narrative in Mark 6:45-51 and the "calling of Peter" earlier in the book. Price has an interesting idea that the book, at least in the truncated version (which might be connected with the more mystical Secret Mark), is meant to take the Passion narrative and the baptism narrative as alluding to one and the same event, and the forshadowed post-resurrection appearance intended to be the "calling of Peter" episode and all subsequent "Jesus scenes," making the book somewhat of an MC Escher circular narrative.

  I will check into this more when I get home. :))
• 

  Leolaia

  BTW, on the question of walking on the sea or shore, note that in John 21:4 Jesus is "standing on the shore; but the disciples did not realize it was Jesus".

  Since this is a version of the Galilee resurrection appearance anticipated by the Passion narrative in Mark, this would be one piece of evidence possibly supporting your speculation.
• 

  Narkissos

  On the other hand, "walking on the sea" suits the mythological paradigm very well. Mark's Jesus, from his baptism on, acts like a divine being with only human appearance. Which was clearly felt by Luke who omits the episode altogether, in his antidocetic fashion.
• 

  euripides

  Two points: first, the unusual aspect of the Mark narrative of his version of the walking on water story, to me at least, is the comment that "he intended to pass them by." This serves to show that they needed to call to him to get his intention, but it is puzzling all the same. Second, I dont believe that our current form of Mark is truncated and a lot of the hype made about it being so is misplaced. There is thematic unity ending at 16:8, but I realize that is an entirely different discussion. I had never heard the theory of the epi being misunderstood in its application to the water versus the shore, but it is an interesting idea. Obviously Matthew draws from Mark's version and embellishes, and while Peter is hardly mentioned in the earlier narrative the later narrative shows him to be the center of the story's moral of belief/faith. Yet at the end of the Mark narrative, they don't seem to understand what happened, and even afterward Jesus reminds them and they still are confused.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Euripides: First I want to thank all for their responses. Price also feels that Mark's conclusion has not been lost. He sights examples of similar tales of resurrection of the day that assumed the ascension by the absence of the body. Later readers perhaps wanted more and so more was provided by appearance traditions. The whole docetism debate also likely fueled this need for appearances.

  Please do stick around, I have been lucky in finding friends here who not only share an interest in this stuff but can teach me so much.