“Walking on Water” as a Fictional Account

The last segment of The Miracles of Jesus series gave a naturalistic exploration of how Jesus could have walked on water. Here, we will explore how the text supports a literal, supernatural reading, framed in the context of skeptical New Testament scholarship. In Subversive Symmetry [1], Professor George Young writes a novel analysis of the walking on water account. Young begins by describing the account as “a barrage of inexplicable events that defy any natural and/or historical explanation.” He then resorts to applying literary critical methods to the passage, which are the same one might use to analyze a comic book, or other fantastic literature. Interestingly, Young has taken the position that the account is complete fabrication, but as fiction, not falsehood. His analysis includes summaries of other scholarly skeptical positions which actually illuminate the flaws of this methodology.

Young cites traditional Historical-Critical arguments that “view Mark 6:45-56 as an embellished account of an originally historical, non-miraculous event.” Vincent Taylor’s criticism is that pre-dawn darkness and stormy environment caused the disciples to erroneously identify Jesus as walking on water. Instead, he was actually walking on the sea shore. The non-ideal conditions[2,4] in which the event took place do indeed make it easy to attribute the account to faulty eyewitness perception. However, the details of the eyewitness accounts significantly challenge this interpretation.

The accounts suggest that it was possible to make out vague shapes and distances, but not to a degree where one might be identified. Mark notes that Jesus did not coincidentally pass by the disciples. He went towards them after seeing them attempt to progress across the lake. The disciples themselves do not notice Jesus, but rather a figure moving in their general direction. In addition, John states that the disciples were 3-4 miles out from the shore [5]. This implies that they could tell the distance that they had traveled. More importantly, they were not nearby the sea shore, where Taylor suggests Jesus truly was. It is also necessary to recall that all 3 accounts mention Jesus entered the boat. Young also mentions Sherman Johnson and J.D.M. Derrett’s position that Jesus was actually walking on shallow water, but unlikelihood of this has already been discussed. If nothing else, the disciples would be able to identify that they had picked up Jesus while in deep water. If we operate from these portions of the narrative alone, Jesus appearing to walking on water seems to be a strange, but decent summary of the event.

When we consider the way in which the account is written, it becomes clear that the writers intend for us to take this as a historical event, not as fiction. Matthew’s details most strongly suggest that Jesus had supernatural control over the elements [4]. In his version, Peter gets out of the boat and walks on water as well. Peter’s actions are difficult to read as a misperception, since the rowers would be easily able to see him leave the boat. Peter would certainly be able to identify the sensation of walking versus falling through the surface of the water. This event is something that was experienced not only by the disciples, but, although to a lesser extent, also by others. John writes that the people asked Jesus how he did not leave with the disciples, but still arrived at the same location anyway. This leads us to conclude that Jesus’ disciples gave multiple accounts with these details to ground a supernatural narrative in reality. They fully expect their readers to understand the accounts literally.

The Gospel account can only be considered ‘art’ in the same context that court testimonies in are. It demands that specific action be taken if the account is reliable. If Jesus did not truly walk on water as the gospels claim, they are not telling a simply telling a fictional story, but constructing a lie. The action of the miracle defies naturalistic explanation, but its description also defies fictional explanation. It would be incongruous to read this carefully worded narrative and conclude that it is fiction. This leaves us in a curious position: While a naturalistic explanation is unlikely, the details within the narrative’s versions lend themselves to credibility. Since no physical evidence would remain from the incident, the most reasonable conclusion must stem from the reliability of the chroniclers. While Gospel Reliability will be discussed in a future series, I hope the present article will aid the reader’s evaluation of the text.

Sources

1. Young, George W. Subversive Symmetry: Exploring the Fantastic in Mark 6:45-56. Brill, 1999, Google Books, https://tinyurl.com/subversivesymmetry
2. Smith, W. (n.d.). Watches of Night. Retrieved from https://www.christianity.com/bible/dictionary.php?dict=sbd&id=4446
3. Mark 6:45-53
4. Matthew 14:22-34
5. John 6:15-21