1

(KJV) Matthew 14:26

26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. 27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. 28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. 29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. 31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

All the Evangelist record Jesus walking on the water,but it is only Matthew who goes further to narrate the incident of Peter attempting to walk on water.

(KJV) MARK 6:45

45 And straightway he constrained his disciples to get into the ship, and to go to the other side before unto Bethsaida, while he sent away the people. 46 And when he had sent them away, he departed into a mountain to pray. 47 And when even was come, the ship was in the midst of the sea, and he alone on the land. 48 And he saw them toiling in rowing; for the wind was contrary unto them: and about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them. 49 But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit

(KJV) JOHN 6:19

19 So when they had rowed about five and twenty or thirty furlongs, they see Jesus walking on the sea, and drawing nigh unto the ship: and they were afraid. 20 But he saith unto them, It is I; be not afraid. 21 Then they willingly received him into the ship: and immediately the ship was at the land whither they went.

Did Matthew get his information from a different source?

  • @NigelJ,the question is very clear,not soliciting for an opinion but a hermeneutic approach. – collen ndhlovu Nov 13 '17 at 9:10
  • @NigelJ,have you ever heard of the Q-source hypothesis – collen ndhlovu Nov 13 '17 at 9:37
  • Questions regarding the potential sources of the Gospels are definitely on topic here. While I disagree with the Q hypothesis, I do not DV questions or answers merely because they address it. – Frank Luke Nov 13 '17 at 14:47
  • 1
    Because only in Matthew does he set it up by recording Jesus' singling out Peter as the rock upon which He will build His Church and giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven (i.e. the Church). He records the instance as an example of his leading role. St. Luke does the same with the beginning of Acts onwards, too. – Sola Gratia Nov 14 '17 at 13:04
1

"Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Jn 21:25). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

The Gospel of John, written after the Synoptic Gospels, tends to not repeat what is in the other gospels. When he does, it's usually to tie in with other accounts. John seems to assume the readers are familiar with the other gospels.

  • To your last point, part of John's reason for writing his Gospel, at least according to Church tradition, was precisely because he felt that some details needed to be filled in. Your statement about John assuming familiarity with the other Gospels is spot on as well, I think. – user33515 Jan 28 '18 at 1:27
0

I think the broader question is why the Gospels are not entirely consistent with each other in general. There are many details covered by one or more Evangelists that are neglected by the others. A even more striking event might be the resurrection of Lazarus, which is only recounted by John (11:1-44).

The definitive commentary on this in antiquity comes from John Chrysostom (c.349-407), who wrote in his first homily on Matthew:

But if there be anything touching times or places, which they have related differently, this nothing injures the truth of what they have said. And these things too, so far as God shall enable us, we will endeavor, as we proceed, to point out; requiring you, together with what we have mentioned, to observe, that in the chief heads, those which constitute our life and furnish out our doctrine, nowhere is any of them found to have disagreed, no not ever so little.

But what are these points? Such as follow: That God became man, that He wrought miracles, that He was crucified, that He was buried, that He rose again, that He ascended, that He will judge, that He hath given commandments tending to salvation, that He hath brought in a law not contrary to the Old Testament, that He is a Son, that He is only-begotten, that He is a true Son, that He is of the same substance with the Father, and as many things as are like these; for touching these we shall find that there is in them a full agreement.

0

There are several reasons (and good ones) why the gospels don't perfectly match each other in their reporting of events. 1.) Remember, these were written perhaps 20-60 years after the events reported, so what one remembered may differ slightly in time frame, numbers of people involved, etc. That the event reported DID happen is not in question, and if the details differ, they're of little consequence to the main report. 2.) The very fact that they don't entirely match each other in detail is proof that collusion did not take place, and the truth is being told, albeit in different detail. 3.) The cost of putting these things down in print was high indeed. Whether papyrus, vellum, or other writing medium, each written page could cost as much as a decent used car does now in exchange. 4.) They didn't write for years because they expected the eminent return of Christ to happen any minute: When He hadn't returned in the time they expected, one-by-one they realized the importance of writing down everything they could remember for future reference to those who might believe. (John 20;30-31) By the time each wrote what they did, each one of the gospel's writers chose those events they deemed most important, and passed those events on as they remembered them. There are many more legitimate, and good reasons why they differ, and why we should be glad they do! (Pastor Bruce Newton, M.A.Apologetics)

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.