Do you believe that the peasants spoke Greek? The Oral tradition was most probably carried through in Aramaic, thence on to Greek. I wrote Hebrew for Greek in my last post, I'm sorry about that.
Yes, I think even the "peasants" spoke Greek. For someone in business (doing whatever) it would have been the language of trade and commerce. If they expected to make a living, outside of their village, it would have been almost necessary.
I'm not the only person who believes that Paul was a treacherous, contract breaking,, manipulating, bullying monster, who picked up the life of a beautiful person and then adjusted it all into.... Roman Catholicism. He not only spread his own version of the tradition, he added all kinds of nonsense to it. No wonder he had confrontations with Cephas (and others?).
The confrontations with Cephas really aren't a good example of what you are suggesting. The confrontations themselves really are not major, nor were they about Paul's character. Instead, they were about ideas within faith. This was common within Judaism, as there were many interfaith disagreements and debates.
Also, Paul was a Jew, and died a Jew. He had nothing to do with Roman Catholicism, and in fact, was largely ignored. It was not until Augustine that Paul found someone who was interested in interpreting Paul (with the exception of Marcion).
More so, from what we are left with, Paul submitted to the Jerusalem church. His ideas were still within Judaism, and he was seen as a Jew by others. He was even seen in a good light by the disciples and brother of Jesus.
The view you hold is one that died out within scholarship, as soon as people began actually researching Paul for who he was. You can have as much distrust for him as you want, but it does not change the fact that he was an early spreader of the tradition, and did so in Greek, within a few years after the death of Jesus. The message he also received also appears to have been in Greek. So the oral tradition had to have been in Greek from an early time.
You wrote:- none of that really matters........ The possible Aramaic that laid behind the tradition doesn't really matter,......creating these records...... You wrote it.
In the case of interpreting and translating Greek scripture, the Aramaic (if there was any Aramaic that laid behind the tradition) does not matter. The Greek matter. The simple fact is that we have no idea what Aramaic word would have been used, that could have been translated to the Greek word. There is not just one Aramaic word that could have been picked from.
I think it was most unusual. And the overhand crawl would have been amazing, and the Aramaic and Hebrew words for walk have other meanings, including 'go' (He went out to them, 'swim' etc etc Wander is another.
Do you have any evidence that the Aramaic word for walk can also mean swim? Can you provide a source? More so, can you provide evidence that there is only one Aramaic or Hebrew word for walk? And then can you provide any evidence that this word was then translated into Greek?
The problem with your view is that it simply doesn't hold up when one realizes that we are not dealing with Aramaic, but with Greek. The Greek clearly states that Jesus walked on the water, not swam.
Since you and I do not share their huge levels of superstition, how could we possibly empathise?
That is nothing more than a cop out. It doesn't take much to see that they would not have been frightened, as if they saw a ghost, because someone was swimming. People swimming would not have been foreign to them. Someone walking on water, would be frightening though.
I am proposing a more possible report. I propose that it was the evangelists that made things up.
You are proposing something that simply doesn't have any evidence for it. Instead, you are making things up and trying to pass it off as an actual report. Sure, the evangelists probably made somethings up. If we are to believe this, then why assume there is any oral tradition behind this story then? Would it not be easier to assume that the evangelists made up the entire story of Jesus walking on water?
Mark does not mention Peter's attempt. Matthew 14;29 suggests an attempt. Luke: I can't see anything. ?? He attempted it, couldn't do it, this fits for swimming....
Except that it doesn't. It clearly state that Peter stood on the water, and walked on the water. It does not state he swam at all.
Try hundreds......thousand even, over the years. Most seamen did not swim, which is true of the Royal Navy as well. When I was a kid I used to listen to the old watermen, that's up to 60 years ago (I would have been 5 then), but I will research the www and see what pops up. It sounds crazy doesn't it? But it's the simple truth that seamen swimmers were in the minority.
And even experienced swimmer drown. The fact that they drown doesn't mean they can't swim. It means that they drowned for one reason or another.
I feel that it is reasonable to suggest that the oral tradition is within some of the gospel reports, but manipulated.
There are many accusations about evangelists making things up, and manipulating the writings, not only of the Gospels, but of works such as those of Josephus. There are scholars who suggest this...... I'm waving the scholar flag here.
So then you pick and choose what you want to believe based on preconceived notions? Yes, scholars agree that there is an oral tradition, and it may be able to be picked out. However, what they don't do is make things up that is not stated in any record.
