Copycat

[Zzyzx]

.
Matthew 14:45 From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land.

Mark 15:33 From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land.

Luke 23:44 It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over all the land until the ninth hour.

If you were told that those statements were produced by three witnesses writing their own accounts of an event, is there any chance that you would conclude that the exact wording parallel was derived independently?

What are the chances that the exact wording parallel was legitimate?

Did they just happen to select the exact same words?
Did they copy from one another?
Did they use the same cheat sheet (copy from another source)?
Did they get together and memorize the words?
Did a supernatural spirit provide them with the words?
Did later copyists change the words OR insert their own version of what happened?

Some Bible defenders attempt to present the gospels as independent accounts. Does this belie their claim?

[Difflugia]

There's a lot of text there, but I'm going to narrow it down with the following:

• An unsupported assertion is not evidence
  • Hyperbole is not support.
  • Claiming to have evidence without presenting it is not support.
• An unsupported dismissal is not a rebuttal.
  • Insulting me is not support.
  • Insulting scholars and their scholarship is not support.

If you don't mind, rather than quoting your response, I'm going to try to organize your claims a bit. I'll try not to leave any out.

This first, short list is just the claims that apply to the topic of this thread.

• Verbatim agreement in general and the Baptist's "brood of vipers" speech in particular could have come about without copying.
  • Most Jews in the first century were multilingual and may have orally rehearsed those pericopes.
    • Paul was multilingual.
    • Jews in Jerusalem on Pentecost were multilingual.
      • "Speaking in tongues" wasn't supernatural.
      • Being drunk doesn't make one know more languages.
    • Jesus was fluently multilingual.
  • The Apostles may have been orally reciting their message in Jerusalem, in Greek before committing it to writing.

My claim is that the agreement between Luke's and Matthew's reporting of the Baptist's "brood of vipers" speech must be because a written source was copied. As evidence, I'm claiming that the Baptist would have been making this statement to the assembled Pharisees and Sadducees in Aramaic, so its reporting in Matthew and Luke is the result of a written translation (or original, written composition, but that wouldn't change the conclusion). If each of the evangelists were working independently, then I claim the translations would be different, even if the evangelists had perfect recall of an Aramaic original. As empirical evidence, I asked you to look at translations of the same text of Josephus. Even though the translators presumably started with the same text, the translations differ widely in vocabulary choice, word order, and verb tense. I claim that this is sufficient evidence that Matthew and Luke share a written source, whether one copied the other directly or they independently copied a shared source.

Your evidence that the Baptist's "brood of vipers" speech wasn't copied from a written source is that the Apostles probably spoke Greek, so the Baptist's speech might have been something that was collectively and orally interpreted into Greek, then practiced in Greek to such a degree that it became rote.

I personally find this to be utterly implausible on its face, but I suppose my expression of incredulity doesn't really advance the argument. Let's see if we identify what must be true in your scenario.

Assuming the baptism scene with the Baptist actually happened, at least some of the disciples were probably present to witness it. Some of the disciples of Jesus, including members of the Twelve, were John's disciples first. That would explain Matthew's exposure to John's saying in Aramaic and if we accept for the sake of argument that the Palestinian fishermen did recite it to each other in Greek, then we can have a translation that predates Matthew's written Gospel. Where does Luke come in, though? Luke's not one of the Twelve and as far as we can tell, had no contact with the Twelve. Your argument is that Matthew and Luke were, at some point, sharing their stories with each other in a way that they both memorized an identical Greek translation of John the Baptist's words. As far as I can tell, though, Luke and Matthew never had an opportunity to be in the same room together. Your argument is that Matthew and Luke were together in such a way that they memorized a saying of John the Baptist in a second language without needing it to be written down before each independently put it into his Gospel. Since that is the crux of your argument, it can only be correct if that happened (and note that we're currently accepting absolutely everything else you have asserted in the light most favorable to your argument). When and in what circumstances did that happen?

To summarize, I've offered evidence that Matthew's and Luke's quotations are too similar to be coincidence, even given perfect recall of an original source saying. To counter this, it seems to me that you must, at a minimum, do one of two things. You must either challenge that by offering your own evidence that two independent translations of a sixty-word quotation could coincidentally match or by offering at least a plausible explanation for how Matthew and Luke came to share the same passage without a written intermediary if Acts is even sort of historical.

Of course, there are other possibilities of scholarship, like that "Matthew" and "Luke" weren't actually Matthew and Luke, but were Hellenistic Christians exposed to an oral, Greek tradition that treated the words of John the Baptist as a memorized creed. Would you prefer to claim one of those, instead?

This second list is of your claims that, as far as I can tell, don't have direct bearing on whether or not any of the evangelists copied each other. These are interesting, but probably belong in another thread and I won't be addressing them here anymore. I'm mentioning them so that if you think one of these has any bearing on this thread, you can explain why, but I'm otherwise leaving them alone.

I will acknowledge, though, that you did correctly catch my mistake; in addition to the epistles to Philemon and 2 Timothy, Colossians also mentions Luke. I try not to be that sloppy.

• People wouldn't want Christianity to be true, but believe it is, anyway.
  • Rosaria Butterfield, lesbian and tenured professor at Syracuse became a Christian.
• You cannot imaginge that Luke didn't travel with Paul.
  • I can't prove he didn't.
  • It is strange that Paul named Luke among his "fellow workers" in Colossians and Philemon.
• Luke from 2 Timothy is the author of Acts
  • 2 Timothy mentions Luke.
  • 2 Timothy mentions Paul being under arrest.
  • The author of Acts says "we" and "us."
  • Luke might have stayed with Paul for two years, during which time he wrote Acts.
    • Thinking some more, you're sure he did.
• Scholars can't prove that the Gospels weren't written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
• Theophilus was a common name in the first century.
• It is up to me to prove that the author of Luke/Acts had copies of Mark, Q, and Paul's epistles.
  • He probably didn't, because copies were expensive.
• Since I haven't proved that the author of Acts had access to Paul's epistles, it's strange that he mentioned details that were in Paul's epistles.
  • You imagine that Philemon wouldn't have made copies of Philemon for anyone else.
• Neither I nor scholars have proven that Paul didn't write 2 Timothy.
  • I haven't proven that a pseudonymous author of 2 Timothy could have had copies of Paul's other epistles because there were no printing presses.
  • Paul wrote his epistles in the 60s.
  • Polycarp quoted from 2 Timothy in 110.
  • Forty-five years isn't much time to circulate a forgery.
• Colossians and Philemon both mention Demas, so Demas was with Paul, too.
• It is inconceivable that a pseudonymous author would mention people that are in the genuine epistles.
• Probability has nothing to do with determining truth.

Did I miss anything important?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 30 by Difflugia]

An unsupported assertion is not evidence

Exactly where have I made, "unsupported assertions"? As far as I can see, I have simply stated the facts, as we have them?

Hyperbole is not support.

And again, where has this occurred?

Claiming to have evidence without presenting it is not support.

And again, where?

An unsupported dismissal is not a rebuttal.

I do not believe that I have "dismissed" anything at all, but have rather left all the options opened.

Insulting me is not support.

If I have Insulted you, this needs to be reported because it would be against the rules of the forum.

Insulting scholars and their scholarship is not support.

My friend, simply because I do not accept anything, and everything, the scholars have to say without question, is not insulting them, nor is questioning whether they could have some sort of an agenda, since we could all be guilty of such things.

Verbatim agreement in general and the Baptist's "brood of vipers" speech in particular could have come about without copying.

Correct! This does not mean copying would not have been involved, nor that there may not be reason to believe that copying may have occurred. Rather, it simply means that copying has not been demonstrated, nor has it been demonstrated that copying would be the best explanation of the facts we have. With this being the case, there could be other explanations which could explain the verbatim passages.

Most Jews in the first century were multilingual and may have orally rehearsed those pericopes.

"Orally rehearsed" is not necessary in the least. Rather, it could be the fact that these stories would have been told, and retold, over, and over, again, day, after day, to the point that some of these events could be so etched in the minds of these authors, that they could very well have told these stories verbatim.

As an example, I have heard many of the Biblical stories so many times, that there would be some I could tell verbatim, while there would be others I could tell, which may not be exactly verbatim, but I could indeed tell the story very accurately.

When I was a child, my grand pa told me stories of his life over, and over, and many times I would ask him to tell me this story, or that story over again, to the point I can tell you these stories in the same exact words he told these stories. In the same way, the Apostles would have told these stories, over, and over, and been ask to retell this story, or that story, to the point that the authors may have been able to recite some of these stories word, for word.

You act as if this would be absolutely unheard or absurd, when it would not be absurd in the least. This does not mean this is what would have happened, but it is a very possible explanation, which would be just as possible as the idea of copying, no matter what your opinion may be.

Paul was multilingual.

I believe we would have evidence for this. Moreover, Paul would have been a Pharisee, and would have certainly spoke, and understood Hebrew, with very good evidence that he would have spoke in Greek.

Jews in Jerusalem on Pentecost were multilingual.

We have very good evidence for this.

"Speaking in tongues" wasn't supernatural.

I never said a word about it not being "supernatural".

Being drunk doesn't make one know more languages.

Does it? Can you give an example? If you saw someone you knew only spoke one language, and they were now all of a sudden speaking fluently in another language, would the first thing that would come to your mind be, they must have been drinking? Would that ever cross your mind?

Jesus was fluently multilingual.

We cannot say, "fluently", but we can definitely say there would be reason to believe that he could indeed speak multiple languages.

The Apostles may have been orally reciting their message in Jerusalem, in Greek before committing it to writing.

Exactly! As I said, how many languages could Peter have been speaking when he is said to have addressed the crowd? This would certainly be evidence that the Apostles, and the whole crowd would have had to have shared some sort of common language.

My claim is that the agreement between Luke's and Matthew's reporting of the Baptist's "brood of vipers" speech must be because a written source was copied.

I understand what your claim is. While there may be evidence to believe this to be the case, this has not in any way been demonstrated to be a fact, and it has not even been demonstrated that it would be the best explanation. Because you see, we do in fact have evidence that these authors would have spent much time together, and would have told, retold, heard, and reheard, these stories over, and over, again.

As evidence, I'm claiming that the Baptist would have been making this statement to the assembled Pharisees and Sadducees in Aramaic, so its reporting in Matthew and Luke is the result of a written translation (or original, written composition, but that wouldn't change the conclusion).

The fact of the matter is, we do not know what language the Baptist would have used, and seeing as how the Baptist would have been conversing with the scribes, and Pharisees, he could have very well been communicating in Hebrew. However, none of this would matter, if these authors would have indeed spent much time together, telling, and retelling, hearing, and rehearing these same stories over, and over, in multiple languages.

If each of the evangelists were working independently, then I claim the translations would be different, even if the evangelists had perfect recall of an Aramaic original.

However, if the Gospels were authored by those they have been attributed to, then these men would have knew each other very well, spent day, after day together, and would have told, and retold, heard, and reheard these very same stories over, and over, again, in the language, they wrote the Gospels in.

As empirical evidence, I asked you to look at translations of the same text of Josephus. Even though the translators presumably started with the same text, the translations differ widely in vocabulary choice, word order, and verb tense.

Which would not even be relevant, if these authors were not copying from another text, and translating this other text into another language, but were rather simply writing down what they had seen, and, or heard, in the language they were writing in, as they told, retold, heard, and reheard, in that very same language.

I claim that this is sufficient evidence that Matthew and Luke share a written source, whether one copied the other directly or they independently copied a shared source.

"Sufficient" for what? It certainly is not "sufficient" to demonstrate there was any sort of copying involved. It may be evidence, that there MAY have been copying, but it is certainly not evidence that there indeed would have been, especially when there would be other explanations.

Your evidence that the Baptist's "brood of vipers" speech wasn't copied from a written source is that the Apostles probably spoke Greek, so the Baptist's speech might have been something that was collectively and orally interpreted into Greek, then practiced in Greek to such a degree that it became rote.

NO! My evidence is the fact, that we have evidence that these men would have spoken multiple languages, and this could explain the word, for word passages, since we all know that many of us as Christians, can recite many things absolutely word, for word, which demonstrates that what I am saying is not strange in the least, especially for those who would have spent day, after day together, who would have had to continue to tell these things over, and over, again.

So then, while you are under the impression that the opinion of the scholars is the only plausible explanation, and that it would be the required explanation, you are simply under a false impression.

I personally find this to be utterly implausible on its face, but I suppose my expression of incredulity doesn't really advance the argument.

You are correct! Our opinion does not "advance the argument". This is why I very rarely share an opinion. Rather, if you will notice, I simply supply the facts, and evidence we have, and acknowledge all the possibilities, until, or unless these possibilities have been eliminated. On the other hand, you seem to dismiss any possibility which you would rather not believe.

Assuming the baptism scene with the Baptist actually happened, at least some of the disciples were probably present to witness it. Some of the disciples of Jesus, including members of the Twelve, were John's disciples first. That would explain Matthew's exposure to John's saying in Aramaic and if we accept for the sake of argument that the Palestinian fishermen did recite it to each other in Greek, then we can have a translation that predates Matthew's written Gospel.

My friend, it is not that difficult at all. If there were some sort of significant event which may happen to in my immediate community, I am sure that myself, my family, friends, and neighbors would be getting together in order to discuss this event, along with what each of us may have witnessed ourselves, and, or, what we had heard form others who may have witnessed the events, and if it would have been significant enough, we may continue to talk about these events, for weeks, and even months.

So then, for the sake of argument, let us suppose something as significant as a resurrection had occurred, and let us suppose for a moment, all these authors would have been followers of this man who was resurrected, and they followed this man for some 3 years, before being crucified. I can imagine, during these 3 years of following this man, these men would have gotten together after the day, and talk to each other about the events of the day, and what this man may have said and done on each of these days, for 3 long years.

Then, if this man did raise from the dead, and these men did indeed witness this man alive after death, I can imagine these men would have continued to talk about these things with each other, and others, for weeks, months, and even years. This is exactly what I am saying very well may have occurred, and it is not far fetched in the least!

However, you have your mind so set on the opinion of the scholars, that these authors would not have been those they are attributed to, that it seems impossible for you to understand that if these authors are indeed the ones who are said to be the authors, then this would be exactly what would have occurred, in that they would have spent day, after day together, talking to each other, and others, over, and over concerning these events.

But to be clear again here, I am not insisting that copying would be out of the question, or that there would be no reason to believe copying may have occurred, but rather acknowledge this as a possibility, while also acknowledging the other possible scenarios, and the possibility I am giving would be a very possible scenario.

Where does Luke come in, though? Luke's not one of the Twelve and as far as we can tell, had no contact with the Twelve.

This is SO, SO, FUNNY! What in the world would being part of the twelve have to do with it? Do you recall, that there were eleven Apostles, and they went out to the brethren, who numbered at that time, about 120? Now, do you suppose, the Apostles kept to themselves, and did not communicate these things to these 120, over, and over? Would it be possible, that Luke may have numbered among this 120?

Moreover, we have very good evidence to support the idea that Luke would have traveled with Paul, and would have been a "fellow worker" with Paul. We know Paul would have known, and conversed with the Apostles, many times, and so we are to imagine this Luke, which Paul mentions as a "fellow worker" would not have known the Apostles as well?

Next, we have the author of the letters to Theophilus, begin his second letter with the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem, only to begin to focus upon the actions of Paul once the journeys of Paul begins, and somehow, and for some reason, does not mention what the other Apostles may be doing, until, or unless, Paul were to come back in contact with them again.

Now, do you suppose, that it may be possible, that this author only tells of what the Apostles in Jerusalem were doing in the beginning of the letter, because he is there to witness the events, because he may be one of the 120? Or, could it be possible this author could have been part of the thousands that were said to become believers on the "Day of Pentecost"? Sure this would be possible, and would explain why he would be able to report on these events to Theophilus.

Now, is it possible, that this author begins to focus almost solely on the actions of Paul, once Paul's journeys begin, and does not report on what the other Apostles were doing, because he is with Paul, and cannot possibly know what the other Apostles would be doing, until, or unless, Paul would come back in contact with them again? Absolutely this would be possible, and we have other evidence which would suggest this author did indeed travel with Paul.

So then, we have very good evidence to support the idea that Luke, would have spent a number of years in Jerusalem, following, and reporting on the actions of the original Apostles. We also have very good evidence to support the idea that Luke would have traveled with Paul on at least some of his missionary journeys. We also know that if this is the case, then this author would have surely known all the Apostle personally, and would have conversed with them on a daily basis for a number of years, before taking off with Paul.

The thing is, you know we have evidence for all these things, and yet you are somehow able to get your fingers to type out, "as far as we can tell, (Luke) had no contact with the Twelve"? GOOD GRIEF!

My friend, I am not insisting in any way that this evidence would demonstrate Luke would have known the twelve. However, with all the evidence we do have, it is most certainly a very good possibility, and for one to be able to type out the words, "as far as we can tell, (Luke) had no contact with the Twelve" certainly seems to demonstrate one who ignores any facts, and evidence which may support what they would rather not believe.

Your argument is that Matthew and Luke were, at some point, sharing their stories with each other in a way that they both memorized an identical Greek translation of John the Baptist's words.

No, this is not it at all? Luke, would not be sharing stories at all. Rather, Luke seems to be one who is there, to hear, witness, and report, and it could have very well been, all of the Apostles, not simply Matthew.

In other words, you could very well have the twelve Apostles, who are telling these things to the thousands now who have become believers, of whom Luke may have very well been apart of, along with Luke following the Apostles around, as they preach to others. Moreover, if you will recall, it is reported that the believers were getting together daily. In other words, this was a Church, and just like many of us who were raise in a Church, there are many, many stories, hymns, Psalms, Scriptures, creeds, etc., which we have heard over, and over, to the point we can recite many of them, word, for word. You act as if what I am saying is beyond imagination, and the more we converse, the more it is very evident that it is not beyond imagination in the least, unless one simply has decided that the opinion they hold must be the required opinion.

To summarize, I've offered evidence that Matthew's and Luke's quotations are too similar to be coincidence

And as you can clearly see, I am not saying it would have been a "coincidence". In other words, you are saying these men were "independent" of each other, and there would be no way they would have been able to use the same words, while I am saying that they would not have been independent of each other, but rather would have spent much time together, talking about the things which the author of the letters to Theophilus says, "happened among us".

The main point here is though, I am not insisting that these authors would not have copied, but am rather giving some very good possible explanations, along with the evidence to support this possibility, while you seem to be insisting that your explanation would be the only possible explanation, when this is not the case in the least.

even given perfect recall of an original source saying.

NO! Rather giving perfect recall, of something they have either told, and retold, or heard, and reheard, over, and over again, which is exactly what millions, upon, millions, of Christians have done down through the centuries, even to this day, as they are able to recite many, many things they have heard over, and over again.

You must either challenge that by offering your own evidence that two independent translations of a sixty-word quotation could coincidentally match or by offering at least a plausible explanation for how Matthew and Luke came to share the same passage without a written intermediary if Acts is even sort of historical.

I have! And while you seem to be insisting the were independent, I am suggesting they would not have been independent, as they told, and, or heard these same things over, and over.

Of course, there are other possibilities of scholarship, like that "Matthew" and "Luke" weren't actually Matthew and Luke, but were Hellenistic Christians exposed to an oral, Greek tradition that treated the words of John the Baptist as a memorized creed. Would you prefer to claim one of those, instead?

No, because if these authors would have been Matthew, Mark, and Luke, then we have evidence that these men would have known each other very well, and would have spent an enormous amount of time together, and they certainly would have been talking about the things which they claim to have witnessed, and, or heard from others, almost everyday, all day, just as we have it recorded in Acts.

So then, I certainly understand your opinion, which just so happens to line up with the opinion of the majority of the scholars. I also understand that it would be your opinion, that this opinion of yours, would be the better opinion, but in the end it is simply an opinion which has not been demonstrated, and there are many, many, well educated, and intelligent folk who do not agree with the opinion you hold.

Now, I am sure you would be under the opinion that these well educated, and intelligent folk, who do not agree with your opinion, must, and have to have some sort of agenda, and I would think that you would also be under the impression that I may have some sort of agenda.

However, I have not closed my mind to any of the possibilities, and I do not insist that my opinion would be the better opinion, nor that my opinion would be the required opinion. So then, who is it really, who has an agenda?

Because you see, I not only understand that those who may agree with me, may have some sort of agenda, I am convinced that many of those who agree with me, would in fact have an agenda, and will attempt to slant the evidence any way they can. However, simply because there may be those who agree with me who may have some sort of agenda, would not in any way necessitate that those who may not agree, would not have any sort of agenda. The point is, it seems very strange for one to be under the impression that it is only those who are opposed to their position, who must have some sort of agenda, but somehow, someway, those who are in agreement, would have no reason whatsoever to have an agenda? Sort of funny how that always seems to be the case?

[Difflugia]

Exactly where have I...

OK, so you don't think you're guilty of any of that. I was going to take them one at a time, but a good share of your statements fit multiple categories. We're looking for unsupported assertions, hyperbole, claiming unpresented evidence, handwaving dismissals, and insults.

As far as insults go, I'm not going to report your posts just because you're being snarky. I will, however, feel free to ignore any assertions for which your only supporting data are insults due to the sheer volume of overall claims (a la the "Gish gallop").

From your previous post:

The fact is, many, if not most of the Jews would have been able to speak more than one language, which would include Greek. The other languages would have included Aramaic, and Hebrew. The language they would speak, would depend on the audience they may be speaking to at any given time. This would give us a very good idea that the Apostles would have understood, and communicated in more than one language...

This is unsupported and a poor chain of logic to boot. First, many Jews speaking some combination of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew does not imply that Jesus or the Apostles did. Probably they could, but perhaps not.

...and we have certain evidence of this fact.

Which makes this either hyperbole or unpresented evidence. If you mean that the previous claim was "certain evidence," then you're grossly exaggerating. If you mean you have some other evidence, you haven't told us what it is.

First, we have certain evidence that Paul did indeed speak more than one language, because we have this recorded as being a fact.

Once again, this is both unsupported and hyperbole. I assume (because you didn't tell me) that you're referring to Paul's speeches "in the Hebrew language" in Acts 21 and 22, but I'd hardly call anything in Acts "certain evidence" (and this is C&A, after all).

The historical evidence suggest, the overwhelming majority of the Jews who would have been there on, "The Day of Pentecost" would have spoken one, of two languages, which would have been, Greek, and, or, Aramaic, with most of these Jews being able to understand, and, or speak, Hebrew.

What historical evidence? You saying so isn't evidence.

Moreover, we have it recorded to be a fact, that many of the Jews from all over the world at the time, on this particular "Day of Pentecost", believed the reports of the Apostles, and decided to remain in Jerusalem, instead of returning to their hometown, which is why we have it recorded that there were some of these early Christians who were selling their land, in order to support these Jews from other lands, and it would be also why we have it recorded that there were divisions among these Jews, as far as the distribution of the funds, which is exactly why we have it recorded that men such as Stephen, and Phillip would have been appointed.

If you're talking about Acts 2, you're reading things into it that aren't there. If you aren't, I don't know what you're talking about.

The whole point here is, although these different Jews, would have communicated in different languages on a daily basis, the overwhelming majority would have been able to communicate, understand, and interpret in another language, and as we have already discovered, the overwhelming majority of Jews who would have been present there on this particular "Day of Pentecost" would have communicated on a daily basis in either Greek, or Aramaic, with most having the ability to understand Hebrew as well, with most, if not all being able to understand, and or communicate in all three.

You didn't support this the first two times you wrote it and you haven't supported it this time.

But this is not the only evidence we have. Because you see, on this particular, "Day of Pentecost" how do you suppose the Apostles were able to communicate to all these different folks, if they would not have all shared some sort of common language? Of course, most folks will point to the fact that it is recorded that the Apostles began to speak in tongues, and are under the impression that this would mean they would have been speaking in languages they did not already understand, and speak themselves.

However, as we look at the list of these Jews who were recorded to have been there, and the list of their homelands, what we discover is the fact that the overwhelming majority of these folks would have spoken, in either, Greek, or Aramaic, with most, if not all being able to communicate in both, and as the evidence points out, this would have included the Apostles.

This isn't evidence, but conjecture. This is something you need evidence for, not support for something else.

Now, how do you suppose the crowd would have been able to understand Peter? How many different languages do you suppose one person can speak at one time? This sort of demonstrates, the text itself from the author of this letter to Theophilus, is allowing us to understand that all these folks would have shared a common language, with most, if not all having the ability to communicate in more than one language.

This is unsupported conjecture.

So, what we have thus far is then, evidence that the Jews, including the Apostles, would have had the ability to communicate, and understand more than one language, and also evidence that the idea of "speaking in tongues" would have nothing to do with speaking in a language one would not already posses the ability to communicate in.

You've said that a lot now, but haven't provided any evidence for it.

So then, as we turn our attention to Jesus, we have evidence which would indicate that he would have understood, and spoke more than one language, which would include, Greek, Aramaic, and Jesus would have certainly been fluent in Hebrew, and it would depend upon the audience at the time, which would dictate which language would be used.

You haven't provided any support for this claim. Is there a reason to believe that a would have received a Hebrew education at all, let alone have established fluency?

As we couple this with the fact that the Gospels could have very well been written by those they have been attributed to, along with the fact that the Apostles would have been dealing with Jews from all over the world, and could have been, and more than likely were, communicating their message, over, and over, on a daily basis, in the Greek language with the authors of the Gospels either being involved in this communication, or being there overhearing this same communication over, and over, again, in that language, could very well explain the text which are verbatim, no copying required.

This is all conjecture. I accepted it for the sake of argument, but you didn't support it.

However, what I do not get is, although there may be evidence to suggest there may have been copying involved, this does not, and would not answer all the questions, which is exactly why your scholars must, and had to come up with the idea that there must, and had to have been another source which some of them must have had access to, which they have no idea what this other source may have been, nor any evidence that it ever existed, but we have those who for some reason seem sure that this must, and has to be the answer. But again, this answer has some serious holes in it, which those who simply take the word of the scholars, seem to be more than happy to ignore.

This is insulting. The suggestion is insulting because you haven't actually told us what you think any of the "holes" in anyone's reasoning are, so it's just an attempt at poisoning the well by vaguely claiming faulty reasoning. It's also obviously intentionally worded as insulting, implying (again, without support) that Q scholarship is some sort of dodge that those who accept it are willfully party to. Finally, you're simply dismissing out of hand the Q hypothesis without offering any sort of evidence or reasoning. I didn't actually mention Q and I'm not sure why you're trying to refute it, but still.

The whole point here again is, there are those who cannot in any way demonstrate what it is they claim to believe, but are somehow under the impression, that their opinion, of the opinion of others, not only is the best opinion, but is the opinion which is now "required", when they held this same sort of opinion, when they were convinced in a completely, and contradictory way, which goes on to demonstrate one who does not seem to have the ability to understand there may be other explanations which would indeed be possible.

The tone of this leads me to think it's meant to be insulting, but I don't actually know what you're saying.

In other words, I have been on this site for a good number of years now, with no one able to demonstrate what it is they happen to believe concerning the facts, and evidence we have as far as the resurrection is concerned, but somehow, someway, everyone's opinion is the best opinion, and now we have those who are claiming their opinion which they have not demonstrated in the least, is the "required" opinion. GOOD GRIEF!

This doesn't make it more understandable.

According to my text editor, I'm only 20% through your first post. I'm not doing this four more times, so I hope this is enough to help you now figure out which claims might need a dose of evidence.

Now, as far as your current post, you apparently misunderstood my outline. Those were all assertions that you made, not my claims or indications of agreement or disagreement.

So, I might unpack some more of this later, but one thing you wrote particularly struck me:

"Orally rehearsed" is not necessary in the least.

I see...

Rather, it could be the fact that these stories would have been told, and retold, over, and over, again, day, after day, to the point that some of these events could be so etched in the minds of these authors, that they could very well have told these stories verbatim.

You do know what "rehearsed" means, right?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 32 by Difflugia]


Your main complaint seems to be that I am lacking in evidence. However, if you will go back and read our conversation thus far, you will see that the main focus on my part would have been upon there being very good evidence to support the idea of the author of the letters to Theophilus traveling along with Paul, and I have supplied abundant evidence to support this idea. If you do go back and read, and you think you can find anything else I may have lacked evidence to support, then please let me know.

This leaves us with the language situation. It would be a known fact, that the Romans ruled at this time, and Latin and Greek were the official languages of the Roman Empire. So then, the Jews did in fact speak Aramaic on a day, to day basis, but if they were to get along in this society, then many of them would have to learn the Greek language as well.

I am going to do something here which I do not normally do, and that is to supply you with a link. The reason I am supplying this link, is in order to save time, and space. Now, you can believe as you wish, but the truth is, I simply did a search on the web just the other day, after post #29 in which I talked about the language situation as far as the Jews were concerned, because although this is something you should already know, I began to think about the fact that you may indeed want some sort of evidence.

So then, I simply did a search on "goggle" by typing "what language did Jesus speak youtube", and this was first on the list. When I listen to this guy, I had no idea who he was, nor have I ever seen him in my life. In fact, it was not until earlier today, that I decided to actually look him up, in order to see exactly who he may be. Sadly, what I discovered is, he is no longer with us, as he past away at the age of 34. Here is the video.



Now, I am sure you will complain about the source here, because he would have been a Christian, and you would be correct that he would have been a Christian. In fact, what I found out today was, he was raised as a Muslim, and was an apologist for Islam, and it was during his debates that he converted to Christianity, which again goes against your idea of one having to have some sort of "emotional, and, or, social ties to Christianity". At any rate, the source is not the matter, but rather the facts, and evidence he gives in support.

However, since you seem to lean heavily toward the opinion of the scholars, allow us to look at what one of the scholars has to say on this subject. We will be referring to quotes by Dr. Stanley Porter, but before we do, allow me to give you a link to Wikipedia, which supply his qualifications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_E._Porter

Notice carefully here, that one of Porter's specialties would be Koine Greek. If you click on Koine Greek in this article from Wikipedia what you will find there is,

" (Koine Greek) served as the lingua franca of much of the Mediterranean region and the Middle East".

If you click on lingua franca in this article, here is what you will read,

"a bridge language, common language, trade language, auxiliary language, vehicular language, or link language, is a language or dialect systematically used to make communication possible between groups of people who do not share a native language or dialect, particularly when it is a third language that is distinct from both of the speakers' native languages".

WOW! I would say this would be pretty strong evidence right here that Greek would have been used as a, "a bridge language, common language, trade language, auxiliary language, vehicular language, or link language", which would have been used by many of the Jews, even in an around Jerusalem at the time, and we have not even gotten to what the scholar Porter, who happens to specialize in Greek has to say. So let's get to it.

Porter, just so happens to have written a paper entitled, "Did Jesus Ever Teach In Greek"? Here are some of the things he has to say there.

"Evidence is increasing that [lower Galilee] was the Palestinian area most heavily influenced by Greek language and culture.

Porter cites several books, as well as this interesting article by eminent Roman Catholic Joseph Fitzmyer, who writes,

"There are some indications that Palestinian Jews in some areas may have used nothing else but Greek.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 32 by Difflugia]

Your main complaint seems to be that I am lacking in evidence. However, if you will go back and read our conversation thus far, you will see that the main focus on my part would have been upon there being very good evidence to support the idea of the author of the letters to Theophilus traveling along with Paul, and I have supplied abundant evidence to support this idea. If you do go back and read, and you think you can find anything else I may have lacked evidence to support, then please let me know.

This leaves us with the language situation. It would be a known fact, that the Romans ruled at this time, and Latin and Greek were the official languages of the Roman Empire. So then, the Jews did in fact speak Aramaic on a day, to day basis, but if they were to get along in this society, then many of them would have to learn the Greek language as well.

I am going to do something here which I do not normally do, and that is to supply you with a link. The reason I am supplying this link, is in order to save time, and space. Now, you can believe as you wish, but the truth is, I simply did a search on the web just the other day, after post #29 in which I talked about the language situation as far as the Jews were concerned, because although this is something you should already know, I began to think about the fact that you may indeed want some sort of evidence.

So then, I simply did a search on "goggle" by typing "what language did Jesus speak youtube", and this was first on the list. When I listen to this guy, I had no idea who he was, nor have I ever seen him in my life. In fact, it was not until earlier today, that I decided to actually look him up, in order to see exactly who he may be. Sadly, what I discovered is, he is no longer with us, as he past away at the age of 34. Here is the video.



Now, I am sure you will complain about the source here, because he would have been a Christian, and you would be correct that he would have been a Christian. In fact, what I found out today was, he was raised as a Muslim, and was an apologist for Islam, and it was during his debates with a friend, that he converted to Christianity, which again goes against your idea of one having to have some sort of "emotional, and, or, social ties to Christianity" in order to be a Christian. At any rate, the source is not the matter, but rather the facts, and evidence he gives in support.

However, since you seem to lean heavily toward the opinion of the scholars, allow us to look at what one of the scholars has to say on this subject. We will be referring to quotes by Dr. Stanley Porter, but before we do, allow me to give you a link to Wikipedia, which supply his qualifications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_E._Porter

Notice carefully here, that one of Porter's specialties would be Koine Greek. If you click on Koine Greek, in this article from Wikipedia, what you will find there is,

" (Koine Greek) served as the lingua franca of much of the Mediterranean region and the Middle East".

If you click on lingua franca in this article, here is what you will read,

"a bridge language, common language, trade language, auxiliary language, vehicular language, or link language, is a language or dialect systematically used to make communication possible between groups of people who do not share a native language or dialect, particularly when it is a third language that is distinct from both of the speakers' native languages".

WOW! I would say this would be pretty strong evidence right here that Greek would have been used as a, "a bridge language, common language, trade language, auxiliary language, vehicular language, or link language", which would have been used by many of the Jews, even in an around Jerusalem at the time, and we have not even gotten to what the Porter, who happens to specialize in Greek has to say. So let's get to it.

Porter, just so happens to have written a paper entitled, "Did Jesus Ever Teach In Greek"? Here are some of the things he has to say there.

"Evidence is increasing that [lower Galilee] was the Palestinian area most heavily influenced by Greek language and culture.

Porter cites several books, as well as this interesting article by eminent Roman Catholic Joseph Fitzmyer, who writes,

"There are some indications that Palestinian Jews in some areas may have used nothing else but Greek.

Porter goes on to say,

"One indication of the pervasive influence of Greek [is that] in Acts 6:1 (cf. 9:29) a distinction is made between - and , probably a linguistic distinction made between Jews who spoke mainly Greek and those who spoke mainly Aramaic or who also spoke Aramaic. Before the third century A.D. these terms were virtually exclusively linguistic terms referring to language competence. To distinguish those outside Palestine as Greek speakers would not have been necessary (it would have been assumed), but apparently there was a significant part of the population that spoke mostly Greek even of those resident in Jerusalem."

And then,

Referred to as the Galilee of the Gentiles in Matthew 4:15, lower Galilee was a center for trade among the Mediterranean, Sea of Galilee and Decapolis regions. Galilee was completely surrounded by hellenistic culture.

Porter then goes on to say this,

"More impressive than what is known even of Galilee for establishing the probability that Jesus spoke Greek is the epigraphic and literary evidence for the widespread knowledge of Greek throughout Palestine including Galilee. That Greek was used not only in the Diaspora but also in Palestine, even for composition by Jews of distinctly Jewish literature including much religious literature, indicates that Greek was an important and widely used language by a sizable portion of the Palestinian Jewish population".

I could continue on, but allow me to end with this quote from Porter,

"In the light of this accumulated evidence, which is overwhelming when compared to the equivalent Aramaic evidence, it is surprising that many scholars have not given more consideration to the hypothesis that Jesus spoke and even possibly taught in Greek".

Notice here, it is this scholar's opinion that, "the evidence is overwhelming"! He goes on to say that, "it is a surprise that many scholars have not given more consideration" to this "overwhelming evidence", but I really do not believe that Porter is "surprised" at all. Because you see, if the scholars concede this, then they would have to acknowledge that there may not have been any sort of translation from Aramaic to Greek, after all.

Of course, it is not going to surprise me in the least, if you complain about the sources I have used, and go on to claim they have a particular slant, bias, agenda, etc. But again, it is sort of strange how one only questions these things, when it would be coming from those who may be supplying evidence for what one would rather not believe, but for some reason, those who happen to be in agreement with what one would rather believe, have no reason whatsoever to have any sort of agenda?

This is exactly why, I very rarely cite the opinion of others, because it adds nothing to the argument whatsoever, on either side, until, or unless the opinions can be demonstrated to be facts. It also adds nothing to the argument, to insist the majority would hold a particular opinion.

I will also point out, that I have never, heard, seen, or read anything from either of the sources I have supplied until our conversation. Because you see, it should be common knowledge for one to understand that Greek would have been the official language of the Roman empire at the time, and it would be common sense to understand that if there would be those who would want, and have to get along in this society, then they would have to be able to speak, and understand the official language, and that there would be many, many folks who would have learned this language in order to get along, even if this language, would have been a second language to them, which linked, or bridged them to be able to do commerce, and many other such things, in such a society. This is not far fetched in the least. What would be far fetched, is to think, and then go on to insist, that these folks would have never attempted to learn this official language.

Moreover, as Wikipedia explains, Hebrew would have been the original language of the Jewish people. Now, how do you supposed the Jews would have come to predominantly speak, Aramaic? Well, according to Wikipedia, is would be, "After the Babylonian captivity, Aramaic replaced Biblical Hebrew as the everyday language in Judea". Now, why do you suppose this would be? Well, certainly it would have been because, these folks had to assimilate into the culture, and in order to do so, they had to learn the official language, of those they had been conquered by, and we are to suppose, that it would have been far fetched to believe the Jews at this time, would not be able to communicate in the official language of the society they lived in?

I will also point out the fact that, most of the Apostles were said to be fishermen, before becoming followers of Jesus. Now, are we to suppose, they would have been able to work in such a trade, and not be able to communicate in the official language of the Romans? In fact, where were most of the Apostles said to be from? Oh? That's right, it would be Galilee. Now, where was it again, which the evidence we have just seen, would have been heavily influenced "by the Greek language, and culture"? That's right, it would be, Galilee.

My friend, one is certainly free to continue to believe that all these men would have only spoken Aramaic, but this would be to seem to ignore any evidence which may be against this idea, in order to continue to believe what one would rather believe.

So then, here is the short list of the evidence we have which would support the idea that Jesus, the Apostles, and many of the Jewish people, even in around Jerusalem, would have been able to communicate in more that one language, with one of those languages certainly being Greek.

I would also like to point out the fact that, I only used two sources of information from the web. In other words, all one would have to do would be to do this search, and they will find there are many who understand these things very well. However, I guess if there are those who are convinced their opinion is the "required opinion", then this would not matter much.

So, what sort of evidence would we have, which would suggest all these folks would have communicated in only one language, and would have been ignorant of the language which would have been the official language of the society they were living in at the time?

OK, so you don't think you're guilty of any of that.

I do not, and just as you have ask me for evidence, I ask the same of you.

I was going to take them one at a time, but a good share of your statements fit multiple categories.

Then it should not be difficult at all for you to share some with us?

We're looking for unsupported assertions, hyperbole, claiming unpresented evidence, handwaving dismissals, and insults.

As far as the "unsupported assertions", I guess I will give you that one, as far as the language situation goes, but you have to understand that I would have been under the impression that it would have been common knowledge, and common sense, to understand that many, many of these folks would have had to understand, and communicate in the official language of the society they would have been living in at the time. At any rate, that has been corrected, which leaves us with, "hyperbole, handwaving dismissals, and insults".

As far as insults go, I'm not going to report your posts just because you're being snarky.

Right! And it would have nothing to do with the fact that if you were to report what you claim to be insults, they would not be seen as insults? In other words, it would be a waste of your time to report them, because there would be no examples you could use.

This is unsupported and a poor chain of logic to boot.

It is not "unsupported" any longer my friend. Rather, what seems to be "unsupported" at this point, would be the idea that all these folks would have been living in a society in which the overwhelming majority of these folks would not be able to communicate, and, or understand the official language of that society.

First, many Jews speaking some combination of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew does not imply that Jesus or the Apostles did.

It certainly does not imply, they did not! And again, where were most of the Apostles from? Oh, that's right, Galilee. Was Jesus ever said to be in, Galilee?

Probably they could, but perhaps not.

Which is exactly my point. In other words, you are building your whole premise of copying being involved, upon the idea that only Aramaic would have been spoken by these folks, while now seeming to concede the idea that they, "probably" could speak Greek, with your only hope being, "perhaps not".

The thing is, I am not insisting that they would have spoken Greek, but one certainly cannot insist they would not have. Rather, all one can do is to look at the evidence we have, and I cannot imagine anyone can look at this evidence, and come to the conclusion that they would not have been able to communicate in Greek.

Which makes this either hyperbole or unpresented evidence. If you mean that the previous claim was "certain evidence," then you're grossly exaggerating. If you mean you have some other evidence, you haven't told us what it is.

This has been corrected, my friend! And even before it was, you seem to acknowledge now, these folks, in your words, "probably" could speak Greek, which shoots some very big holes in the theory you adhere to.

Once again, this is both unsupported and hyperbole. I assume (because you didn't tell me) that you're referring to Paul's speeches "in the Hebrew language" in Acts 21 and 22, but I'd hardly call anything in Acts "certain evidence" (and this is C&A, after all).

This is really funny, and seems to demonstrate one who does not know the difference between what would be evidence, as opposed to proof. Because you see, when I refer to what is recorded in "Acts", I am not insisting that this is something we can know to be true, because we have it recorded in the Bible. That is what would be against the rules of the forum. However, one can indeed point to what is recorded in these letters as evidence.

Because you see, if we could not point to these recorded things as at least being evidence, there would be nothing here to debate. You seem to clearly understand what we have contained in the Bible is very strong evidence, otherwise there would be no need in you spending enormous amounts of time here on this site debating the issue.

The reason why you do spend so much time here, is because you clearly understand that these things have in no way been demonstrated to be false. In fact, this is exactly why these things have been debated for some 2000 years now, because there are those who clearly understand there would be facts, and evidence to support these things which are recorded, and while there have been many who have desperately attempted to demonstrate these things would be false, they have failed to do so.

It kinda makes one wonder if you have actually sat down in order to consider what all would have to be involved in order for these reports to be false? I assure you that it would not be as simple as, they were all lying, they were all deceived in some sort of way, and it is certainly not as simple as, "they must have copied each other".

So then, while these reports, have not been demonstrated to be true, they most certainly have not been demonstrated to be false. This means, while we cannot point to these records as being proof, we can certainly point to them as being evidence, otherwise we have nothing to debate here.

Moreover, are we to imagine Paul would have traveled all over the known world at the time, which we know would have been Greek speaking, and only posses the ability to speak Aramaic? But of course, we cannot even know that Paul traveled around, now can we, because it is only recorded in the Bible? Hopefully, you understand that for one to attempt to make such an argument, would demonstrate clearly, this one would not have an understanding of exactly what we have contained in the Bible.

If you're talking about Acts 2, you're reading things into it that aren't there. If you aren't, I don't know what you're talking about.

Exactly what am I reading into it, that would not be there?

I said,

Now, how do you suppose the crowd would have been able to understand Peter? How many different languages do you suppose one person can speak at one time? This sort of demonstrates, the text itself from the author of this letter to Theophilus, is allowing us to understand that all these folks would have shared a common language, with most, if not all having the ability to communicate in more than one language.

To which you reply,

This is unsupported conjecture.

How is this? If Peter did in fact address the crowd, how many languages could he have used in order to do so? If this would not be evidence, that Peter must have shared a common language with the crowd, then I do not know what you would consider evidence?

You haven't provided any support for this claim. Is there a reason to believe that a would have received a Hebrew education at all, let alone have established fluency?

My friend, we have it recorded that Jesus would have impressed Jewish authorities in the Temple. We have it recorded that he read from the Hebrew scriptures. We have it recorded that he was referred to as Rabbi.

rab-bi
/rab/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a Jewish scholar or teacher, especially one who studies or teaches Jewish law.
a person appointed as a Jewish religious leader.

Now, of course this does not prove the case, but it is certainly evidence in support.

I said,

As we couple this with the fact that the Gospels could have very well been written by those they have been attributed to, along with the fact that the Apostles would have been dealing with Jews from all over the world, and could have been, and more than likely were, communicating their message, over, and over, on a daily basis, in the Greek language with the authors of the Gospels either being involved in this communication, or being there overhearing this same communication over, and over, again, in that language, could very well explain the text which are verbatim, no copying required.

To which you reply,

This is all conjecture. I accepted it for the sake of argument, but you didn't support it.

If you will notice, I have skipped some of your complaints concerning my not supporting my arguments concerning the language situation, because I have now supplied this evidence. However, I wanted to respond to this, because something has been added.

My friend, we have evidence the authors would have been Matthew, and Mark, because we have those who were a lot closer in time, who attest to this. In fact, we have evidence that some of those who attest to this, would have known, some of the Apostles themselves.

Of course, this would not demonstrate that Matthew, and Mark would have been the authors, but it does in fact demonstrate that we have those a whole lot closer in time attesting to this, while the evidence we have that they may not have, is coming from those, some 2000 years after the fact.

But the question is again, why does it even matter? In other words, if we have this evidence in support of the idea these men would have been the authors, then why do we have those who would want to cast doubt? Because you see, those who want to suggest these men may not have been the authors, surely cannot deny we have evidence in support, and they certainly cannot demonstrate that these men would not have been the authors. So again, why does it matter? If these reports, are so obviously false, then why would it matter who the authors may have been?

Well, it is because of the fact, that these reports are not obviously false, and there are facts, and evidence in support of the reports. Because you see, if these folks who are attempting to make the case that these folks may not have been the authors, could in any way demonstrate the reports would be false, then it would not matter in the least, who, and when these thing would have been written.

However, since they cannot demonstrate the reports to be false, the only option they have is to somehow cast some sort of doubt, because they understand that if these authors are those with whom they are attributed to, then it cannot be said that "they may have been simply passing on, what had been past on to them". Therefore, those opposed, have not in any way demonstrated that these authors would not be Matthew, and Mark, but have only suggested that it may not have been.

This is insulting. The suggestion is insulting because you haven't actually told us what you think any of the "holes" in anyone's reasoning are, so it's just an attempt at poisoning the well by vaguely claiming faulty reasoning.

GOOD GRIEF! So, are you suggesting that the idea that there "MAY" have been some sort of other copy that these authors may have shared, which we have no idea, what it would be, nor any evidence that this source even existed, is not a huge hole in the theory? I mean, we cannot simply accept that the authors are who they are said to be, but somehow, we can accept the idea of this unknown source, with no evidence, it ever existed?

It's also obviously intentionally worded as insulting, implying (again, without support) that Q scholarship is some sort of dodge that those who accept it are willfully party to.

No! This is not it in the least. Let us recall, it would be you, and these scholars who are suggesting that it very well may be the case, that all these authors would have had some sort of agenda. I am not insisting that they would not have, but am rather acknowledging the fact that it may be in fact the scholars who would have an agenda. You act as if this would be unthinkable?

Finally, you're simply dismissing out of hand the Q hypothesis without offering any sort of evidence or reasoning.

This is completely false, because I am on record numerous times as having not dismissed anything at all, as demonstrated just above. Rather, I believe it would be you who seems to have dismissed certain ideas, like when you suggest the copying opinion would be "required". So then, who is it really, who has dismissed certain ideas?

I didn't actually mention Q and I'm not sure why you're trying to refute it, but still.

I am not attempting to refute it, because as I say, I leave all options open. I mentioned "Q" because of the fact that it demonstrates a hole, the scholars are desperately attempting to fill, because they clearly understand that copying from one another would not answer all the questions, and so they must fill this hole with something. Therefore, I am not insisting the scholars would be incorrect, but am rather demonstrating they are far from demonstrating this idea.

I said,

In other words, I have been on this site for a good number of years now, with no one able to demonstrate what it is they happen to believe concerning the facts, and evidence we have as far as the resurrection is concerned, but somehow, someway, everyone's opinion is the best opinion, and now we have those who are claiming their opinion which they have not demonstrated in the least, is the "required" opinion. GOOD GRIEF!

Your reply,

This doesn't make it more understandable.

Well, allow me to spell it out for you. There are many of us on this site, who have differing opinions of the facts, and evidence we have as far as what is contained in the NT, with none of us being able to demonstrate that our opinion would be fact, nor that our opinion would be the better opinion, and certainly no one has demonstrated their opinion, would be the "required" opinion.

Some of understand this to be the case, and it accept it, while others seem to be under the impression that their opinion of the facts, and evidence, would be the better opinion, to the point we now seem to have those, who want to insist, their opinion would be the "required" opinion, when they have not in the least demonstrated this to be the case. Hope that helps!

You do know what "rehearsed" means, right?

re-hearse
/rhrs/
Learn to pronounce
verb

practice (a play, piece of music, or other work) for later public performance.

supervise (a performer or group) that is practicing for later public performance.

mentally prepare or recite (words one intends to say).

So then, this is not what I have described in the least. Rather, these men would have been telling, retelling, hearing, and rehearing these reports over, and over again, not in order to practice, but rather it would have simply be the by product of their life, and could have very well at the time had no idea they would ever sit down to write these things out, but when they did find a reason to do so, they would have heard these things together so many times, they may in fact, tell some parts word, for word.