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?

[Elijah John]

.
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?

They copied. Scholars believe that "Matthew" and "Luke" copied from "Mark", the earliest Gospel writer, and added more sayings from the theoretical "Q" source (a sayings Gospel as is Thomas), which are not found in Mark.

[Zzyzx]

.

They copied. Scholars believe that "Matthew" and "Luke" copied from "Mark", the earliest Gospel writer, and added more sayings from the theoretical "Q" source (a sayings Gospel as is Thomas), which are not found in Mark.

Seems most likely.

If a person is willing to cheat (present copied material as their own " also known as plagiarism), does that not cast doubt upon the credibility, integrity, veracity of everything they write?

Or, like I said as a kid (perhaps ten years old) in Catholic school when I caught a nun in a lie, If they will lie to me about little things they will lie to me about big things.

[bjs]

Luke explicitly states in his introduction that he relied on other eyewitness accounts and was not personally an eyewitness.

[Zzyzx]

.

Luke explicitly states in his introduction that he relied on other eyewitness accounts and was not personally an eyewitness.

Agree. The writer of "Luke" (whoever that may have been) acknowledged that his account is hearsay (that heard from others). Copying verbatim word for word what was written by one of the other gospel writers indicates that he did not present information from a different source.

If 'Luke' and say 'Mark' had gathered information from diverse sources and wrote their own accounts (without copying), they would not be word for word identical.

An alternative possibility is that both copied from a prior writing -- which would amount to both just repeating an earlier story. In any case, they certainly do not verify one another or lend credibility to the tale.

If they are not credible in that regard, what else that they say lacks credibility?

[SallyF]

Luke explicitly states in his introduction that he relied on other eyewitness accounts and was not personally an eyewitness.

So where was "God" in all this ...?

For century after Christian century, the faithful have been severely proclaiming that this Jesus propaganda came from Jehovah or Jesus or the Holy Ghost.

But we admit here that we have heresay.

Unknown humans writing about magic stuff that other humans told them about.

And not the tiniest hint or shred of evidence of any sort that any god had anything to do with a word of it.

And that goes for ALL the biblical writings.

Not a peep.

Human writings.

Human propaganda.

Copycats.

No "God" authorship.

But - in my view - lots of delusion and deception in belief in the Jewish nationalist and Jesus-promoting propaganda.

[bjs]

.

Luke explicitly states in his introduction that he relied on other eyewitness accounts and was not personally an eyewitness.

Agree. The writer of "Luke" (whoever that may have been) acknowledged that his account is hearsay (that heard from others).

Yes, that would be how virtually every historian, ancient and modern, gets his or her information.

To accept modern historians but reject Luke for this reason would be a textbook example of special pleading.

To reject all modern historians, modern and ancient, for this reason is a position to absurd for me to even bother debating.

[Zzyzx]

.

Luke explicitly states in his introduction that he relied on other eyewitness accounts and was not personally an eyewitness.

Agree. The writer of "Luke" (whoever that may have been) acknowledged that his account is hearsay (that heard from others).

Yes, that would be how virtually every historian, ancient and modern, gets his or her information.

To accept modern historians but reject Luke for this reason would be a textbook example of special pleading.

You ignored just a wee bit of the post.

Agree. The writer of "Luke" (whoever that may have been) acknowledged that his account is hearsay (that heard from others). Copying verbatim word for word what was written by one of the other gospel writers indicates that he did not present information from a different source.

If 'Luke' and say 'Mark' had gathered information from diverse sources and wrote their own accounts (without copying), they would not be word for word identical.

An alternative possibility is that both copied from a prior writing -- which would amount to both just repeating an earlier story. In any case, they certainly do not verify one another or lend credibility to the tale.

If they are not credible in that regard, what else that they say lacks credibility?

Care to take a stab at the parts in bold font? Copying word-for-word from each other or from a common source does not constitute information gathering or legitimate reporting. Presenting copied material as though it was one's own work is downright dishonest.

To reject all modern historians, modern and ancient, for this reason is a position to absurd for me to even bother debating.

No need to make excuses or cover story if bowing out.

[Willum]

I hate to do a one-liner;
But it may just be it was an expression, or an easy translation.
It is out of my league for that opinion, but I be Marco knows, if he were to consider it,

[wannabe]

.

They copied. Scholars believe that "Matthew" and "Luke" copied from "Mark", the earliest Gospel writer, and added more sayings from the theoretical "Q" source (a sayings Gospel as is Thomas), which are not found in Mark.

Seems most likely.

If a person is willing to cheat (present copied material as their own " also known as plagiarism), does that not cast doubt upon the credibility, integrity, veracity of everything they write?

Or, like I said as a kid (perhaps ten years old) in Catholic school when I caught a nun in a lie, If they will lie to me about little things they will lie to me about big things.

Yes they all copied from the same source ,but, had no reason to change the words because they found them to be true.

This does however verify the source to exist.

And the source verifies itself.