Jimmy Akin somewhat overdoes the concept of reconstructed dialogue, but not by much

It helps to counter the kind of views I suppose he can be suspected of at least defending in others, about Genesis. However, all of the video, most of my comment, is about the NT.

Reconstructed Dialogue in the Bible | The Jimmy Akin Podcast 008
Jimmy Akin | 4 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig7RmmFfoyo

1:27 The equivalent of sthenographers, i e tachygraphers, did exist.

St. Mark took down by arguably tachygraphy what St. Peter spoke when comparing gospels of Sts Matthew and Luke and when adding some from his own memory.

2:36 For teaching occasions, I think there was a technique the disciples could have used.

Taking turns to memorise sentence after sentence. With twelve disciples, each had ample time to rehearse his sentence before it was his turn again. So, things like the Sermon on the Mount, to a lesser degree the Olivet discourse, would have been taken down word for word, basically.

6:58 Obviously, neither St. Peter, source of St. Mark, nor St. Matthew, would have repeated the words of a demon or of demons to learn them by heart.

The demons were not their teachers.

9:55 Obviously, the crowd was also not the teachers of the Apostles, they could well content themselves with a resumé. Probably a very boiled down one.

12:58 It is also notable that the places represent the four corners of the world.

Cape Horn to Jerusalem would pass by Egypt. Anchorage to Jerusalem would pass between Crete and Cyrene (and further away through Tunisia, which isn't mentioned). Kamtchatka to Jerusalem would pass by Persia, at least some, perhaps all of the three kinds of Persians mentioned. Hobart to Jerusalem would pass by Arabia, also mentioned.

16:53 I'd disagree on Olivet Discourse or Discourse of Last Supper involving more reconstruction.

They were teaching occasions, the one because they came asking, so probably came prepared, the other because He had already marked the extreme and unique importance of the occasion, so, they came prepared.

Unlike "the chosen", I do not think they took notes on paper, but obviously, I'd forward the same technique for learning by heart already mentioned.

24:02 The problem with the quote from Dei Verbum is, some find a way to weasel them into this or that or other not being properly an assertion of the hagiographer, presumably usually in combination with it having no (obvious) salvific significance.

Now, it may not have been obviously salvific to Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux that the creation days were actual days, because there was no carbon dating around in his time. He could believe and basically did believe, the fossils proved millions of years by a supposed succession of faunas, but Adam was the first creature that basically looked human and Adam lived as far back as the Syncellus chronology, the longest of the three Catholic chronologies, states. With millions of years, we have an old atmosphere, so we would have to deal with why Neanderthals are dated to 40 000 years ago. And apart from ignoring the issues, I don't see any way around this leading either back to the atmosphere isn't old, there were no millions of years, or to some kind of apostasy. So, while the question was not salvific for Fr. Vigouroux in 1909, it has become so for many since then.

Note also that the verdict involved a freedom for exegetes to discuss. That in itself involves a freedom for exegetes to conclude against the even Biblical licitness of Day-Age, since otherwise it would not be a freedom to discuss. It should not be taken as a definition that Day-Age is absolutely speaking OK as a Biblical exegesis.

Thank you very much for mentioning that short stories in short sentences are easy to remember. That means, the material for Genesis 1 through 11, at least the parts that fell under human observation, very well could be dictated in that form and then memorised in that form, without loss of information. By the way, this is how Fr. George Leo Haydock and others in the Catholic world of theologians, concluded that Moses knew the matter of Genesis 3 and other events. Your mention on the parables not needing much reconstruction is in this sense gold.