DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism

[_Tator]

Plagiarism has always been a problem in Mormonism. Ask Isaiah.

[_Lemmie]

Thank you, Lemmie.

You are quite welcome, Morley!

[_Tom]

Gary Habermas, a professor at Liberty University, has written a number of articles and books arguing for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. One of his articles, ""The Case for Christ’s Resurrection," can be read here. I cite this article because I've found strong similarities between passages in the article and a blog post published in August 2017 by Dr. Peterson titled "Some notes toward an essay on the resurrection of Jesus." Peterson's post does not cite Habermas. Here follows a comparison between passages in Peterson's blog post and Habermas' article.

#1. Habermas, 190-91:

Koester asserts that "We are on much firmer ground with respect to the appearances of the risen Jesus and their effect." These appearances "cannot very well be questioned."29 Bart Ehrman states that "we can say with complete certainty that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that he soon appeared to them .... Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus' resurrection, since it is a matter of public record."30 Traugott Holtz concludes that the disciples' "experience of resurrection ... is in fact an undeniable historical event."31

29 Koester, History and Literature, p. 84.
30 Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 230-31.
31 My translation of the German text in Traugott Holtz, "Kenntnis von Jesus und Kenntnis Jesu," Theologische Literaturzeitung 104 (1979) p. 10.

Peterson:

Helmut Koester writes that the appearances of Jesus “cannot very well be questioned.”[1] “We can say with complete certainty,” writes the agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, “that some of his disciples at some later time insisted that he soon appeared to them. . . . Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since it is a matter of public record.”[2] [“At some later time”? Early.] Traugott Holtz declares that the disciples’ “experience of resurrection . . . is in fact an undeniable historical event.”[3]

[1] Helmut Koester, History and Literature, 84.
[2] Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 230-231.
[3] Traugott Holtz, “Kenntnis von Jesus und Kenntnis Jesu,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 104 (1979): 10.

It appears that Peterson has copied Habermas' translation of text in Holtz's article without giving any credit to Habermas.


#2. Habermas, 191-92:

Unbelievers would seemingly have to reply by severing the connection between what the disciples thought and what really happened. To do this, they might move in two directions, by indirectly or directly replying to a case like that which we have outlined here.

Initially, perhaps they might try an indirect maneuver by posing various a priori objections34 that, whatever the data, Jesus was simply not raised from the dead. These sorts of miraculous events just do not occur in our world. These philosophical responses take us far beyond our study of the resurrection of Jesus, especially in that such objections are typically not concerned with this event at all. Usually, they make more general inquiries regarding the background information or the nature of the evidence, both areas where the resurrection excels.35

Or, another indirect move is to respond with the agnostic plea that we do not know what occurred. The disciples indeed believed that they saw Jesus, but we cannot determine a cause.

34 It might be noted here that not all a priori questions are automatically ruled out as question begging. Some ask by various means if it is possible to postulate in advance a reason for questioning certain occurrences.
35 For distinctions between various sorts of a priori arguments, along with a detailed response to several specific examples, see Gary R. Habermas and Michael Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel, 2004), chap. 9. For a more technical treatment, see Habermas, The Risen Jesus and Future Hope, esp. chap. 2.

Peterson:

Critics who, by and large, accept the notion that the disciples genuinely had experiences of a living Jesus after his crucifixion and death can move in basically two directions. They might point out that events such as the resurrection simply don’t occur, or that life after death is an incoherent concept. Or they might say that we simply don’t, or can’t, know what happened.

#3. Habermas, 193:

As Fuller asserts, what we know "therefore requires that the historian postulate some other event" besides the disciples' faith. We must ascertain "the cause of the Easter faith ... outside of their belief."38

38 Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, pp. 169, 181.

Peterson:

What we know, says Fuller, “requires that the historian postulate some other event” besides the disciples’ faith in order to explain the sequel. We must identify the cause of the Easter faith . . . outside of their belief.”[4]

[4] Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives, 169, 181.

It's instructive at this point to examine the cited pages in Fuller's book. Fuller writes (language quoted by Habermas and Peterson is shown in bold type): "The very fact of the church's kerygma therefore requires that the historian postulate some other event over and above Good Friday, an event which is not itself the 'rise of the Easter faith'[footnote omitted] but the cause of the Easter faith" (p. 169).

Fuller: "Resurrection faith rests upon eyewitnesses who testify not merely to their own belief, but to something which 'happened' additionally to and outside of their belief: God revealed his Son to them as risen from the dead" (p. 181).

Peterson's dependence upon Habermas rather than Fuller is evident. Note that Habermas and Peterson use three identical phrases: "what we know," "besides the disciples' faith," and "we must." Also note that Habermas' second quotation consists of language from widely separated pages in Fuller's book (pages 169 and 181). Peterson cites the same two pages. (It appears that Peterson unintentionally failed to include a quotation mark after "identify" while he was taking notes.)


#4. Habermas, 193-94:

Precisely in order to address directly these facts, the more popular approach through the centuries has been to pose a naturalistic theory to account for the data. Such a move basically attempts to allow for historical facts where the evidence is the strongest, while veering off in a natural direction before getting to the punch line involving the resurrection. Here they need to propose an alternative scenario: "Jesus didn't really rise from the dead. What really happened was (fill in the blank)."

However, this is probably the most difficult method of all. In fact, when faced with this option, the vast majority of critical scholars opt out. They are often well aware that when an option is chosen, the weight of the known historical facts comes crashing down against their proposal. In fact, they are so well aware of this eventuality that only a few attempt it. Even among scholars, it is generally conceded that none of these options work.

For instance, Raymond E. Brown calls these theses "gratuitous charges."39 Dunn concludes: "alternative interpretations of the data fail to provide a more satisfactory explanation" than the resurrection.40 Davis responds: "All of the alternative hypotheses with which I am familiar are historically weak; some are so weak that they collapse of their own weight once spelled out .... The alternative theories that have been proposed are not only weaker but far weaker at explaining the available historical evidence."41 Robinson notes that "it is indeed very difficult to dismiss [Jesus' appearances] and still find a credible explanation."42

39 Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology, p. 163; cf. pp. 163-67.
40 Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus, p. 76. Another more recent and similar testimony is that of N.T. Wright, "Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem," Sewanee Theological Review 41 (1998): 118-22.
41 Stephen T. Davis, "Is Belief in the Resurrection Rational?" Philo 2 (1999): 57-58.
42 J. A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977), p. 124.

Peterson:

There are a number of alternative, naturalistic explanations for the resurrection. Raymond E. Brown terms them “gratuitous charges,” which suggests the seriousness with which most serious scholars have taken them.[5] As James Dunn says, “alternative interpretations of the data fail to provide a more satisfactory explanation” than does the claim of resurrection.[6] The Claremont philosopher Stephen Davis writes “All of the alternative hypotheses with which I am familiar are historically weak; some are so weak that they collapse of their own weight once spelled out. . . . The alternative theories that have been proposed are not only weaker but far weaker at explaining the available historical evidence.”[7] J. A. T. Robinson declares that “it is indeed very difficult to dismiss [Jesus’ postmortal appearances] and still find a credible explanation.”[8]

[5] Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology, 163. See 163-167.
[6] Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus, 76. Compare N. T. Wright, “Christian Origins and the Resurrection of Jesus: The Resurrection of Jesus as a Historical Problem,” Sewanee Theological Review 41 (1998): 118-122.
[7] Stephen T. Davis, “Is Belief in the Resurrection Rational?” Philo 2 (1999): 57-58.
[8] J. A. T. Robinson, Can We Trust the New Testament? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1977), 124.

[Guest]

Tom,

Man, you make me want to post my two finds where he does the same exact things to his colleagues. I'll think about it.

- Doc

[_Jesse Pinkman]

I'm not in academia so anybody with the expertise feel free to set me straight on this. Why wouldn't you just say "Taken/Copied from Kyle R. Walker Mormon Historical Studies" instead of this "notes based on" business?

It seems to me if the purpose of him blogging these "notes" is to give him an avenue of keeping his blog populated and allowing him to sort through/organize the notes he has (Peterson's claimed reason for doing this), then admitting that they are straight copies is better for him in the long run. It removes all threat of unintentional or intentional plagiarism and lets future DCP know that he needs to do some serious editing before publishing.

I agree. I don’t really have an answer for that. I do believe that would have been a better solution, particularly in this case.

[_Jersey Girl]

Gary Habermas, a professor at Liberty University, has written a number of articles and books arguing for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. One of his articles, ""The Case for Christ’s Resurrection," can be read here. I cite this article because I've found strong similarities between passages in the article and a blog post published in August 2017 by Dr. Peterson titled "Some notes toward an essay on the resurrection of Jesus." Peterson's post does not cite Habermas. Here follows a comparison between passages in Peterson's blog post and Habermas' article.

Tom I can think of no excuse for what you documented. It's blatant. It's obvious. Plagiarism.

[_Res Ipsa]

The more I think about this, the worse it gets. Looking at Tom’s latest examples, here is the effect of what Peterson does. First, he passes off Habermas’s ideas (not just his words) as his own. Second, he creates the appearance that he actually consulted the sources that Habermas cites when, in fact, all he may have done is copied Habermas’s citations. When an author cites a source, I expect her to have read the source.

[_Xenophon]

I agree. I don’t really have an answer for that. I do believe that would have been a better solution, particularly in this case.

Although I posted that originally I really liked both Lemmie and RI's posts on the matter. My solution was incomplete because there was some paraphrasing involved in the note-taking and a true correction would involve restoring the quotes in their entirety.

Whatever the final outcome though, I think we can all agree that it should have been handled differently than it was.

Tom I can think of no excuse for what you documented. It's blatant. It's obvious. Plagiarism.

Although there have been plenty of examples in this thread, Tom's latest one is pretty brutal.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

I agree. I don’t really have an answer for that. I do believe that would have been a better solution, particularly in this case.

Although I posted that originally I really liked both Lemmie and RI's posts on the matter. My solution was incomplete because there was some paraphrasing involved in the note-taking and a true correction would involve restoring the quotes in their entirety.

Whatever the final outcome though, I think we can all agree that it should have been handled differently.

I agree with this as well. I hadn’t read their comments when I responded to yours. It would take a little more time but if you are trying to make things accurate, and you are already in an edit feature, it definitely makes more sense.

[_fetchface]

My degree is in engineering but in the few English/Humanities classes that I took, it was drilled into me in those classes that if I were to have been caught engaging in the types of behaviors that DCP has conclusively been shown to have engaged in, I would have been expelled from my University.

Am I correct that DCP is a professor currently employed at BYU?