John in Zondervan Commentary Pulled by Zondervan

[Brett K.]

Just saw this story. Will it affect any Accordance modules?
 

Statement from Zondervan Academic on Dr. Andreas Köstenberger’s John Commentary

 

In October 2017 Dr. Andreas Köstenberger informed Zondervan Academic that his commentary on the Gospel of John in volume 2 of the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Commentary: New Testament (ZIBBC: NT) contained “a series of inadvertently unattributed references” to D. A. Carson’s The Gospel according to John in The Pillar New Testament Commentary published by Wm. B. Eerdmans. After careful consideration of the evidence, we concluded that the problem was so extensive that there was no acceptable way to fix the problem. Since the commentary on John in volume 2 of ZIBBC: NT does not consistently follow commonly accepted standards for the use and documentation of secondary resources, our commitment to high publishing standards leaves us no choice but to put volume 2 of the ZIBBC: NT out of print in its print form and to destroy the remaining inventory. The digital formats of the John part of volume 2 are also out of print and withdrawn from the market.

Thanks

--

Brett

[kpang808]

Not if you own it already

[R. Mansfield]

This will affect the commentary set we sell, but will not affect your ownership of the title if you have already purchased it.

[Diatheke76]

The question is: wouldn’t you be sinning for supporting a plagiarized work if you already purchased a copy? Unintentional sin? Shouldn’t Zondervan and Baker offer a refund? Are they sinning by allowing people to keep a plagiarized work so they can keep the money and not offer a refund?

So many questions thanks to things scholars worry about

[A. Smith]

If plagiarism is a sin then Matthew and Luke are in trouble. 

[R. Mansfield]

Shouldn’t Zondervan and Baker offer a refund? 

 

We're still working out the details with Zondervan, but if you don't want to keep the work and want a refund, we will be able to accommodate that. 

[R. Mansfield]

If plagiarism is a sin then Matthew and Luke are in trouble. 

 

Plagiarism is a modern concept. And until recently, it was primarily a modern Western concept. It cannot comparably be applied to ancient literature.

[Tim Hall]

It seems like in the last year or so there have been numerous instances of plagiarism. I wonder if it is easier to catch with modern technology. I know when I taught at a couple universities the faculty had access to scanners that highlighted when students used others works then we could ensure that they were properly cited.

[A. Smith]

Plagiarism is a modern concept. And until recently, it was primarily a modern Western concept. It cannot comparably be applied to ancient literature.

Oh I know. That's my point with regard to viewing it theologically as suggested.

Edited December 5, 2017 by A. Smith

[R. Mansfield]

It seems like in the last year or so there have been numerous instances of plagiarism. I wonder if it is easier to catch with modern technology. I know when I taught at a couple universities the faculty had access to scanners that highlighted when students used others works then we could ensure that they were properly cited.

 

Speaking just as me, not as a representative of OakTree/Accordance, I believe there's a lot more scrutiny than there used to be, and with plagiarism software and the internet in general, it's easier not only to spot plagiarized work but also to raise flags on questionably-sourced content.

 

I personally don't believe that a lot of what has been pulled recently was plagiarized on purpose. It's very easy to become influenced by a source and incorporate that into one's own teaching. In the past, it was said that "general knowledge" did not have to be cited, but it can fairly be asked when does something go from being one person's idea to becoming accepted general knowledge? These days, even in the face of "general knowledge," it's safer to cite heavily.

 

Kudos to Köstenberger for bringing attention to his work to Zondervan himself. I do not think any less of him and hope he's able to update the commentary on John quickly if Zondervan is allowing him to do that.

[A. Smith]

Kosetenberger is in the process of writing a new edition of his BECNT commentary. It is a good time to call attention to the error of the first edition. I'm not accusing him. Simply noting the reality of the situation. I don't really blame commentary writers for plagiarism. Since commentary writing is essentially commentating on commentaries, it's very difficult to avoid. Unfortunately, much of what came from the ZIBBC would have come from the same pool of research notes. I do wish that Peter O'Brien had been given the same grace that Kostenberger is receiving. It seems O'Brien was a test case in how not to deal with widely-publicized plagiarism. 

[Tim Hall]

I also do not criticize, nor look down on any scholar that accidentally plagiarizes. I can only imagine more read you become the more difficult it is to not plagiarize.

[ukfraser]

I can only imagine more read you become the more difficult it is to not plagiarize.

What about including title, author, publisher and page number when quoting in our sermons, especially if recorded and put on church web site??????

 

;o)

Edited December 6, 2017 by ukfraser

[A. Smith]

What about including title, author, publisher and page number when quoting in our sermons, especially if recorded and put on church web site??????

 

;o)

 

As noted above, plagiarism is a specialized modern convention. A very good argument can be made that it does not apply in such a context and that it would, in fact, deter from the intended message. 

 

A major source of plagiarism in professional scholarship, I imagine, has to do with years and years of note taking, not all of which are well documented. I imagine, as another generation of scholarship arises with different patterns of study (ie, electronic tools) there will be less and less. This is in addition to the additional methods available for identifying plagiarism, as Rick noted. 

[Brett K.]

I also do not criticize, nor look down on any scholar that accidentally plagiarizes. I can only imagine more read you become the more difficult it is to not plagiarize.

I think the point in this case is that it was "extensive". It's possible for anyone to read a lot then write something they think they came up with while it's really remembering something they read. That happens and is not a giant deal. The probablem is when it can be seen as a pattern.

[A. Smith]

From Steve Runge: “I just got off the phone with Andreas. The source of the problem was the notes a research assistant took on Carson's Pillar commentary almost 20 years ago. This was the source of the subsequent attribution problems since the same notes were used for subsequent projects. This explains why one of Carson's commentaries is attributed consistently and other is not. So far as I know, the problem is restricted to that one source.

 

Kostenberger is ultimately responsible, as he has stated. But things came to light as he was using the same set of notes for another project. Andreas is one of the most fastidious people I know. Crying out loud, he's an Austrian economist! This is why the publishers are characterizing the problem as lack of attribution and not plagiarism. Both are formally the same, but only the latter has intent. It's a nuance, but an important one.

 

Whether this is also what happened to O'Brien or not is something I have no knowledge of. Baker had wanted an update anyhow, and they're moving forward with it based on not understanding this as a case of plagiarism. Tragic any way you slice it.”

[Paul Meiklejohn]

Concerning the use of plagiarism in our sermons.  It's all to easy to take whole sermons off the internet... especially since there are sites that are ready made for that.  Our own denominational stream have laid out clear guidelines of what is acceptable and what is not.  Quoting and referencing is of course encouraged and viewed as legitimate research.  Using someone else's sermon's verbatim will be treated as a disciplinary offence. In an age when our congregations can literally 'check that out' online even while we are speaking, I'm glad that our National Leadership have addressed the issue.

[Abram K-J]

A simple, "As Saint Augustine once noted..." or even, "Someone has said..." serve as proper attribution in the sermon. Even if a preacher takes/uses someone else's unique framing of the Scripture or someone else's detailed outline, that should be noted, too--there's no reason not to, and it's not difficult. It can be as short and simple as, "I'm indebted to Rev. So-and-So for this way of outlining my message." Also, "Some scholars think...."

[Abram K-J]

Since the topic comes up from time to time on the forums, I've found this tutorial from Indiana University to be a helpful overview of what constitutes plagiarism and how to avoid it.

 

One of the neat features in Accordance is that you can customize what your citations look like when you copy as citation/bibliography from a commentary, etc. into something else. You can add your own "Content Markers" and "Citation Markers." See mine attached--for me this adds an extra layer of protection to make sure I don't accidentally copy and paste large portions of text without citation. I understand that authors recently have been saying their plagiarism was accidental, but it's eminently avoidable. Tweaking your Accordance Bibliography settings also negates the need to enter your own quotation marks around everything you copy-paste from tools.

 

[Alistair]

Do you suggest we add "verbal footnotes while preaching, for the benefit of those who will only hear what we say, and not read what we write?

[Abram K-J]

What do you mean by verbal footnotes?

[Paul Meiklejohn]

Do you suggest we add "verbal footnotes while preaching, for the benefit of those who will only hear what we say, and not read what we write?

 

 

I think Abram's 'simple' solutions above should suffice.  Actually, I'm sure that quoting others demonstrates that we have done due research on the subject at hand and hopefully will give incentive to our congregation to dig deeper themselves.

[Daniel Francis]

I believe he means William Barclays wrote in his commentary to the Romans ...... end quote. I had a pastor years ago who read verbatim a section of a book for a sermon... I had no problem with it because he told everyone he was reading as a sermon this chapter from x book because it had moved him so. What I didn’t care for was the simple fact he did it Good Friday and Easter Sunday. But it was a powerful message. One should never pass off someone else’s work as your own but proper utilizing another’s work accredited fully is a good thing. Dropping a sentence in from x or y source should maybe noted in your sermon notes but constantly dropping names in a sermon may make one seem particularly pretentious. Just my two cents but if you are quoting 2-3 paragraphs I would love to be told where it coming from but I don’t need or want spoken where every idea comes from within the spoken sermon.

 

-dan

[ukfraser]

I started my comment as a bit of a joke, but in the age of data projection, I often include a sentence or two with a few words highlighted in a different colour and bolded or an edited table and typically just refer to it as a commentary not mentioning series or author.

 

I wouldn’t subject the congregation to a paragraph or more ;o( [so you are safe dan, if ever in the uk and at our church when I’m on.]

 

In the uk, songs are projected in a service with Ccli number ( copyright licence) and copyright info of composer and publisher. Just wondering how far to take it with study material.

 

Fyi, my process is to copy and paste in ios into iOS notes so citations are not carried over as its not an option in the semi skinned Accordance. Then copy and paste all my notes into a word file on my mbp and edit that for projection as a pdf so format uses styles and is consistent throughout what is projected. Typically I will only copy maps into the file at this stage on the mbp. Usually from esv study bible, again not referenced.

Edited December 8, 2017 by ukfraser

[Darryl]

A simple, "As Saint Augustine once noted..." or even, "Someone has said..." serve as proper attribution in the sermon. Even if a preacher takes/uses someone else's unique framing of the Scripture or someone else's detailed outline, that should be noted, too--there's no reason not to, and it's not difficult. It can be as short and simple as, "I'm indebted to Rev. So-and-So for this way of outlining my message." Also, "Some scholars think...."

This is wise advice. My pastor does this very thing, and being employed in the publishing and broadcasting ministry of my Church, I can attest that the attribution definitely helps to avoid plagiarism down the line. How? Sermons become transcripts, and often times transcripts become the source for published works.