Q&A:Plagiarism: Difference between revisions

    From BelieveTheSign
    Line 62: Line 62:


    More importantly, should we reject one or both of the authors of Matthew or Luke because they were also guilty of plagiarism?
    More importantly, should we reject one or both of the authors of Matthew or Luke because they were also guilty of plagiarism?
    ==Luke 11:42==
    We will first deal with the charge against Luke's Gospel.
    Although not particularly relevant, the point should be made that the book of Luke does not state that Luke was the author.  In the introduction to the Gospel of Luke we read the following:
    :''Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.<ref>The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Lk 1:1–4.</ref>
    Here is a translation of the same passage into modern English:
    :''Dear Theophilus:
    :''Many people have done their best to write a report of the things that have taken place among us. They wrote what we have been told by those who saw these things from the beginning and who proclaimed the message. And so, your Excellency, because I have carefully studied all these matters from their beginning, I thought it would be good to write an orderly account for you. I do this so that you will know the full truth about everything which you have been taught.<ref>American Bible Society, The Holy Bible: The Good News Translation, 2nd ed. (New York: American Bible Society, 1992), Lk 1:1–4.</ref>
    From this we understand that we are reading a document that the author of the Book of Luke wrote to his friend, Theophilus.  We can assume that Theolphilus allowed others to copy the letter he received from his friend and thus we have today the Gospel of Luke.
    It is also clear that Luke tells us at the outset that he heard the story of Jesus from a number of eyewitnesses and from all of the reports that he heard and gathered, he put together an account of the story of Jesus.  At no point in the book of Luke does the author state that this is his unique work.  In fact, he starts out with a statement that he put together this account for his friend from a variety of different sources.




    Revision as of 14:34, 31 August 2021

    We have received two separate emails with the following specific questions relating to our article on William Branham's plagiarism. Both of these questions seek to raise arguments that would be considered "red herrings". We will comment first on the nature of the red herring argument and then deal with the specific questions raised in each of the emails.

    Red Herring Arguments

    Message believers have to reconcile what they believe (that William Branham was a biblical prophet) with the fact that William Branham plagiarized some of his more significant teachings. The easiest way to do this is to trivialize William Branham's plagiarism in such a way that a message follower will feel comfortable ignoring it.

    In this case, the "red herring" is an issue that is introduced to deliberately distract a person from William Branham's plagiarism. It is an attempt to lead a person towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used (particularly where there are no real arguments against the issue), or it could be inadvertently used during an argument as a result of poor logic.

    Voice of God Recordings explanation as to why William Branham's failed prophecies are not important relies completely on the use of red herring arguments.

    In the case of William Branham's plagiarism, the case is made that there are examples of plagiarism in the Bible. As a result, we should also ignore William Branham's plagiarism.

    Our refutation of the charge of plagiarism in the Bible is found below. However, even if we were unable to refute this claim, it is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether William Branham was guilty of plagiarism. Each individual accusation must be dealt with separately and considered on its own merits.

    Email #1

    Question: Would you apply Jeremiah 23:30 to the following :

    1. Paul on Aratus' poem "Phainomena" in Acts 17:28?
    2. Jesus' Sermon on the Mount on Moses?
    3. Joshua and Samuel who quoted Jasher and Enoch verbatim?

    Paul on Aratus' poem "Phainomena"

    Acts 17:28 states:

    ...for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’

    This cannot be considered plagiarism for the following reasons:

    1. Paul did not write the Book of Acts, Luke did. What we have here is Luke relating Paul's speech on Mars Hill.
    2. Paul clearly states that he is quoting someone else - a poet. So he is putting everyone on notice that these are not his words.

    Not sure how anyone could construe this as plagiarism. Plalgiarism is defined as the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. Paul is not trying them to pass them off as his own ideas.

    Jesus' Sermon on the Mount on Moses

    The Sermon on the Mount (also referred to as the Olivet Discourse) is recorded in Matthew 5:1-7:29. As with the question, it appears that the individual asking the question does not understand what plagiarism is. Plagiarism is trying to pass of someone else's idea as your own. There are a couple of reasons why Jesus' references to Moses are not plagiarism:

    1. Jesus is constantly saying throughout the Sermon on the Mount - “You have heard that it was said to those of old... "- and then he quotes one of the ten commandments. He is not trying to pass off the ten commandments as his own invention or idea. He is telling the people - "You all know where i got this from". If you do that, it's not plagiarism. If William Branham had said - "Clarence Larkin picked the following dates for the seven church ages and I agree with him" - then it would not have been plagiarism. The problem is that William Branham said that he got all of his revelations from God when he actually got more than a few of them from Clarence Larkin and others.
    2. Moses did not write the ten commandments, God wrote them on the tablets of stone. Who was Jesus? The author of the ten commandments. You can't plagiarize from yourself.

    Joshua and Samuel who quoted Jasher and Enoch

    There are 2 references in the Old Testament to the Book of Jasher:

    Joshua 10:13

    So the sun stood still, And the moon stopped, Till the people had revenge Upon their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.

    2 Samuel 1:18

    ...and he told them to teach the children of Judah the Song of the Bow; indeed it is written in the Book of Jasher...

    It is not possible to plagiarize when you mention the source. Once again for emphasis, if William Branham had simply said that he was using some ideas that he got from Clarence Larkin, it would not have been plagiarism.

    With respect to Enoch, we are unsure what the reference is as we are not aware of either Joshua or Samuel quoting Enoch. If the author of the question could send us a more detailed email containing a specific scripture reference, then we could address this issue more specifically.

    Email #2

    The charge of plagiarism can also be leveled against the authors of the synoptic Gospels. An example would be Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42 which read respectively as follows:

    Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.[1]
    But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.[2]

    Matthew mentions law, judgement, mercy, and faith. Luke mentions judgement and love. Did one of the authors plagiarize the other? Who did not give due credit to the other?

    More importantly, should we reject one or both of the authors of Matthew or Luke because they were also guilty of plagiarism?

    Luke 11:42

    We will first deal with the charge against Luke's Gospel.

    Although not particularly relevant, the point should be made that the book of Luke does not state that Luke was the author. In the introduction to the Gospel of Luke we read the following:

    Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.[3]

    Here is a translation of the same passage into modern English:

    Dear Theophilus:
    Many people have done their best to write a report of the things that have taken place among us. They wrote what we have been told by those who saw these things from the beginning and who proclaimed the message. And so, your Excellency, because I have carefully studied all these matters from their beginning, I thought it would be good to write an orderly account for you. I do this so that you will know the full truth about everything which you have been taught.[4]

    From this we understand that we are reading a document that the author of the Book of Luke wrote to his friend, Theophilus. We can assume that Theolphilus allowed others to copy the letter he received from his friend and thus we have today the Gospel of Luke.

    It is also clear that Luke tells us at the outset that he heard the story of Jesus from a number of eyewitnesses and from all of the reports that he heard and gathered, he put together an account of the story of Jesus. At no point in the book of Luke does the author state that this is his unique work. In fact, he starts out with a statement that he put together this account for his friend from a variety of different sources.


    Navigation

    1. ↑ The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Mt 23:23
    2. ↑ The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Lk 11:42.
    3. ↑ The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Lk 1:1–4.
    4. ↑ American Bible Society, The Holy Bible: The Good News Translation, 2nd ed. (New York: American Bible Society, 1992), Lk 1:1–4.
    Retrieved from "http:///index.php?title=Q%26A:Plagiarism&oldid=25271"