An announcement from Lexham Press regarding EEC James
Comments
-
Mattilo,
Yes, your understanding is correct: we will unlock the new commentary to owners of the current James volume when it is complete. We've not yet announced a new author for the volume, but we are in the midst of that process. These are significant volumes so it will be some time yet before the final product is shipped.
Thank you,
Jesse
0 -
Thank you! I know it will take time. I do enjoy the series thus far
0 -
David Kirk Davis said:
Don't run Ellen G. White's books through a plagiarism checker. You wouldn't like the results.
Running Ellen G (heretic) White through anything you will not like.
0 -
Jesse Myers said:
We discovered that the volume contains a number of uncited and improperly cited passages from other works, blurring the distinction between quoted and original material.
I was just working on James 1:18, and I was truly surprised by what I saw comparing the (pulled) EEC volume by W. Varner and the Anchor Yale Bible commentary by L.T. Johnson. I only purchased the AYBC last month, so I wasn't fully aware of the seriousness of the issue in Varner's volume, but this is quite something. Even though the whole paragraph in the EEC seems taken from Johnson's commentary, there is no reference to it at all.
I now understand that the issue was not just forgetting to cite another author, but presenting someone else's research and wording as his own.
0 -
I do not own AYBC (yet) so I probably would have missed this. I do have the James commentary. If I quote something from the James volume, giving credit to Varner, something like the example above, without knowing it actually came from someone else, am I in error? Would that harm my research credibility? Would I be better off never quoting the volume? Could Faithlife update the EEC volume to somehow show them (like strike them out with a footnote pointing to the original source)? Perhaps I would be better off not relying on it at all?
Maybe I am overthinking it but this popped into my head when I saw the post. I know just buy AYBC.
0 -
SteveHD said:
I do not own AYBC (yet) so I probably would have missed this. I do have the James commentary. If I quote something from the James volume, giving credit to Varner, something like the example above, without knowing it actually came from someone else, am I in error? Would that harm my research credibility? Would I be better off never quoting the volume? Could Faithlife update the EEC volume to somehow show them (like strike them out with a footnote pointing to the original source)? Perhaps I would be better off not relying on it at all?
Maybe I am overthinking it but this popped into my head when I saw the post. I know just buy AYBC.
As an English teacher, I would say that you should not use the work at all in an academic paper. Someone reading the paper would assume that you are unaware of the fact that the work has been discredited. It would be like using spoiled milk in a recipe. The end result is going to be tainted.
With that said, you should be able to use it for other nonacademic purposes, such as sermon prep, etc...
Disclaimer: I hate using messaging, texting, and email for real communication. If anything that I type to you seems like anything other than humble and respectful, then I have not done a good job typing my thoughts.
0 -
It's been a year, and I still don't understand this. I'd like to think, it's like walking out of the Walmart, forgetting to pay. I've done that. Have to scurry back in.
I can see having a chapter-draft, dumping big chunks of earlier commentators in, with the intent, to comment, and then erase the chunks. I do that a lot. It's very efficient.I could even see an assistant erroneously 'smoothing' the chunks, not knowing they're temporary pastes. Trying to understand, here.
I guess, my trouble, is that in commentaries, you remember phrasing. I do. Then I search, as to why I remember that phrasing. Often, it's just a favorite point, that subject writers hang on to.
I just can't see 'fraud'. ECC? Intensional? After a long caree?. Maybe there's no answer.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
It was not intentional, but it was wrong. I copied into a third document for research and then pasted into my commentary, and sometimes overlooked then crediting the source. No excuse. I was wrong. I apologize to my readers. Logos/Faithlife was right in what they did.I have repaired the problems and a second edition which will be issued with a different publisher soon.
DrV0 -
williamvarner said:
It was not intentional, but it was wrong. I copied into a third document for research and then pasted into my commentary, and sometimes overlooked then crediting the source. No excuse. I was wrong. I apologize to my readers. Logos/Faithlife was right in what they did. I have repaired the problems and a second edition which will be issued with a different publisher soon.
DrVThank you Doctor V. I really have enjoyed your commentary thus far as well as your mobile Ed course. I hope logos accepts your revised version but if not where can we preorder it?
On an unrelated side note, I'm doing your OT survey from TMS at the moment which has also been entertaining thus far.
0 -
Thank you, DrV (your sign-off).
To be honest, I didn't buy your commentary (or any other ECC). But I will buy your new one. I'll have to search, I suppose. I guess I'm underwhelmed with many scholars' sloppy logic and loosey-goosey certainty. But I can handle bad mistakes. That part is refreshing.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
0 -
I do not feel comfortable in pushing the information about the revised edition on this forum. Faithlife and the moderator of this forum have been gracious to me. I do not want to abuse that kindness.
DrV0 -
I understand doctor V. I'll send an email to the faculty email at masters and put doctor V in subject line. If I hear back from you great. Otherwise I'll keep an eye out. I hope all is well
0 -
williamvarner said:
It was not intentional, but it was wrong. I copied into a third document for research and then pasted into my commentary, and sometimes overlooked then crediting the source. No excuse. I was wrong. I apologize to my readers. Logos/Faithlife was right in what they did. I have repaired the problems and a second edition which will be issued with a different publisher soon.
DrVI know when I am researching a topic, after reading and rereading from a number of different sources, it's hard to remember what are my thoughts and what are those of others. So I can completely understand how this could happen. I'm glad to hear that things are moving forward for you.
0 -
Hope you are going well DrV. I always believed this was an unintentional error. We are all guilty of unintentional errors at some point in our lives. I am pleased to hear you are working on a revised edition and I hope it is well received.
williamvarner said:It was not intentional, but it was wrong. I copied into a third document for research and then pasted into my commentary, and sometimes overlooked then crediting the source. No excuse. I was wrong. I apologize to my readers. Logos/Faithlife was right in what they did. I have repaired the problems and a second edition which will be issued with a different publisher soon.
DrV0 -
Fans of DrV can find his devotional commentary on Psalms as the half price deal of the day today. Check out logos' Facebook page for link and code
0 -
Mattillo said:
Fans of DrV can find his devotional commentary on Psalms as the half price deal of the day today. Check out logos' Facebook page for link and code
Thanks for telling!
Alternative way to get there: Logos' Twitter feed (directly, or as shown e.g. on http://Faithlife.com )
Have joy in the Lord!
0
