Any thoughts why this book isn't available for purchase?
https://www.logos.com/product/8075/baker-exegetical-commentary-on-the-new-testament-john
Not showing in the collection of BECNT either- strange?
The BECNT was available as an 18 volume set. It appears John has been removed.
I wonder if the John volume quietly got caught up in the plagiarism storm which swept through a while back due to a lack of citations?
And it's no longer listed at the publisher's website:
http://www.bakerpublishinggroup.com/series/baker-exegetical-commentary-on-the-new-testament
It’s in the collection, check again: https://www.logos.com/product/55025/the-baker-exegetical-commentary-on-the-new-testament#005
Maybe not available for individual purchase, but it’s there.
DAL
It’s in the collection, check again: https://www.logos.com/product/55025/the-baker-exegetical-commentary-on-the-new-testament#005 Maybe not available for individual purchase, but it’s there. DAL
Nevermind! There are two links: 1 with a 17 Volume set (no John) and 2 with the 18 Volume set but no option to purchase.
That’s really messed up! I thought this volume was way better than Carson’s.
Well, now there may be a reason it was "better than Carson's."...and not a good one. But will retain final judgment until the facts are disclosed.
Due to misattribution issues, Baker has taken the volume out of print and asked us to remove it from the site. Here is their statement:
2804.OP Notification.pdf
I'm sorry that this didn't get posted earlier. Let me know if you have any questions.
Here is their statement: 2804.OP Notification.pdf
Here is their statement:
Well, there you go DAL, the author admitted to overusing Carson's material and that Carson was his mentor. So the student has not yet become the teacher...
Of course, if you are truly comparing with Carson's, then the difference is genuinely the author's - and if that material is what you liked better, then your opinion stands. But if the material you thought was the author's turns out to be Carson's, then it means Carson's is still better.
Just thinking out loud.
This is just unfortunate, on all sorts of levels. I'm glad that these plagiarism issues are being addressed head on, but it's sad that it was necessary. Let's hope that everyone ups their game so that these sorts of problems can be avoided in the future.
I hope logos picks up his new volume when he completes it
This is just unfortunate, on all sorts of levels. I'm glad that these plagiarism issues are being addressed head on, but it's sad that it was necessary.
Hoping the impact on Mobile Ed courses which use this resource can also be addressed. This is the third time I can think of, where a resource has been pulled for plagiarism, which has deprived customers from accessing portions of a course.
I can't afford to preemptively buy resources to ensure that I can access 100% of a course I (might want to) own.
Here is their statement: 2804.OP Notification.pdf Well, there you go DAL, the author admitted to overusing Carson's material and that Carson was his mentor. So the student has not yet become the teacher... Of course, if you are truly comparing with Carson's, then the difference is genuinely the author's - and if that material is what you liked better, then your opinion stands. But if the material you thought was the author's turns out to be Carson's, then it means Carson's is still better. Just thinking out loud.
I loved the fact Andreas gave options on the wine Jesus made, whereas Carson claims it was straight alcoholic wine. I don’t believe Jesus did such a thing. Anyway, Köstenberger says he’ll write an updated edition.
fyi I wonder how much the new edition will cost for those who have already purchased the volume that was pulled.
"Dr. Köstenberger was the first to bring this matter to our attention. He has identified the cause of the problem, has apologized to his mentor Dr. Carson, and has made restitution to Dr. Carson and his publisher. Dr. Köstenberger also intends to produce a new edition of the commentary that will bring it into conformity with academic publishing standards and incorporate his more recent research on John.
Baker Publishing Group regrets the inconvenience caused by this matter. We will work with accounts and customers to rectify any concerns raised. And we affirm our ongoing commitment to publishing in accordance with the standards of the academy and the publishing industry."
What’s funny is that Baker doesn’t say anything about providing a refund for those who have purchased a copy of this work. 😁 DAL
What’s funny is that Baker doesn’t say anything about providing a refund for those who have purchased a copy of this work. 😁
I just got off the phone with Andreas, was a very helpful conversation. He pointed me to his personal statement on the matter here:
https://www.biblicalfoundations.org/letter-dr-kostenberger/
The source of the problem in both books is the notes a teaching assistant made on Carson's Pillar volume nearly 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 referenced here:
https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/statement-from-zondervan-academic-on-dr-andreas-kostenbergers-john-commentary/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2FpQHu+%28Koinonia%29
Andreas is one of the most fastidious people I know, 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.
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.
Thank you for that clarification. I will not be giving up the sources if the offer is given. I done that with O'Brien's works, and wish I had not, so I will not make that mistake again- ESPECIALLY knowing the nature of this one is a footnote error and not actual plagiarism. Would be nice if they simply make the correction and re-issue.
the publishers are characterizing the problem as lack of attribution and not plagiarism
It's about time. And it's also about time we stopped treating *unintentional* plagiarism/lack of attribution as a practical crime. Treating these types of mistakes the same way we treat intentional plagiarism minimizes the real problem and creates artificial culpability with unintentional errors.
lack of attribution and not plagiarism. Both are formally the same, but only the latter has intent
Unfortunately, your definition isn't followed by many (most) academic institutions. In a majority of policy statements I've read (and I've read quite a few, having served on an academic dishonesty committee), both are treated as plagiarism regardless of intent. And this is part of the problem about which I'm whining.
In any case, I truly hope the reputations of these scholars is not damaged by these kinds of errors.
So the idea seems to be that in the note-taking/research process, the brain tells the hand to write down or type up the other person's material, but the brain somehow does not also, in that same moment, tell the hand to write down or type up quotation marks and bibliographic info.
I get stuck when the conversation moves to whether or not (repeated, sustained) "plagiarism" can be accidental. Quotation marks and sourcing don't just fall out, and I don't see how scholars of this renown can (systematically, repeatedly) forget to put them in in the first place. For one or two instances, maybe, but widespread? It doesn't make sense.
Quotation marks and sourcing don't just fall out,
Logos copies the material verbatim; no quotation marks are provided. The burden is on the user to add them in, to distinguish between their material and someone else's material.
I get stuck when the conversation moves to whether or not (repeated, sustained) "plagiarism" can be accidental. Quotation marks and sourcing don't just fall out, and I don't see how scholars of this renown can (systematically, repeatedly) forget to put them in in the first place. For one or two instances, maybe, but widespread?
Apparently you've never had a graduate assistant nor have you worked with research notes that are more than 20 years old, or you would see how these errors can happen.
I get stuck when the conversation moves to whether or not (repeated, sustained) "plagiarism" can be accidental. Quotation marks and sourcing don't just fall out, and I don't see how scholars of this renown can (systematically, repeatedly) forget to put them in in the first place. For one or two instances, maybe, but widespread? Apparently you've never had a graduate assistant nor have you worked with research notes that are more than 20 years old, or you would see how these errors can happen.
Well Said Doc [Y]
research notes that are more than 20 years old
What does the age of the notes have to do with it?
Apparently you've never had a graduate assistant...
Nope. Must be nice!
So is the idea that the plagiarism/lack of citation did not first originate with Köstenberger himself but with one of his research assistants?
I was curious so searched ZIBBCNT and Carson's John--the second passage I searched at random had full sentences lifted and (barely) paraphrased without attribution.
Whether it was Köstenberger or a research assistant (who presumably at that level understands how to cite) or whoever else, the idea of "accidental plagiarism" strains credulity for me. Not that that means malicious intent, necessarily, but "accidental" sounds more like something outside of one's control. And citing your sources is easy to control. In a professional research setting, it's the default, so you almost have to make more effort (compared to standard M.O.) not to cite your sources than to cite them... right?
but "accidental" sounds more like something outside of one's control.
Accidents are not necessarily "outside on one's control." Accidents also happen through someone's carelessness. This is the sense in which accidental is used in cases of unintentional plagiarism.
Perhaps we should borrow a term the US Navy used for unplanned events in weapons systems—inadvertent which the Mac OS Dictionary defines as not resulting from or achieved through deliberate planning. Don't know if the Navy still uses that expression or not, but it seems to describe these cases of unintentional plagiarism. None of this is to diminish the seriousness of these incidents, but merely to acknowledge that they were not intentional events of intellectual theft.
Any thoughts why this book isn't available for purchase? https://www.logos.com/product/8075/baker-exegetical-commentary-on-the-new-testament-john
It was temporarily removed by the publisher for "mistakes" that failed to properly credit D.A. Carson's Pillar commentary.
Any thoughts why this book isn't available for purchase? https://www.logos.com/product/8075/baker-exegetical-commentary-on-the-new-testament-john It was temporarily removed by the publisher for "mistakes" that failed to properly credit D.A. Carson's Pillar commentary.
So by temporarily removed you mean it will be back again? I would definitely hope so 👍
That would be great if they did that! I've seen too many times where they just cancel and never bring back which is sad because older resources reference them and you can never check back. e.g. O'Brien, Varner, etc
