Zondervan Cans Andreas Kostenberger ZIBBCNT on John

John, John! Why, buddy, why? I’m glad it’s just overprized Background information and never felt the need to buy it. Yeah, information might still be useful but not quotable in research papers nonetheless. So people have paid for another commentary they can’t really use and nothing has really been said about refunds. Ouch! I’m glad I managed to avoid that predicament. It kind of makes you wonder how can you actually re-word in your own words any information that it’s true no matter who says it. Oh the silly things these academic scholars worry about 🤪

DAL

Ps. Here’s the link to Zondervan‘s statement on the issue:

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

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Bobby Terhune

I'm keeping mine, but each to his own. I didn't hear of anybody trading in their O'Brien commentaries either.

So Dal, the only safe option is to only quote dead guy's [:D]

Michael S.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/940409#Comment_940409

I didn't hear of anybody trading in their O'Brien commentaries either.

I did elect to trade in the O'Brien volumes... many times wished I hadn't, but too late now. But at least in writing any academic papers, I dont (as of right now) have to worry about slipping in that material. But seems this is way too common these days. And once one of his resources is questioned, the rest may fall under investigation... dominoes.

Kenute P. Curry

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/940415#Comment_940415

I kept my O'Brien commentaries. Was not gonna give them up!

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/940415#Comment_940415

... But seems this is way too common these days. And once one of his resources is questioned, the rest may fall under investigation... dominoes.

It's an unfortunate situation.

Bobby Terhune

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/940419#Comment_940419

Concerning O'Brien, His commentaries were considered by his peer's as the top commentaries in their field.

Take the commentary on Ephesians for example. it was on the market and used in seminaries and by pastors since 1999. And now on Amazon a new copy is going for 197.00. The volume on Hebrews for a new copy is 227.00. Someone must want these.

Lee

So people have paid for another commentary they can’t really use and nothing has really been said about refunds.

Instructions for refunds should be announced soon.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/940447#Comment_940447

So people have paid for another commentary they can’t really use and nothing has really been said about refunds.

Instructions for refunds should be announced soon.

I wonder if the author has to give money back to the publisher 😳😬

Bobby Terhune

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/940515#Comment_940515

I believe authors get an advance up front and then royalties on copies sold. the royalties don't get paid until after the advance has been recovered. Since most of his commentaries have been around for quite some time, I would guess the publisher has long passed the break even point. Just think about all the digital copies sold by Logos, Accordance and Wordsearch.

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/940515#Comment_940515

I wonder if the author has to give money back to the publisher 😳😬

He paid both D A Carson and Baker for the same problem in BECNT https://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2017/11/01/commentary-plagiarism-again-causes-baker-to-pull-koestenbergers-commentary-on-john/

It is important to note that Dr Kostenberger was the initial source of the revelation.

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/940575#Comment_940575

It is important to note that Dr Kostenberger was the initial source of the revelation.

That may or may not be significant. Someone may have brought the problem up to him and he may have been forced to do it himself or else face even greater disgrace. I am not sure how to conceive that an author could use material as extensively as they say inadvertently without crediting his source(s).

But every one will have to give an account for themselves and at the end of the day, most of us do not really know the ins and outs of what happened and why.

Jan Krohn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/940603#Comment_940603

If you click through the links to the respective sources, you end up here:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R27U86U7B206W0

So this plagiarism isn't new information... I wonder how it could have been ignored for for more than 6 years... ?!

Bobby Terhune

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/940606#Comment_940606

Here is Kostenberger's letter;

Dear friends:

It has recently come to my attention that there are some unacknowledged similarities between my John commentary in the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series (BECNT, 2004) and D. A. Carson’s Pillar commentary, a problem originally introduced in my Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary on John (ZIBBC, 2001). While Carson’s work is cited extensively in the BECNT, upon thorough review it came to light that certain portions were not cited adequately. I didn’t catch the mistakes when preparing the ZIBBC, and later the problem was carried over to the BECNT. Inadequate notetaking and substantially reducing the length of the ZIBBC content and endnotes to requested word limits likely contributed to the problem. Regardless of how these errors happened, I am ultimately responsible for them.

In dealing with this issue, I’ve made every effort to act with utmost honesty, integrity, and transparency. I immediately brought this matter to the publishers’ attention and apologized to my esteemed mentor and friend, Don Carson, telling him that any failure to give proper credit was completely unintentional. I also made financial restitution to Dr. Carson and his publisher. Both publishers decided to remove these works from circulation.

In working through this, I have deeply appreciated the guidance, encouragement, and support of the institution where I serve and of many colleagues in the scholarly community. In preparing a new, corrected edition of my commentary, and in my future academic work, I am resolved to give scrupulous attention to all notetaking and citations to make sure that the works to which I owe an intellectual debt are acknowledged to the fullest and most accurate extent.

For Christ and his kingdom,

Andreas Köstenberger

https://www.biblicalfoundations.org/letter-dr-kostenberger/

Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/940617#Comment_940617

Inadequate note-taking can result in a nightmare. Just as late as yesterday, I decided to write an entire quotation in my notes rather than paraphrase it for fear that I could forget where it came from or that it was not originally my own. It is really important for all of us to jot down references even if in short form to be completed later.

What is even more dangerous is when you already have a view about a passage and then encounter sources that share in that view. You may feel that you are writing your view when you put it down but may have absorbed phrases from others unconsciously. So even there, proper, if brief documentation is important in notes.

As for the letter, Matthew 18:21-35. Not that it is a personal offence, but an apology is presented and in the way that we relate to him in the future we can either reflect that (hopefully) we accepted it or refused to.

Dr. Steven E. Runge (Logos)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/940620#Comment_940620

I appreciate your comments here, Francis, and the grace you have shown. I just got off the phone speaking with Andreas about how he is doing. I'm posting here what I posted on the other thread about the Baker volume.

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. 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.

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/940707#Comment_940707

I appreciate your comments here, Francis, and the grace you have shown. I just got off the phone speaking with Andreas about how he is doing. I'm posting here what I posted on the other thread about the Baker volume.

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. 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.

Thanks for the information! For a moment I thought you were going to come forward with a confession of your own too or something 😂

👍😁👌

DAL

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/940606#Comment_940606

If you click through the links to the respective sources, you end up here:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R27U86U7B206W0

So this plagiarism isn't new information... I wonder how it could have been ignored for for more than 6 years... ?!

Wow! Interesting. That review was written in 2011!

Anyway, I hope his new volume brings his insights and perhaps new material.

DAL

Adam Olean

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/940707#Comment_940707

I appreciate your comments here, Francis, and the grace you have shown. I just got off the phone speaking with Andreas about how he is doing. I'm posting here what I posted on the other thread about the Baker volume.

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. 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.

Thanks, Steve. I much appreciate your and Andreas's comments. Its a good reminder for both students and teachers, one and all. I also agree that Francis's comments should be taken to heart! Source knowledge can present many difficulties and even temptations.

Adam Olean

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/940711#Comment_940711

If you click through the links to the respective sources, you end up here:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R27U86U7B206W0

So this plagiarism isn't new information... I wonder how it could have been ignored for for more than 6 years... ?!

Wow! Interesting. That review was written in 2011!

Anyway, I hope his new volume brings his insights and perhaps new material.

DAL

Yes, I saw that review probably some years ago(?). I never even thought about passing it along to the author, publisher, or anyone to ask about it. But once I heard about his commentary's discontinuation that review came back to mind. That might cause me to think twice next time. μὴ γένοιτο!

mab

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/940730#Comment_940730

All things considered, I am glad that I have his reference works. A lot of people can't even be accountable for what they had for breakfast. [8-|]