Betty Bowers reviews Mel Gibson's film The Passion of Christ

A: Cutting and pasting without attribution is plagiarism.
B: See Bart Ehrmann's discussion of attribution in antiquity in Lost Christianities: The Battle for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, (Oxford, 2002). Essentially, writers in antiquity were not concerned with "factual accuracy" the way we are in teh 21st century. This is why one should look at all available documantation prior to forming a conclusion. Again, geographical and political details in the gospels differ greatly from contemporary 1st century accounts that one has no choice but to question the veracity of any of the works.
As for Paul, some of the more radical, in terms of theological ideas, presented in the Pauline letters may not have been presented by Paul himself. Certainly three of the Pauline letters are better described as "Pseudo-Pauline." As far as cannonical texts go, the Pauline letters are probably the earliest NT works. But, one must take into consideration Paul (and I am including the Pseudo Pauline letters in this discussion) wrote to congregations he had already established, and much is taken for granted in terms of theology and ritual that is not addrerssed in these letters. Therefore, despite the likely "authenticity" of the sentiment in these documents, there still exist lacunae large enough to drive a giraffe through in our understanding of just what the memebers of the Kingdom of God movement actually believed.

Oh and I seem not to be the only one who is blue in the face. Coincidence ? I think not.

Will Durant???? Will and Ariel Durant were synthesizers and populists. They were not historians! their works are certainly suitable for the secondary school level, but they were using 1930s era research. I have their complete series on my bookshelf merely for tis entertainment value. I found it at Twice Sold tales in Seattle for $5.00 in the mid 1990s.

PLAGIARISM - To appropriate the writings, graphic representations or ideas of another person and represent them as one's own, (that is, without proper attribution). Plagiarism is a form of intellectual property violation.

I did not represent them as my own. If the quote part of the paste doesn't help out then sorry for your aparent misguided thinking.

Your point.

My points:
By not attributing the sources for your quotes you make one wonder if:
a-you have so little faith in its veracity that you are afraid to reveal the source.
b-you made it up.
c-you lifted it but wsh to pass it off as your own work.


In addition, certain authors, like the Durants, are not valid sources. their worls are filled with errors. In addition, they were expressly written with the purpose of informing lay readers about the superiority of western civilization during the cold war. As I said above, they may be appropriate for the secondary school reader who wishes to understand a broad overview of events, but for the level of discussion we are having now they are worthless.

Ya know, the accessible style of writing used by the Durants opened the doors of serious history to lots of folks. Sure, they were "Populist" ... that was their point, after all; to bring an appreciation for history to the masses. For those folks inspired to conduct further research after exposure to Will and Ariel, they did their job, and they did it a helluvalot better than lots of stuffy secondary-school history teachers and post-secondary profs who managed to turn off everyone who had the misfortune to be subjected to their miserable teaching techniques.

Timber, good to see you here.
I agree that they are useful as introductuions, but not as source material. I would put the Durants in the same catagory as Allison Weir. Tuchmann and the Gies are a little better, and at least used more up to date material. I used the Gie's Life in a Medieval City, and Science and Technology in the Middle Ages last term in my 3000 level Medieval course. These were supplements to more scholarly works.

Actually, modern scholars are about equally split over the Matthew/Mark primacy.
Again, where is all this coming from?

You don't like how I quote then tell on me. But that is how I am going to quote it. You seem smart enough to tell that I am not smart enough to have written it. And I know I am not smart enough to have either that is why it is in quotes. Now where I got it from is something that I was going to share but since you are making it a big deal I shall not share. Also I can only respect you as much as you do me. And at this point I don't think it's that much.

So out of spite you intend to damage your credibility even more?

Not spite. Out of no respect. And I say this because I get blamed for "attacking" anyone even though I was not the one who did it first. Because I am the one to blame. So here I have not done that but it is quit evident that you and blue head didn't get the memo so that is why.

This has nothing to do with attacking and everything to do with rhetorical technique and intellectual honesty. By refusing to name your source you invalidate your posts, and therefore your position.

If that is how you see it. The fact of the matter is that they are valid points. Maybe you are just making up an excuse.

BM, if you were to peruse this discussion board, you would see that it is standard practice to provide a source for cut and pasted material. Your petulance is not amusing. It makes me wonder if you are over the age of twelve! Anyway, I shan't be responding to your posts, since you don't seem interested in participating in the discussion, but in mindless arguing. Have an amusing evening,

Good night. Don't let the bed bugs bite.

Ahhh, ya never know where I'll pop up, hbob. pardon the digression here, but both you and BlueMonkey seem to have bits of a point going in your little side argument over source attribution. BlueMonkey did preface the quotes he pasted with "Watchtower 2000 wrote", which sorta fills in as an attribution. He prolly shoulda posted a link to the article, or at least to Watchtower's splashpage, but what the heck, he did reference his source. I'll reserve comment on the probity or objectivity of the source, but at least the source was mentioned. On the other hand, just having a verifiable source means little more than that the info cited is from that source. It doesn't mean its proof or evidence of anything other than that it came from that source.

Just for giggles, here's a Website you might get a kick out of.

God hates shrimp!

Wahtchtower???!!!???