FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-13-2004, 08:09 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 6
Default 2Kings 19 vs. Isaiah 37

Does anyone have an link to an apologetic explanation of the apparent plagiarism between these two? Thanks.
tomasz is offline  
Old 10-13-2004, 09:41 AM   #2
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomasz
Does anyone have an link to an apologetic explanation of the apparent plagiarism between these two? Thanks.
Why on earth plagiarism? This is a modern semi-legal term regarding single authorship and the violation of that author's claim on the material.

We know little about the writing of either Kings or Isaiah, forms of them may even have been written by the same establishment and they were at least maintained by the same people. Material didn't have the single authorship notion behind it in those days. It would seem that there was more one of community ownership. There are psalms and pieces of psalms repeated elsewhere in the collection and in numerous other places passages are found either the same, or based on the same material. Material gets reworked or amplified. This is all par for the course with the literature.

This is not a matter of apologetics, but of inappropriately retrojecting modern ideas onto the past.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 10-13-2004, 10:33 AM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin
Why on earth plagiarism? This is a modern semi-legal term regarding single authorship and the violation of that author's claim on the material.
This is not a matter of apologetics, but of inappropriately retrojecting modern ideas onto the past.
spin
OK, I guess plagiarism could be a bit harsh, but since the term was first used in the form plagiarius (plagiarist) in the first century, I wouldn't consider it exactly "modern". But given the culture maybe it wasn't considered a big deal.

So, you'd just chalk it up to carelessness?
tomasz is offline  
Old 10-13-2004, 10:57 AM   #4
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomasz
OK, I guess plagiarism could be a bit harsh, but since the term was first used in the form plagiarius (plagiarist) in the first century, I wouldn't consider it exactly "modern". But given the culture maybe it wasn't considered a big deal.
Oh, but look what the ancient word actually meant. See for example the Vulgate, 1 Tim 1:10.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomasz
So, you'd just chalk it up to carelessness?
I don't know what you mean here. Why carelessness? How about utility? Those who compiled these works found it useful to use the pasage where they did.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 10-14-2004, 07:50 PM   #5
Regular Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Lethbridge AB Canada
Posts: 445
Default

It was not an uncommon practice to produce new works by selectivly quoting or rewriting or otherwise appropriating earlier written texts. Notice how much of Sam-Kings reappears in Chronicles, for example. Either the Chronicler quoted Sam-Kings, or employed at least a very early version of Sam-Kings, or a third, common source is behind both versions of Judah's monarchic history. What is most interesting is the way the Chronicler would quote his source and then somehow end up with a very different conclusion to some episodes than Kings has. For example, Kings has Manasseh as the arch villain, and includes a long diatribe against him. Chronicles also has an almost verbatim character assasination of him, but it is not as long as that in Kings. It then goes off to explain how God punished him by having the Assyrians haul him off to prison where he repented, was sent home, and clean up Jerusalem of its heterodox ways. There is shared text but a lot of unique features in both Kings and Chronicles.

A number of Psalms repeat passages from each other too. Such examples can be multiplied.
It is not "plagiarism" it was an accepted way of producing books in that culture. To appropriate another modern phrase, it seems as if everything was in the "public domain". Perhaps some people got mad about it, but hey, maybe the scrolls then were what the internet is today: a battle ground for property rights vs. open access and appropriation.


Jim
DrJim is offline  
Old 10-17-2004, 09:02 AM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: texas
Posts: 86
Default

And yet, ultra-conservatives will assert Jeremiah or Isaiah wrote the books without acknowledging the direct borrowing.
gregor2 is offline  
Old 10-17-2004, 03:29 PM   #7
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregor2
And yet, ultra-conservatives will assert Jeremiah or Isaiah wrote the books without acknowledging the direct borrowing.
Butchoo gotta take that up widda ultra-cons. You can't blame the writers of Jeremiah or Isaiah.


spin
spin is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:22 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.