Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
I don't recall seeing any other works quoted in the RcV except maybe in passing reference. There isn't even a list of references at the end of the RcV. Maybe MOTA's are exempt from citing their sources.  Or maybe WL wanted to purposely push the notion that he came up with all the content in the RcV himself. |
Yes, Freedom, it is quite hard to find one of the 50 footnotes out of the 9000 that actually cite their sources. (Darby is mentioned 13 times. In my previous post I was referring to one note of his to wich no credit was given)
Witness Lee also warned of the “risks” of studying older writings.21 Only a handful of expositors
and scholars from previous generations are explicitly referenced; most of these date back to the
nineteenth century or earlier. The Recovery Version’s notes refer to Marvin R. Vincent (1834-
1922) eighteen times, Dean Henry Alford (1810-1871) fifteen times, and John N. Darby (1800–
1882) thirteen times. In addition, Bengel, Conybeare, and Wuest are cited a couple of times.22
Together these citations comprise a mere fifty footnotes, out of a grand total of 9,000. Some
notable Bible expositors and scholars from previous generations—Lightfoot, Moule, A. T.
Robertson, Westcott, W. E. Vine, F. F. Bruce, for example—are conspicuously absent from
citations in LSM’s Recovery Version and Life-study series.LSM’s PLAGIARISM—
An Initial Inquiry, Dr. Nigel Tomes