LSM's Plagiarism - An Initial Inquiry

[YP0534]

On the other hand, the lack of citation in the listed instances appears to be more the churchman's offense against the scholar.

Vincent and Alford, at least, are frequently cited in the footnotes.
http://online.recoveryversion.org/se...66&ps=all&st=f

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by YP0534

On the other hand, the lack of citation in the listed instances appears to be more the churchman's offense against the scholar.

I don't see this as an "offense" matter, if I am hearing you correctly.

This article on "Plagiarism" strikes at the root of LSM pride, elitism, exclusivism, judgmentalism, arrogance, hypocrisy, etc. Early on ... yes ... there were many references to Vincent, Alford, Pember, Panton, Govett, etc., but that tapered off over time as "the ministry" made outrageous claims to "subsume" all others, while boasting in its own accomplishments.

Either way, any Christian publisher which sets itself up as an authority on "all things Christian" (think A&C) must be above reproach in all its works. Whether or not WL gives credit where credit is due in every spoken message is one thing, but the author and his editorial staff must give credit in each and every written message before publishing.

Am I missing something here?

[ABrotherInChrist]

I almost laughed out loud when I read Steward's rage-filled response to this well-written article. She still reminds me of a little child who takes a temper tantrum any time she's told something she doesn't like.

Heh.

If I can manage to find a source for the Recovery Version in Spanish electronically, I'd like to do an electronic comparison to the RVR 1960 version. I estimate the corrolation to be about 98-99%. As in... the Spanish Recovery Version is almost precisely the same as the RVR 1960, with only a very small number of words changed to be more Lee-like. Granted I've only seen the Recovery Version NT, not OT in Spanish. If I could actually substantiate this with some solid proof, I think it would go a long way to prove that LSM is dishonest and actually violated copyright on the RVR 1960 to create a "new translation". There is just too much that is absolutely identical to be coincidence or common choices in translation.

I'd like to do the same in French with the Louis Segond, but I don't have the Recovery Version in French, and I don't feel like paying for it.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I don't see this as an "offense" matter, if I am hearing you correctly.

This article on "Plagiarism" strikes at the root of LSM pride, elitism, exclusivism, judgmentalism, arrogance, hypocrisy, etc. Early on ... yes ... there were many references to Vincent, Alford, Pember, Panton, Govett, etc., but that tapered off over time as "the ministry" made outrageous claims to "subsume" all others, while boasting in its own accomplishments.

Either way, any Christian publisher which sets itself up as an authority on "all things Christian" (think A&C) must be above reproach in all its works. Whether or not WL gives credit where credit is due in every spoken message is one thing, but the author and his editorial staff must give credit in each and every written message before publishing.

Am I missing something here?

I'd rather pick it up here, Ohio, but since someone posted a link over there and then everyone jumped on the "Dear Brother Nigel" bandwagon immediately, I felt I had to make a comment both places.

The thing is, Tomes is just as likely to be mistaken as Lee and this article unfortunately really goes a long way to substantiation of the claims the LSM-proponents make against him. It's simply not justified to hold Lee or even LSM as a publisher to the standards of an academic press just because they tried to pawn off A&C as a scholarly journal. Religious presses are known for this sort of thing and it drives academics crazy. This common practice is not really "plagiarism" in any traditional sense of the word.

Moreover, in that at least many of the footnotes do in fact attribute numerous things to Vincent and Alford, Tomes' argument is much weakend that there is something fundamentally wrong with the moral fiber of the "LSM-faithful." (See his footnote 45.) The argument here that citation "tapered off" is counter balanced by the reality that those attributions are still in the currently published edition of the Recovery Version. They erased John Ingall's name and his translation work but Alford and Vincent's attributions, such as they are, remain to this day.

The thing is, this is looking at it backwards. A&C isn't a reason to try to impose citatation standards on all of the publications of LSM. Instead, all that material from the LSM presses reveals why it is unlikely that A&C will ever be taken seriously as a scholarly journal regardless of how thoroughly it is footnoted.

[Cal]

I think the essential point of Tomes piece is to point out that to some extent LSM has played fast and loose with giving proper credit to the purpose of padding Witness Lee's reputation and weight as a seer of things nobody else had really seen. In LSM's world, those attributions they do supply aren't to show that Lee is beholden to others for insight, but rather as testimony of Lee's clarity.

A classic example is the matter of the so-called sevenfold Spirit in Revelation. I don't recall Lee ever giving credit on this. In fact, he acted as if this was one of his greatest revelations. Yet if you open up the Amplified Bible you will see a footnote attributing the term "sevenfold" to a Catholic theologian of the 12th century.

So, I think Tomes uses the term "plagarism" to sharpen and make vivid his point, which was that LSM has neglected attibutions not out of sloppiness, but rather because they feel Lee kind of owns everything anyway.

Let's face it. The practically word-for-word liftings of Vincent's wrtitings without due credit are without excuse.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let's face it. The practically word-for-word liftings of Vincent's wrtitings without due credit are without excuse.

Yeah, no, that's just my point.

I disagree with that characterization.

Weak? OK.
Poor scholarship? Surely.
Unfair? I'll buy that.
Hypocritical? Maybe. Probably. You can say yes and I won't disagree.

Without excuse? No, I can't go with that because the purpose of the writings was of a kind where attribution is not commonly required.

Lee's practice of attribution is inconsistent and may serve to give a false impression to readers, intentionally or not.

Still, it's just not the same thing as "plagiarism" because of the way devotional literature is commonly composed.

And with that I'm done on this side as well.

Sing forth the praises of Tomes and his ministry if you care to and I will not contradict further.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I'd rather pick it up here, Ohio, but since someone posted a link over there and then everyone jumped on the "Dear Brother Nigel" bandwagon immediately, I felt I had to make a comment both places.

Uh oh. The "Dear Brother Nigel" bandwagon sounds like my handiwork, dear brother.

Originally Posted by YP0534

Moreover, in that at least many of the footnotes do in fact attribute numerous things to Vincent and Alford, Tomes' argument is much weakend that there is something fundamentally wrong with the moral fiber of the "LSM-faithful." (See his footnote 45.) The argument here that citation "tapered off" is counter balanced by the reality that those attributions are still in the currently published edition of the Recovery Version. They erased John Ingall's name and his translation work but Alford and Vincent's attributions, such as they are, remain to this day.

As I said over on "the other forum", Nigel stated up front that there are 50 footnotes in the RcV that do attribute brothers like Vincent and Alford. This is stated clearly right near the beginning of the second paragraph:

“Despite being “all-inclusive” and based on ‘the best Christian writings,’ explicit references to Bible expositors and Christian scholars are rare in the Recovery Version. Only fifty footnotes— one-half of one percent—refer to Bible scholars or authors of ‘the best Christian writings.’ Everything else is presented as Witness Lee’s own composition.”

In appendix A, Nigel actually lists all those 50 footnotes that do reference brothers like Alford, Vincent, Darby, etc. Nigel lists 18 footnotes that reference Vincent, 15 which reference Alford, 13 footnotes that reference Darby, 3 footnotes that reference Bengel, 2 footnotes that references Conybeare, and 1 footnote that references Williston Walker. When you account for the fact that two footnotes reference both Alford and Vincent, you are left with a count of 50.

I may be misunderstanding you, dear brother. I agree 100% that the issue is indeed, as you stated, “INADEQUATE attribution”.

[YP0534]

And, KTS, I took your correction there. I didn't examine Appendix A.

I also noted there that the "one-half of one percent" crack is an irrelevant statistic and my mind loses interest quickly when writers posit such things.

I didn't read clean through to the end and properly frame my argument.

Guilty as charged.

I still think it's more or less a mountain out of a molehill issue because Lee was a religious author and not an academic but I do sincerely PROMISE to read every word of Tomes, twice even, before I take exception ever again to anything he has written.

Once bitten, twice shy. :rollingeyes2:

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I still think it's more or less a mountain out of a molehill issue because Lee was a religious author and not an academic

Yes, but wasn't Lee like his mentor, Nee, a "seer of the divine revelation"?

That was what I took the "oracle" title to imply. Fresh revelation from the Holy Word. How much of what was passed on as revelation was merely lifted from the writings of others? Much of it not even reworded?

I still remember a story about one of the Lee acolytes, BP I think, holding a newly printed text and saying, "I've got the fresh bread!" It wasn't perhaps quite so fresh as he thought.

And where it is "fresh", i.e. original, it is at least somewhat suspect. I remember reading a review once of something that was passed off as original research, where the reviewer said, "There is much here that is new, and much that is true, but what is new is not true and what is true is not new." I am feeling this way about Lee, mostly.

Nonetheless, I had fun.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

I remember reading a review once of something that was passed off as original research, where the reviewer said, "There is much here that is new, and much that is true, but what is new is not true and what is true is not new." I am feeling this way about Lee, mostly.

Yeah, I hear ya, and I'm just trying to say that the later, distorted LSM prism is not the primary way we should view Lee's work as a minister and Christian author. I don't think we should ignore or discount the tragedy of what came to be at a certain point but as far as I recall, Lee hadn't made a single "oracle" claim prior to "putting down his pen" at the conclusion of the footnotes in Acts. Until that time, it was widely recognized, and as someone else stated, even boasted of, that Lee's ministry was based upon the "best of the best" and that he "stood on the shoulders" of so many others, of course mostly meaning Watchman Nee and the acknowledged persons in the "recovery" line, but not excluding the contributions of other Christian authors.

I think it's an enormous mistake to build an other-side-of-the-mirror distorted anti-LSM prism in order to interpret Lee's legacy, such as it is, in the context of historic Christianity. It's obviously necessary to debunk the mythology of Witness Lee that might afflict us and the more recent and prevailing mythology is probably the more urgent need. But I truly don't understand the benefit of saying "Lee was merely derivative" when, if nothing else, he benefited so many merely by the synthesis and fresh presentation of often neglected writings of others. Alford is long out of print, and if you have any benefit from brother Alford's ministry, it is most likely due to Lee (even if you don't realize that it originated with Alford.)

Honestly, in a discussion about giving credit where credit is due, I really don't think there should be the need to explain this repeatedly but there's at least a trace of inconsistency around the periphery. I hate being cast in a role of "defender of Lee" because I think ultimately his work will stand or fall on its own, but among you, my brothers and sisters in the Lord, and before those saints in the Local Church who would happen here upon our musings and discussions and historical reflection, SOMEONE has to be "devil's advocate" to say repeatedly that THE GUY JUST WASN'T AS BAD AS ALL THAT.

So, let me retort that your quoted clever and poetic critical quip could well be a mere short circuit to rational thought on the topic. The synthesis and harmonizing of older material is in fact "new" and I'd hope you could find it within yourself to begrudgingly admit that.

And I really wish there were a true LSM representative here to do the hard work of really combing through Lee's copious materials and presenting to us what was in fact Lee's own new light.

I concur that the insufficient attribution issue casts a shadow over anything which might be claimed to be Lee's contribution, to the extent that anyone really cares to uphold it and say "This is of Lee." But I have to testify that studying the Bible in conjunction with Lee's ministry, I learned it better and faster and know it more thoroughly today than associates who got saved around the same time and that's a phenomenon that I've seen and heard repeated. I think some of the folks around here are probably a product of that themselves.

The footnotes and cross references in the RcV, even if not properly attributed, were put together by a religious teacher in such a way as to be extremely helpful to a young believer hungry and thirsty to know Christ. Not as pure as the driven snow as the modern LSM might wish to portray it. But even if all Lee did was quote Alford and Vincent in the same sentence, that counts as "new," even under copyright law.

Grace to all today.

[kisstheson]

Originally Posted by YP0534

And, KTS, I took your correction there. I didn't examine Appendix A.

Once bitten, twice shy. :rollingeyes2:

Hello dear brother YP0534,

As I stated "over there", I am humbled by your response. Surely at some point (probably sooner rather than later!), you will point out an issue in one of my posts. May I respond with as much grace and humility as you have.

Carry on, dear brother!