As previously found at Deja.com
<http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=315274891&search=thread&CONTEXT=933026780.1764753480&HIT_CONTEXT=933026686.1763573815&hitnum=5>

>> Forum: bit.listserv.christia

>> Thread: plagiarism, Barry Hardy, John 1:1 [1/2]
>> Message 1 of 1

Subject: Re: plagiarism, Barry Hardy, John 1:1 [1/2]
Date: 1998/01/09
Author: robert charles weiss

From: Roland McCormick

>COMMENT: I had a private correspondence from Barry shortly after this
>material was first published in which he pointed out the sources of the
>information he had given, and expressed regret if his post appeared to say
>it was entirely original with him. I accepted this as understood - I think
>it is normal in discussions at this level to borrow ideas from other sources
>without always mentioning where they came from.

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

This wasn't simply a borrowed idea. The two part post is what appeared the JBL v.92. Except for the introductory sentence which served to segue into Dr. Harner's article, and the fact that the footnotes were included in the text parenthetically, the post was a verbatim, literal, word for word, line by line copy of the article that Dr. Philip Harner (pharner@mail.heidelberg.edu) wrote in _The Journal of Biblical Literature_, v.92, pp 82-87.

and then (bh=Barry Hardy, cs=Christopher Shubert)...

bh>cs> One other note must be made: The author of the piece which bh>cs> Mr. Hardy posted was quite direct in making the (correct) statement bh>cs> that theos "cannot be regarded as definite" in the third clause bh>cs> of John 1:1. bh>
bh> The author was myself, but then again I understand that it is hard bh> for you to accept the fact.
[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
robert charles weiss       the journeyman
home: rweiss@buffnet.net       post tenebris lux