To appreciate the problem Eric Sharpe
identified, imagine a well-known theologian publishing a new work on Biblical
views of creation in which he provided his own translation of “Genesis 1.1.1”
as “This is the story of how the universe was formed. When god began to form
the universe the world was void, and vacant, darkness lay over the abyss.”
In fact, none of the major English translations use the word “abyss” for “deep” nor do any except that of James Moffatt take the liberty of moving Genesis 2.4 to the beginning of Genesis. Yet this where Moffatt places, that is before Genesis 1.1. in his "The Moffatt Translation of the Bible" (1926).
No doubt reviewers would quickly point out
the typographical error in the references because Genesis 1.1.1 does not exist. The
correct reference is Genesis 1.1.
Then, no doubt someone would comment on the
peculiarity of this translation. Most translations Genesis 1.1 read something
like: “In the beginning God create the heavens and the earth. The earth was
without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep” (RSV).
In fact, none of the major English translations use the word “abyss” for “deep” nor do any except that of James Moffatt take the liberty of moving Genesis 2.4 to the beginning of Genesis. Yet this where Moffatt places, that is before Genesis 1.1. in his "The Moffatt Translation of the Bible" (1926).
Further suppose that a particularly
thorough reviewer was puzzled by this use of Genesis 1.1 with its strange
beginning and faulty reference. Therefore, he does a Google search and
discovers that in 1920 Moffatt actually published an article on the Biblical
meaning of creation that contained both the citation and faulty reference. If
upon closer examination he discovered that the preceding and subsequent
passages were direct quotes from Moffatt’s article without the required
quotation marks. Then he or she might reasonably conclude that the entire
passage was plagiarized with the reference acting a signature that proves
plagiarism beyond any doubt.
As far as I know Moffatt did not write such
an article in 1920 or at any other time. Nor, has some enterprising theologian
used such an article in the way described above because if they did the
plagiarism would soon be discovered and exposed.
The
situation is quite different in many works published by Religious Studies scholars…
To be continued …
