# Plagiarism in P. T. O'Brien Commentaries



## bookslover (Aug 20, 2016)

New Testament scholar P. T. O'Brien has been accused of plagiarism in three of his commentaries: (1) his 1991 commentary on Philippians, (2) his 1999 commentary on Ephesians and, most prominently, (3) his 2010 commentary on Hebrews. All three books are published by Eerdmans.

Eerdmans has had all three commentaries checked by prominent scholars and editors (especially his Hebrews commentary, the volume the accusations were originally leveled at). Problems were found in all three volumes.

When presented with this evidence, O'Brien issued the following statement: "In the New Testament commentaries that I have written, although I have not deliberately misused the work of others, nevertheless I now see that my work processes at times have been faulty and have generated clear-cut, but unintentional, plagiarism. For this, I apologize without reservation."

Eerdmans will now take all three commentaries out of print, pulping the remaining copies that they have.

Writing a serious, scholarly, detailed exegetical commentary is a complicated, labor-intensive process that is usually years in the doing. O'Brien is a recognized scholar, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this. I can see how easy it would be to copy the wording of someone else's work and failing, in the process, to provide attribution. I'll pray for him, and hope that it doesn't turn out that the plagiarism was deliberate.

Statements about this can be found at the Aquila Report and at Eerdman's website.


----------



## arapahoepark (Aug 20, 2016)

I saw this and would like to believe it is not the case. I do understand that at times it is unavoidable to avoid the same wording.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 21, 2016)

A friend of mine who is currently training at Moore Seminary thinks that the plagiarism claim has been wildly exaggerated. I hope he is right.


----------



## Beezer (Aug 21, 2016)

The plagiarism claims wouldn't keep me from using them in my personal studies. Sure, you should steer clear citing them in academic papers probably, but I see no reason for folks who have these in their personal libraries to burn them in their front yards. Just don't go around quoting O'Brien is all. Anyone feel differently?


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 21, 2016)

Exhaustive research will almost necessarily involve repeating the words of others unintentionally. Some books are so "researched" that they consist mainly of quotes, near-quotes, and echoes of quotes strung together. It is what it is. I have no energy for condemning O'Brien.

Frankly, as a consumer of commentaries, I am more interested in a collection of the best of the best exegetical gems,not original thinking.

[Bet he will be more careful in footnoting it all in the future, however.]


----------



## bookslover (Aug 21, 2016)

DMcFadden said:


> Exhaustive research will almost necessarily involve repeating the words of others unintentionally. Some books are so "researched" that they consist mainly of quotes, near-quotes, and echoes of quotes strung together. It is what it is. I have no energy for condemning O'Brien.
> 
> Frankly, as a consumer of commentaries, I am more interested in a collection of the best of the best exegetical gems,not original thinking.
> 
> [Bet he will be more careful in footnoting it all in the future, however.]



I hope he still _has_ an academic future, Dennis. He may fear that, with three commentaries sent down the memory hole simultaneously, his professional career may just have been trashed. As I said in my OP, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the reasons I stated there. I hope this _does_ turn out to have been over-exaggerated.


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 21, 2016)

bookslover said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > Exhaustive research will almost necessarily involve repeating the words of others unintentionally. Some books are so "researched" that they consist mainly of quotes, near-quotes, and echoes of quotes strung together. It is what it is. I have no energy for condemning O'Brien.
> ...



It may be a moot point. He was ordained in 1962 and holds an "emeritus" status at Moore Theological College. So, his productive academic career may be largely in the rearview mirror. Like you, my hope would be that this would not tarnish his reputation for solid, orthodox, exegsis.


----------



## Edward (Aug 21, 2016)

bookslover said:


> As I said in my OP, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for the reasons I stated there. I hope this does turn out to have been over-exaggerated.



While your " unwillingness to admit of an evil report " is certainly confessional, do you really think that the company would have taken that kind of financial hit if there wasn't some fire underneath the smoke? He doesn't even defend himself on the merits, rather he goes with the FBI's defense of Hillary - it wasn't intentional.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 21, 2016)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> ...the plagiarism claim has been wildly exaggerated.



I remember that even in my undergraduate studies I thought the criteria for plagiarism were a little over the top. I remember thinking that, based on the criteria and the fact that bachelor's degree papers are not geared toward producing original thinking but rather synthesis of research, everything I write is technically plagiarism. Who knows...


----------



## bookslover (Aug 22, 2016)

I wonder if Eerdmans would allow O'Brien to re-edit his Hebrews commentary in order to correct the plagiarism mistakes, inserting footnotes attributing authorship where needed at the appropriate places, then re-publish it as a second edition? If that commentary is part of a series, the Hebrews volume will now have to be re-assigned, meaning it will be several years (at least) before it's published. Perhaps re-editing the Hebrews volume would be less expensive and time-consuming. Just a thought.


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 22, 2016)

Eerdmans is a funny animal. They have only had three presidents in their 105+ year history. Two yeas ago, Anita Eerdmans took over as president from her 90 year old husband. Anita Eerdmans started with the company in '74 in editorial (later marketing), married the boss two years later, and seems intent on carrying on the Eerdmans brand, which is kind of "fussy" about some things, such as their particular brand and place in the market. I would not be surprised if the 60ish Eerdmans tries to preserve the brand and their idea of integrity, even at the cost of flushing three particular books.

But, remember that Eerdmans is not P & R Publishing. They are shamelessly egalitarian, take several perspectives at variance with folks on the PB, and cater more to the Calvin Seminary crowd than the PRTS one.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Aug 22, 2016)

This is what our own Greenbaggins had to say about this situation. I think Lane makes some great points. https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2016/08/20/p-t-obrien-and-plagiarism/


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 22, 2016)

I too think it is easy to to transgress the boundary of plagiarism. If I read a handful of modern commentaries (NIC, NAC, PNTC, et al.) it is like being in an echo chamber. When they aren't all quoting one another they are all saying many of the same things. Perhaps it's unavoidable.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 22, 2016)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> If I read a handful of modern commentaries (NIC, NAC, PNTC, et al.) it is like being in an echo chamber.



That is one of the problems I have with modern scholarship. By some of these ethical standards, we are not only encouraged, but demanded to come up with something "new and fresh," which, in my fear, helps lead to all these wild interpretations of Scripture we have. If one is going to remain faithful to the teaching of Scripture, they will simply be copying and restating what has already been said _ad nauseam_. But, if that is the case, why write yet another commentary if it in reality adds nothing new?

Hence the dilemma with "scholarship" in many cases.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 22, 2016)

Bill The Baptist said:


> This is what our own Greenbaggins had to say about this situation. I think Lane makes some great points. https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2...nd-plagiarism/



This is good. Not only are his suspicions possible, but his plea with Eerdmans is sound.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 22, 2016)

Taylor Sexton said:


> > Originally Posted by *C. M. Sheffield:*
> > If I read a handful of modern commentaries (NIC, NAC, PNTC, et al.) it is like being in an echo chamber.
> 
> 
> ...



And they never (or rarely) interact with the great lights of Church's history. They seem to hold in contempt any of the greatest minds of the Reformation or Puritan era. This is one reason I rely much less on modern commentaries. I will purchase and read some of them, but I give more time to the tired and true men of former centuries. They approach the Bible as it is in truth, the Word of God. They are doctrinal and dogmatic as well as pastoral and practical. These are all characteristics of which modern critical commentaries are wholly bereft.


----------



## Edward (Aug 22, 2016)

Bill The Baptist said:


> This is what our own Greenbaggins had to say about this situation. I think Lane makes some great points. https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2...nd-plagiarism/



A comment below that blog post leads to another, which leads to this:

https://seanfwinter.com/2016/08/16/on-commentaries-and-plagiarism/


----------



## bookslover (Aug 26, 2016)

I was in a Christian bookstore the other day. A clerk took a copy of one of O'Brien's commentaries off a shelf to fill an order for a customer. It made me wonder if there might be a run on his commentaries before they disappear.

I still think O'Brien should be given the opportunity to revise his commentaries, providing the missing attributions where necessary. Then they could be released as second editions. This would be especially important if the plagiarism was not deliberate.


----------



## MW (Aug 26, 2016)

I was told by someone at University that she submits her assignments in digital format and there is a computer program to search how much of the wording is borrowed from others. With this kind of stringency I wonder how many would come up short of the standard.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Aug 26, 2016)

MW said:


> I was told by someone at University that she submits her assignments in digital format and there is a computer program to search how much of the wording is borrowed from others. With this kind of stringency I wonder how many would come up short of the standard.



Yes, that happens; I did it with one of my thesis chapters and it came up that 15% was supposedly "borrowed" from elsewhere. However, this 15% included acknowledged quotations and phrases such as "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit" (I kid you not).

When people get done for plagiarism, it is for something obvious such as copying and pasting an internet article. I know of one person who did this very thing but they caught him because he did not have the sense to un-bold the sentences that were in bold in the original.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Aug 26, 2016)

MW said:


> I was told by someone at University that she submits her assignments in digital format and there is a computer program to search how much of the wording is borrowed from others. With this kind of stringency I wonder how many would come up short of the standard.



This is the standard practice today, however there is generally an accepted threshold of similarity to other works before it is determined to be plagiarism. In undergraduate studies, we were allowed up to 20 percent.


----------



## Jack K (Aug 26, 2016)

This sort of report scares me a bit. You never know when someone will see something you wrote and decide you borrowed too much without attributing enough.

In Christian writing, we always build on others. Brand new ideas are not to be trusted. We base what we have to say on the Scriptures, which have been the world's most written-about topic for centuries. At best, we might be able to write about a new situation in which to apply Scripture, or we might have a new way to communicate old thoughts. But most underlying ideas are going to have been written about before—if our work is any good at all.

A writer definitely needs to keep track of and site specific research or unique insights he borrows. But for many things I write about, especially any discussion of Bible passages, I've done enough reading that I've encountered several writers who confirm the basic point I make (and who made it long before I ever began writing). I'm not going to footnote all of them. I can't even keep track of them. So the issue becomes more a matter of how I write. If I borrow another's flow of argument, or specific wording, I need to attribute this.

I'm picky enough about my wording that I probably don't need to worry about this as much as some writers do. I tend to rephrase everything a dozen times before I finish a paragraph. But I can see how a writer might end up using specific phrasing or flow from another work without fully realizing it: You read something you like. It gets in your head. It becomes your own. And it finds its way onto paper. Scary.


----------



## TheInquirer (Aug 26, 2016)

If you haven't yet, take a look at the example given on the page Edward posted. The copying is so flagrant he really does deserve to be nailed. There is no excuse for that (and I have been a fan of his commentaries btw).


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Aug 26, 2016)

TheInquirer said:


> If you haven't yet, take a look at the example given on the page Edward posted. The copying is so flagrant he really does deserve to be nailed. There is no excuse for that (and I have been a fan of his commentaries btw).



In the example given, his language in the paragraph is very similar to F. F. Bruce. However he provides a footnote to Bruce at the end of the paragraph. I wouldn't think that if you were trying to plagiarize someone's work, you would provide a footnote to the work you've plagiarized. It strikes me as sloppy but not deliberate plagiarizing. 

And this whole conversation reminds me of the notice printed at the front of Boettner's classic _The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination:_ 

_“Anyone is at liberty to use the material from this book with or without credit. In preparing this book the writer has received help from many sources, some acknowledged and many unacknowledged. He believes the material herein set forth to be a true statement of Scripture teaching, and his desire is to further, not restrict, its use.”​_I have always admired the spirit of that statement as exemplifying the Christian mindset toward truth and its propagation. In our law-suit-happy age, there is too much of a worldly mindset that has crept into Christian publishing.


----------



## TurramurraTim (Sep 9, 2016)

*An honest man makes an honest mistake*

I first knew Peter O'Brien as my neighbour at Moore Theological College when I was between the ages of 7 and 11 years old. He was a kind, honest, caring father figure. Later, as a theological student between the ages of 23 and 25 years old, I experienced him as a kind, honest, caring, rigorous scholar and lecturer.

In response to the accusations, he has reviewed his own process and found it flawed, accepted the charge of academic plagiarism (which is variously being described as both minor and major), and apologised unreservedly.

That this should happen to an 81 year old Christian man of impeccable standing after a lifetime of faithful Christian service and (in my view) genuinely honest and very valuable scholarship is a source of immense sadness to me. That his works (years in the making) will no longer be available to new pastors, despite having been of immense value to pastors over the past couple of decades, is also a source of great sadness to me.


----------

