Andy Tan

PhD Candidate @IRCI_ACU | New Testament & Early Christianity

[Andy Tan @andytanbibleman]

this Wes Huff saga as a whole exhibits interesting comparanda for scholarly theories on how ancient authors used sources

[Andy Tan @andytanbibleman]

the way that Wes conflates Cyril with the Cappadocians due to an eye skip is rather reminiscent of Steve Mason’s argument that Acts 21:38 conflates the sicarii, the desert visionaries, and the Egyptian pseudoprophet from Josephus’ War 2.253-265

[🦆 @WHlTEOTHELLO]

@JosephAPWilson1 That howler is a giveaway once you see Huff’s Christianity opening (Genesis, Tertullian, Cyril) is McGrath paraphrased on autopilot. McGrath goes from the Cappadocians to Cyril, and Huff missed the switch. He even cited books on the Cappadocian Fathers instead of McGrath!

[Andy Tan @andytanbibleman]

@McPheeIsaac @maklelan in the interest of pursuing truth, the Christian faithful deserve to know if someone that they look up to and gain knowledge from is being dishonest. and the scholars who pour their hard work into their outputs deserve to have their fruits acknowledged.

[Andy Tan @andytanbibleman]

@McPheeIsaac @maklelan i understand where you are coming from and am sympathetic. however, this goes beyond just personal sin and into the professional space. plagiarism is a serious deal in academia; scholarship and the scholarly community is built upon honesty and integrity.

[Andy Tan @andytanbibleman]

@theSmokingGun27 @sccarlson @WillemJanBlom2 the conclusion section in Wes’s paper is literally copied from Carlson. this is the second of @sccarlson’s images above, but here is the two side by side (Wes left, Carlson right):

[Andy Tan @andytanbibleman]

@McPheeIsaac @maklelan tagging @maklelan since he is probably getting similar responses re private confrontation.

[Andy Tan @andytanbibleman]

@McPheeIsaac @maklelan i discovered this in december last year and tried to contact Wes about it via Instagram. never got a reply. it’s possible he just never saw the message since he probably gets a lot of them, but an attempt was certainly made.

[Andy Tan @andytanbibleman]

@theSmokingGun27 @sccarlson @WillemJanBlom2 3. the whole point of footnotes/intext citations is to show when you’ve used arguments from other scholars. just putting the work in the bibliography without stating how you used it is meaningless. also see @WillemJanBlom2’s suggestion that he lifted the bibliography from Yoon.

[Andy Tan @andytanbibleman]

@theSmokingGun27 @sccarlson 1. the added information is also not Wes’s work, it is plagiarised from Yoon’s paper (p. 433). see @WillemJanBlom2’s comments for more.

2. copying another scholar’s analysis and conclusion is the very definition of plagiarism.

[Andy Tan @andytanbibleman]

@WillemJanBlom2 @sccarlson @drdaveyoon reminds me of this comment

[Andy Tan @andytanbibleman]

@WillemJanBlom2 @sccarlson @drdaveyoon another one: Yoon cites two works by J. K. Elliott, a 2001 book chapter and a 1972 journal article. Huff has both in his bibliography, but only ever makes reference to the article in his paper. seems like he took out Yoon’s other citation but forgot to update the bibliography

[Andy Tan @andytanbibleman]

@sccarlson guess Wes improved a little in the two-year interval between the two papers…

[Andy Tan @andytanbibleman]

@maklelan for reference, the Yoon article is David I. Yoon, “The Antioch Incident and a Textual Variant: ‘ΗΛΘΟΝ’ or ‘ΗΛΘΕΝ’ in Galatians 2:12,” The Expository Times 125 (2014): 432-439.

@sccarlson has posted about the parts plagiarised from his work.

[Andy Tan @andytanbibleman]

@maklelan doesn’t seem to be an isolated incident. another one of his https://t.co/mq7TmcGlaL papers, the one on the textual variant at Gal 2:12, also shows signs of plagiarism from a 2014 article by David I. Yoon and Stephen C. Carlson’s dissertation