Plagarism in Antiquity and in Early Christianity

[MrMacSon]

Adapting and transforming are politically correct terms for saying that 2 Peter is a shameful plagiarism of the epistle of Jude

Sure, though, Interestingly, Litwa actually said

Both [ 2 Peter and the Epistle attributed to Jude ] are highly polemical letters, invective letters.

And that's a particular Greco-Roman genre: you'll find letters of invective or speeches of invective taught in the Greco-Roman world.

And what this author has done, in the days before plagiarism, is essentially refashion the invective of an earlier letter but to direct it against slightly different opponents

I guess he was referring to the days before plagiarism was recognised as a bad thing or even as 'a thing'.

On the other hand, NPL Allen, in a Masters thesis assessing Josephus scholar Steve Mason's book, Josephus and the New Testament, 2nd Edn, 2003, and his claims therein that the author of the Gospel attributed to Luke and 'Acts of the Apostles', aka Luke-Acts, 'borrowed' information from Josephus, with reference to either content or style, such as —

• the census under Quirinius in Syria and Judea (c.6 CE),
• the actions of historical personages such as Judas the Galilean, Theudas, and the Egyptian Prophet (c.52 — c.62 CE),
• the role and specific mention of the Sicarii (c.52 — c.62 CE),
• the portrayal of Herod Agrippa II and Marcus Antonius Felix,
• the hegemony of the Pharisaic movement,
• the limited influence of the Sadducees, and
• episodes of divine justice, etc.,.

— Allen concluded:

7.4.1 Further Research

It is safe to state that the Mason thesis holds water but also raises a number of important issues that need to be explored further:
...< . . snip . . >
Secondly, Luke seems to have no qualms about “borrowing” the contents of other sources without acknowledgement.

This seems to seriously contradict the findings of Lüdemann (2013: 259—60)* who argued, based on Galen’s comments in My Own Books, the following, pertinent to Græco-Roman times:

1. Individuals with limited education were able to employ basic “style-criticism” to discriminate between legitimate and bogus texts;
2. Plagiarism was not tolerated; and
3. Pseudepigraphy was considered inappropriate behaviour.

What it seems to show, is that, if in normal Hellenistic circles style criticism and awareness of the perils of plagiarism and pseudepigraphy were well known, even to those of limited education, then the early Christian [authors, at least] of c.200 — 400 CE must have operated well outside of societal norms.

Thesis: 'Josephus and Luke-Acts: A critical review of a thesis by Steve Mason', p.231.
https://5dok.net/document/6zk9164y-jose ... mason.html

---

.* Lüdemann, Gerd, “Historical Issues in Acts 28:11—31,” in Forum, Third Series 2,2, Fall, 2013: 253 – 272

So, it seems plagiarism was frowned upon but performed

[mbuckley3]

There seems to be some confusion of categories here.Three points.

Firstly, in the Imperial era, intertextual allusions and (adapted) quotations were regarded as the 'added value' of fine writing. To describe 2 Peter as the re-fashioning or adaptation of a previous text is a reasonable description. 'Plagiarism' perhaps in this instance would be polemical shorthand.

Secondly, that the author of Luke-Acts had read (and mis-read) Josephus is a reasonable inference. That he did not declare this is not a case of plagiarism. As is well-known, 'historical' writing in antiquity was more concerned with providing a fluent and compelling narrative; written sources were rarely cited, and then often only to dispute an alternative version of events.

Other genres had different conventions. Pliny's Natural History, in its original format, had a list of authors consulted at the head of each chapter. Extensive, often precise, often bogus, source-quotation is a feature of miscellanies of believe-it-or-not 'facts', such as the Ps.-Plutarchan Parallel Stories, and On the Naming of Rivers and Mountains, and the farrago served up by Ptolemy Chennos. Such citation in a work presenting itself as 'historical' writing would have been downright odd.

Thirdly, Litwa's "in the days before plagiarism" is a careless aside, as I'm sure he knows better. Plagiarism was definitely a recognised 'thing', in the sense of extensive unacknowledged quotation with little or no rewriting. One of the more entertaining examples is a salutary story retailed by Vitruvius at the start of book 7 of his On Architecture, concerning the literary festival at the inauguration of the great library at Alexandria :

"When the arrangements were completed, and the games were at hand, learned judges had to be chosen to examine the competitors. When the king had chosen six persons from the city and could not quickly find a seventh person suitable, he consulted the governors of the library whether they knew anyone prepared for such a duty. They gave the name of Aristophanes [of Byzantium], who read each book in the library systematically day by day with comprehensive ardour and diligence..The competition for poets was first on the list; and when their poems were recited, the whole multitude by its utterances warned the judges what to approve. When, therefore, the judges were asked one by one, the six agreed and gave the first prize to the poet who, they observed, most pleased the audience; the second prize to the person who came next in their approval. Aristophanes, however, when his opinion was asked, voted that the first place should be given to the candidate who was least liked by the audience. When the king and all the company showed great indignation, he rose and obtained permission to speak. Amid a general silence he informed them that only one of the competitors was a true poet; the others recited borrowed work [aliena], whereas the judges had to deal with original compositions, not with plagiaries [non furta sed scripta]. The assembly were surprised and the king was doubtful. Aristophanes relying upon his memory produced a large number of papyrus rolls from certain bookcases, and comparing these with what had been recited he compelled the authors to confess they were thieves[furatos]. The king then ordered them to be brought to trial for theft. They were condemned and dismissed in disgrace, while Aristophanes was raised to high office and became librarian." (7.5-7.7, LCL tr.)