Post-Christian Bible nerd endlessly fascinated with the historical Jesus and the origins of Christianity (he/him)
Portland, OR
Joined February 2020
- Tweets7.8K
- Following576
- Followers3.8K
- Likes28.6K
Pinned Tweet
Why am I still so interested in Christian origins? The way I figure it, either the birth of Christianity tells us something incalculably valuable about the nature of the universe, or it tells us something incalculably valuable about ourselves. There’s gold there either way.
Matthew Hartke retweeted
Honestly, from Wes, that seems like an underwhelming non-apology to what looks like real plagiarism.
Context matters, but the documents authored by Wes appear to contain overtly plagiarized materials throughout. Focusing on academia and your email is not the main issue.
A final point. This isn’t about canceling. I’m not a fan of that. It is about academic standards and integrity and accountability. As a Christian, this matters and I know it matters to Wes.
His response: youtu.be/RdrHr819rzU?is=q5Vp…
I don’t know fellas, maybe this isn’t the best way to persuade women that their liberal values go back to Christianity 🤷♂️
A couple problems here:
1) Sayings about the Gospel going out to all the nations reflect the situation in the life of the early church better than they do the ministry of Jesus
2) Even if Jesus did say something like Mk 13:10, you still have to explain that in light of Mk 13:30
I will probably make a video explaining why this is an implausible reading of Jesus' words one day if anyone is interested.
One piece of data that makes me think this is the case is the scope of the Great Commission needing to go to all nations.
5
15
1,273
What really gets me is how sloppy it all is. Changing “transcriptional” (a word) to “transcriptrural” (not a word), replacing “Note, however” (makes sense) to “Similarly” (makes no sense) and changing the citation of Ehrman “n. 183” to page number “183”…
I found Wes Huff committing plagiarism in another paper. In his paper (left), "Forgiveness in Luke-Acts", (utoronto.academia.edu/Wesley…), he paraphrased a large chunk of Nathan Eubank's text in "A Disconcerting Prayer: On the Originality of LUke 23:34a" (right) in his conclusion.
Matthew Hartke retweeted
I found Wes Huff committing plagiarism in another paper. In his paper (left), "Forgiveness in Luke-Acts", (utoronto.academia.edu/Wesley…), he paraphrased a large chunk of Nathan Eubank's text in "A Disconcerting Prayer: On the Originality of LUke 23:34a" (right) in his conclusion.
“if modern miracles can't prove anything, neither can the Resurrection”
🙂↕️🙂↕️🙂↕️
Matthew Hartke retweeted
Yes, I too was plagarized.
The black parts are what he didn't change.
doesn’t seem to be an isolated incident. another one of his academia.edu 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
Plagiarism is a common practice for apologists whose main interest isn’t the contribution of ideas within a community of learning but rather the display of competence as a means of persuasion. Note here how Huff copies Lydia McGrew, even stealing her title and calling it his own.
Damn this is egregious 😬
Did Wes Huff commit plagiarism?
#maklelan3550
youtu.be/bbxN1NXmGtI
Matthew Hartke retweeted
This happens right before Jesus gets the infinity stones, end of Luke I think
Mark must have been pretty innovative, unprecedented, and unparalleled to have had such an outsized influence on both Matt and Luke.
Case in point: When they don’t have Mark to rely on at the beginning and end of their stories, Matt and Luke go completely off the rails.
Any reconstruction of the historical Jesus that does not include the many, many instances from our earliest sources in which Jesus tells stories that end with the messianic figure slaughtering multitudes does not deserve to be called a historical reconstruction.
