The Chronicle of Higher Education reports today that Southern Illinois University may have plagiarized its definition of plagiarism. A 2007 SIU report defines plagiarism as:

directly quoting another’s actual words, whether oral or written; using another’s ideas, opinions, or theories; paraphrasing the words, ideas, opinions, or theories of others, whether oral or written; borrowing facts, statistics, or illustrative material; and offering materials assembled or collected by others in the form of projects or collections without acknowledgment.

Indiana University’s 2005 definition of plagiarism reads:

1. Directly quoting another person’s actual words, whether oral or written; 2. Using another person’s ideas, opinions, or theories; 3. Paraphrasing the words, ideas, opinions, or theories of others, whether oral or written; 4. Borrowing facts, statistics, or illustrative material; or 5. Offering materials assembled or collected by others in the form of projects or collections without acknowledgment.

SIU’s report does not cite or acknowledge Indiana’s definition. (I quoted both from the Chronicle.)

Amid the buck-passing and hand-wringing described in the Chronicle‘s report, the whole incident raises questions about the uniqueness of texts and the value of novelty over against standardization. While someone at SIU certainly seems to have lifted the defiition from Indiana’s policy, massaged it very slightly, and dropped it into SIU’s report, does this really constitute, in abstract and ideal terms, a violation of Indiana’s “intellectual property”? The SIU author should have given credit where credit is due, no doubt. But how important is it, really, that every single college and university should have its own unique (or idiosyncratic) definition of plagiarism? Wouldn’t it be better for all colleges and universities to share a common definition of plagiarism? I can see many advantages to an “open source” definition of plagiarism, crafted and published by an organization like the American Association of University Professors and made freely available for use by all academics.

As a side issue, colleges and universities probably need to think carefully about the use of boilerplate text in course syllabi, or even how to attribute the authorship of common syllabi. Our Disability Services Office, for example, distributes a boilerplate paragraph that most faculty members just copy and paste into their own syllabi. But few professors think to add a line such as, “The Disability Services Offices has requested that all professors include the following statement in their syllabi: …” And if professors did add such introductory statements, how many different sentences could they craft without reproducing (“plagiarizing!”) each others’ introductions?

I faced a similar problem last semester, when I coordinated a team of professors teaching from a common syllabus. We all used the same syllabus, with an attachment providing professor-specific information like e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and open contact hours. As I was proofreading the section on academic integrity, it occurred to me that I had personally written less than half of the syllabus, and that the other seven professors who would use the syllabus had contributed even less of the actual wording (several contributed big ideas, but not exact sentences). Most of it had been written by a professor who was not teaching the course during the fall term! This brought me up short, and I then spent several minutes crafting an explanation of the syllabus’s origins, which I then inserted at an appropriate place in the syllabus itself. Seriously, how many academics can claim that every sentence of every syllabus is an original composition? And how can and should we acknowledge the degree of imitation in every syllabus—especially if the chain of imitation is so long that we know not how to reconstruct the genealogy of our sentences?

Thus I answer Sci Fi Wire’s question, “Is Seth Rogen’s Green Hornet movie dead?” Rogen has no business getting anywhere near Britt Reid.

Sci Fi Wire has pictures of some of Playmates’ action figures for the upcoming Star Trek film. The figures come in 12-inch, 6-inch, and 3.75-inch scales.

Twenty-five Super Bowls ago, on January 22, 1984, Apple computer introduced the Macintosh to the world with a stunning commercial directed by Ridley Scott. Two days later, Steve Jobs unveiled the first shipping Mac model at De Anza College in Cupertino. ReadWriteWeb offers a photo retrospective of twenty-five years’ worth of Macintosh models. Ah, the memories. I have owned a Mac SE, Mac LC, PowerBook, and iMac G3; my various employers have provided for my use a Mac 128K, Mac SE, Mac LC, Mac II, Mac Portable, iBook, MacBook, and MacBook Pro. This is the life.

I love the a capella Churches of Christ, in which my parents raised me and which I continue to attend. If I have things my way, when I die, I will still belong to a congregation of the a capella Churches of Christ. I often find myself in a theological minority within these churches, but our emphasis on individual accountability before God (what Baptists call “soul competency”) and the priesthood of all believers, makes that okay. Moreover, I usually try to keep my criticism of our movement in-house, sharing them chiefly with other believers, and chiefly other believers within my home congregation, in the spirit of seeking ever to improve our worship, witness, and service.

However, a recent article in the Christian Chronicle, a newspaper serving Churches of Christ, so disturbed me that I just had to blog about it. According to the Chronicle, the editors of Churches of Christ in the United Statates have removed Richland Hills Church of Christ in Fort Worth, Texas—which has one a capella service and one instrumental service on Sunday mornings—from the directory.

To be fair to the directory’s editors, Churches of Christ in the United States has always styled itself a list of a capella Churches of Christ, so to some extent, Richland Hills’s exclusion from the directory derives from the list’s specific focus. And, of course, the editors of a directory may list or not list whomever they choose in their own book.

This news disturbs me less because of the exclusion of Richland Hills, or Farmer’s Branch, or any other specific congregation than because of the message the very existence of such a list sends. When I was young, preachers and teachers told me that the Churches of Christ were most definitely not a denomination, and there were certain things we didn’t do because those practices were deemed too “denominational.” The earliest Churches of Christ arose from an ecumenical spirit, a desire for individual congregations (mostly Presbyterian and Baptist, in those early days) to “die, be dissolved, and sink into union with the Body of Christ at large: for there is but one body and one spirit, even as we are called in one hope of our calling” (“The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery“). In those early days, our forebears styled themselves “Christians only, but not the only Christians.” The early leaders of Churches of Christ/Christian Churches/the Disciples of Christ felt that denominational labels, tests of fellowship, and so on fractured the worldwide body of Christ, and they longed to mend those wounds by dissolving denominations and denominationalism.

Making a directory of “who’s us” seems to me one of the most “denominational” things we could possibly do, and I weep when I compare our penchant for drawing lines between Christians with our forebears’ desire to erase them.

In the latest (January/February 2009) issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Craig Evans decries “the trend of biblical ‘breaking news’” and the hype that often surrounds “new” discoveries—or new, untested, idiosyncratic theories about old “discoveries.”

I confess to finding this a bit odd. While I don’t hold BAR in quite as low esteem as, say, Joe Zias does, BAR does seem to me to edge toward the sensationalistic more often than one might think from a column like Evans’s. Evans contrasts Ada Yardeni’s “cautious interpretation” of the so-called “Gabriel’s Revelation” with Israel Knohl’s “daring thesis” with regard to the same text. While I hold my judgments about the “Gabriel” text very lightly, as I have studied the issue but briefly, I do tend to agree with Evans that Knohl’s interpretation indulges too much in fancy. Yet I can hardly say that BAR consistently brings readers “cautious interpretation”—for example, try substituting “Eilat Mazar” for “Israel Knohl,” and “David’s palace” for “Gabriel’s Revelation” …

Excavation and Fieldschool Opportunity in Israel

July 5–31, 2009

The Site

Tell es-Safi/Gath (Hebrew Tel Tsafit), Israel, is a commanding mound located on the border between the Judean foothills (the Shephelah) and the coastal plain (Philistia), approximately halfway between Jerusalem and Ashkelon. At about 100 acres in size, it is one of the largest and most important pre-Classical period archaeological sites in Israel. Tell es-Safi is identified as Canaanite and Philistine Gath (known from the Bible as the home of Goliath and Achish) and Crusader Blanche Garde. The site was inhabited continuously from the Chalcolithic period (5th millennium BCE) until 1948 CE.

The Project

Since 1996 a team of archaeologists from the Institute of Archaeology at Bar Ilan University, under the direction of Prof. Aren M. Maeir, has been digging at Tell es-Safi/Gath. The first 13 years of the project (1996-2008) have demonstrated the great importance of the site. Major finds include: 1) A 9th century BCE destruction layer with extraordinarily rich remains; 2) An unique siege trench, dating to the Iron Age, that surrounds the site, apparent evidence of an Aramaic siege of the site (see II Kings 12:18); 3) A rich stratigraphic sequence covering the Early Bronze II through Modern times (ca. 26th BCE – 20th century CE); 4) A rich representation of the material culture of the Philistines, arch-enemies of the biblical- period Israelites; 5) Fascinating inscriptions from various periods, including Canaanite, Egyptian and Philistine (including the so- called “Goliath Inscription”).

The Program

All able and willing people between 16 and 80 are invited to join us for a unique and exciting experience uncovering the history and culture of the Holy Land. In addition to participating in all facets of the excavation process, participants will be provided with an opportunity to learn cutting-edge techniques of field archaeology, gain experience in archaeological science applications (with a unique program in inter-disciplinary archaeological science in the field), hear lectures about the archaeology and history of the region and related issues, and go on field trips to nearby sites of historical/archaeological and/or contemporary interest. Participants will join a young, vivacious team comprised of staff, students and volunteers from Israel and the world-over. Students can earn either 3 or 6 university credits through Bar-Ilan University, the second largest university in Israel. Accommodations (including kosher food) will be provided at idyllic Kibbutz Revadim, a short drive from the site. Rooms (4-6 per room; single and double rooms available at extra charge) are air-conditioned and there is access to the Kibbutz pool. And don’t forget the weekly, Thursday evening, Bar-B-Q!

Workday (more or less)

6am to 1 pm excavation; Afternoon: various excavation related processes (such as pottery reading) and occasional tours; Evenings: occasional lectures. We work Sunday afternoon to Friday mid-day.

Prices:
Volunteers: US$400 per week, 2 week minimum, or US$1550 for entire 4 weeks (plus US$50 registration fee). Price includes R&B for entire week, daily transportation to site and back, and various dig-related activities. Does not include transportation to Israel, and to and from the Base camp, as well as health and accident insurance.

Students (wishing to receive university credits): In addition to the R&B, $500 for half program (3 credits) and $1000 for full program (6 credits).

For application forms and further information, please contact:
Prof. Aren M. Maeir
The Institute of Archaeology
The Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900
ISRAEL
Fax: ++972-3-6354941
Email: maeira@mail.biu.ac.il
Website: www.dig-gath.org
Blog: http://gath.wordpress.com

Greek and Hebrew capabilities in Olive Tree Bible Software’s BibleReader for iPhone have moved out of the beta stage! The screens now look just a tiny bit different from what I showed you before. You still get great-looking Hebrew texts when you browse the Bible:

The biggest changes come in entering search strings. Olive Tree’s software engineers have now provided Hebrew (and also Greek) keyboards for entering search strings:

The odd-looking character positions result, I suppose, from the need to map Hebrew characters onto a QWERTY layout. I would have preferred to see the Hebrew glyphs in their Israeli keyboard positions, though, so that I would tap-type on the iPhone screen the same way I touch-type on my Mac keyboard. You’ll also notice the lack of final forms—I don’t know why Olive Tree chose not to use them, but I imagine they don’t need them to perform the searches, and the search term entry screen doesn’t pretend to pass as a text editor! At any rate, a simple search produces good results:

I have not experimented much with more advanced search strings, but the software does support wildcard characters and a variety of special search commands. I’ll review that functionality after I’ve had more time to play with it.

To take the plunge, you first need to download BibleReader from the iPhone App Store. Olive Tree doesn’t charge you anything for the BibleReader app itself, by the way; they turn their profit on the text modules. After you have BibleReader installed on your iPhone, visit the Olive Tree web site to purchase the BHS, NA27 Greek text, or whatever other Bibles you want on your iPhone. After you’ve purchased your desired texts, launch BibleReader on your iPhone, navigate to your Library, and tap the My Account icon at the bottom of the screen. Your iPhone app will synchronize with your Olive Tree library, and offer you a list of modules to download to your phone.

By the way—and this is more exciting than the inauguration of Barack Obama—if you’ve previously purchased BibleReader texts for another platform (as I had for a Palm OS device), those titles already appear in your Olive Tree library, and you don’t need to purchase them again upon migrating to the iPhone. I still stand amazed that Olive Tree does this, and I can hardly quell my enthusiasm about this policy. Years ago, I purchased the BHS, Greek NT, NRSV, and JPS Tanakh (I think that’s the list) for my Palm OS installation of BibleReader—and now I have the same texts on my iPhone at absolutely no additional charge! Olive Tree, may your tribe increase!

… that Jessica Merritt included Higgaion in ChristianColleges.com’s recent list of “Top 100 Theology Blogs.” You’ll find Higgaion listed in the “Academic” section, along with Exploring Our Matrix, Blue Cord, Targuman, Claude Mariottini’s blog, and some other fine blogs—some that I read regularly, and some that I hadn’t yet discovered. One can get tired of “Top N Lists,” I suppose, but for me they somehow always seem to point to blogs that had otherwise escaped my attention—and for that I am grateful.

Somehow I missed it—grad student Matthew Lanser has been blogging on the Hebrew Bible and other matters at Havel Havalim since June 2008. Lanser raises interesting questions from an evangelical point of view.