I recently read an assignment which drew on sources critical of the Documentary Hypothesis. Ironically, the assignment was in fact plagiarized from a number of online sources. And at least one of those sources in turn clearly plagiarized from another.
Here’s a bit of text:
This appears essentially verbatim in at least two places online. One is an Apologetics Press article by Eric Lyons. The other is an article by Jacob Gaddala in the Journal of Dispensational Theology. Since both cite Henry Morris, in theory both could have plagiarized from that common source, in which case both the L and G sources would be duplications from the common source M. But in fact, a more likely scenario is that M was used by L, and L was then used by G. The verbatim agreement is not in the triple tradition, but is between G and L. Since L is dated to 2003, and G to 2011, the most likely scenario is that the latter plagiarized from the former. And I believe that it was G that was in turn plagiarized by the source that I recently read, the author of which will remain anonymous.
The J, or Jehovahist, document (usually known as the Yahwehist document) supposedly was written around 850 B.C., and was characterized by its use of the divine name Yahweh. Elohim is the divine name that identifies the E, or Elohist, document, purportedly written around 750 B.C.The D, or Deuteronomist, document contained most of the book of Deuteronomy and was supposed to have been written around 620 B.C. The last section to be written was the P, or Priestly, document, which would have contained most of the priestly laws, and allegedly was written around 500 B.C. We are told these documents were then redacted (edited) into one work about 300 years later in 200 B.C.
But seriously, how can anyone think that they can make a case against the use of sources by lifting material out of a source?!