What does your source say?

It seems easy. You search the web, find a secondary source, and copy and paste the relevant passages, making sure that everything is properly cited.
But how carefully did you read?

Have a look at the following:

I believe based on what I have read and researched that John wrote the book in a certain kind of code. "The church was experiencing persecution and John wanted to write critically of Rome in such a way that the recipients of his book would not get in trouble for harboring such an inflammatory document. He wrote in symbols so that any non-initiated Roman would fail to understand what he was reading, and thus the church would be spared any further persecution." (Our Beans)

Despite the name, Our Beans is a useful web-site, since it is written by Ed Gallagher, an Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies. However, as you can verify by following the link, Prof. Gallagher was arguing that this commonly held view (one I argued for in class) is wrong. Discussing Prof. Gallagher's objections to the commonly held view would make for an interesting essay. But the student writing this paper omitted the criticisms, thus making it appear that Prof. Gallagher was endorsing the very view that he was criticizing. It is very important not to misrepresent sources in this manner.

It is an easy trap to fall into. I can understand a student looking for confirmation of what I said in class rather than disagreement. But avoid this trap. First, it is unfair to misrepresent someone's opinion. Also, in this case, focusing on the reasons for rejecting the standard theory would have made for a much more interesting paper.

Back to REL 2240