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