Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

364 Excellent

1 Follower

About champatsch

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Take a look at all of Mark Davies' corpora, perhaps the world's leading online corpus website, which includes an EEBO corpus and a 19c American corpus. I made an Evans corpus that I'll probably put on WordCruncher in the near future, with books published in America from 1640 to 1800.
  2. It wasn't Joseph Smith cribbing from the NT, since the words were given to him. The extensive OT and NT quoting in the Book of Mormon was an integral part of the English-language translation that God dictated to him ("as dictated by God", from Matthew Davis's notes on Joseph Smith's words in February 1840). One of the misleading things LDS scholarship persists in doing, against the evidence, is calling, for example, the lengthy word for word quoting of Mark in Mormon "allusion" rather than calling it what it clearly is, biblical quoting. This is another inaccurate move, and the approach will eventually be abandoned. We can see it, for example, in Wayment's NT notes (2019). The justification for this mislabeling is that otherwise the general church reader will be confused. But presenting the reality and characterizing it accurately is a better move: The truth shall set you free. In fact, the biblical quoting and blending in the Book of Mormon is so extensive — at times complex and at times intricate — that it is highly unlikely Joseph could have or would have done it the way it is. Instead of being shook up by documents such as the above, look for the newest critical text publication, to come out in late November, The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon, authored by Royal Skousen, with my collaboration, wherein 36 quotation blocks, with a minimum matching level of n > 15, are clearly set forth side by side with King James readings, in comparative fashion, and wherein shorter biblical quotations / blendings at the level of n > 6 are set forth as well, in comparative fashion.
  3. Probably not enough members know about the resources for study, talks, lessons freely available in WordCruncher. First, there's a lot of Church material free to the public: precisely searchable electronic versions of Latter-day Saint scriptures, General Conference addresses, some Church manuals, and many other Church-related publications. One I was just looking at today was The Allegory of the Olive Tree (1994). To get this and others, just go into the WordCruncher bookstore, found under the File menu of the installed program. Also, a very small corpus of Joseph Smith's early writings (letters and his 1832 history, edited) will be there soon, with links to the JSP website. Second, there are non-Church ebooks available as well. As one example, the Riverside Shakespeare has been freely available in WordCruncher for many years. In addition, a year ago I had four pseudo-biblical texts put on there. Eventually, 24 pseudo-biblical texts will be there, at varying levels of quality, constituting almost half a million words. Third, there are a few items that can be bought, but each one is available as a free trial. These include Dead Sea Scrolls study material, a high-quality 1830 Book of Mormon facsimile, and a 700-million-word EEBO corpus made up of more than 25,000 early modern texts (1473–1700). The distinct advantages of these searchable ebooks, over what is available elsewhere, are explained in the material downloaded as part of the trials. Fourth, the critical text of the Book of Mormon will eventually be there as well as ATV, but these last two may be a few years off — perhaps around the time the 22-text collation (01ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST) is released through WordCruncher, signaling the end of the Book of Mormon critical text project.
  4. There are two in-house versions of this, but neither has been released to the public. One is maintained by Monte Shelley, one by me. I don't know when these might be publicly released; it depends on the Yale edition copyright. For now, you'd have to make your own, as I did in 2013. It probably takes between 20 and 30 hours to do. Earlier this year I finished tagging the critical text for part of speech. A first draft is now complete.
  5. Have you considered the work of Philip Davis, that archaic, surprising language affects brain activity in possibly beneficial ways. This is actually an argument for reading the original language since it has more archaisms that we are unaccustomed to — it gets us thinking a bit more, stimulates autobiographical memory, useful for making connections. For example,
  6. All of this is true. This was left out, and it bears repeating: unlikely future auxiliary switch (against JS's native preference) will → shall (Isa 52:12; 3n2042) there are many changes (dozens) that show intrusive and careful editing (e.g. 2n1214, 2n1216, 2n1309, 2n1311, etc.) positing JS as the modifier of biblical quotations requires a creative explanation for the surprising Septuagint phrase "upon all the ships of the sea" (2n1216) Many analysts, including the above quoted, conspicuously ignore strong evidence and focus on weak or irrelevant evidence when arguing against an opposing view. It's important to focus on strong evidence. That was a problem with Scott Gordon's presentation, addressing CES Letter question 1, and it is a serious, repeated flaw in my interlocutor's approach. There is just too much neglect and twisting of evidence.
  7. Yes, just another fanciful theory based on insufficient research. C. Smith didn't consult Skousen's work on the manuscripts or any of his relevant statements. He didn't take the critical text and do a phrase by phrase comparison, noting italics changed, italics not changed, other constituent changes. Here's what serious work looks like: Crystal-clear visual imagery is extremely unlikely because it's probabilistically low for any given individual and it doesn't ultimately work textually. Having a King James Bible present isn't supported by any dictation witness, and it would have had to be a carefully prepared Bible, not an unmarked Bible.
  8. I'm skeptical of being able to approach certainty in this area. I see the hand of editors exploring alternative ways of expression and being creative in the editing process, much like anyone does who acts as an editor when writing: editing, re-editing, reverting, restructuring, etc.
  9. It's available on iPhone / iPad too. BYU actively maintains it. I just received a report outlining three improvements they are making. It's not used widely I guess, but it isn't quite abandoned. I know that academics not affiliated with BYU used it in the 1990s and probably in the 2000s. It just never expanded to wide use, and I guess it won't in the future, but if there's something better for LDS scripture searching and study, I haven't seen it. For general purposes, what else is comparable or better, where the searches are more precise than corpus searches such as can be made with Mark Davies' corpora?
  10. You know the wherefore ~ therefore switch, and the whoso ~ whosoever switch? The latter is noticeable between 3n08 and 3n09, where whoso starts to be used much more heavily. So, if we cut the dictation in two, at that cusp, we notice that there are other features that shift dramatically, not all lexical. One important one is the shift to heavy use of subordinate that. To see this you have to look at GV or the Yale edition in something like WordCruncher. Specifically, all or almost all the archaic, biblical "after that S" usage is in dictation 2 (115 of them); the same goes for the other subordinate that usage. Dictation 1 has "after S", "before S", etc. Crucially, 24 pseudo-biblical texts show that Book of Mormon usage in this regard is extraordinary, in quality and quantity. Also, almost all instances of the rhetorical hypothetical "if it so be" (categorically nonbiblical) are in dictation 2 (39 of 42). (I found two instances of biblical "if so be" in 24 pseudo-biblical texts.) So, either we believe that JS made a dramatic jump in controlling all these archaisms at 3n09, or we accept that the text given to him makes a dramatic shift in character at that point, with some exceptional sections.
  11. Yes, we must not put too much stock in what the dictation witnesses said on this point, we must pay attention to the syntax and lexis.
  12. Some thoughts on biblical quoting in the Book of Mormon: focusing on a small subset of biblical quoting in the Book of Mormon is a recipe for coming to faulty conclusions there are sections where italics clearly plays a role in textual changes; there are sections where italics plays hardly any role because less than one-quarter of the changes are related to italics, much more is going on than mere italics modification the complexity of the paraphrastic verse with functional shift in wherefore (2n0951) is an example of the need to posit JS preparing carefully in advance of the dictation, if the goal is to make him the editor of biblical quotation in the Book of Mormon there are many phrases (more than 30) where the italicized word or phrase is left unchanged but there is another immediate difference some subconscious syntactic evidence argues against JS being responsible for altering biblical quotations unlikely personal relative pronoun changes (against JS's native preference), that → which: he that → they which (Isa 50:9; 2n0709) man that → man which (Isa 51:12; 2n0812) every one that → every one which (Isa 2:12; 2n1212) unlikely personal relative pronoun choices (against JS's native preference), ø → which: man ø → man which (Isa 29:8; 2n2703; twice in the same verse) the poor in spirit ø → the poor in spirit which (Matt 5:3; 3n1203) ø → he which ([Mic 4:3]; 3n2019; nonbiblical sentence) ø → people which ([Mic 5:8]; 3n2112; nonbiblical phrase; jsLetters have "people that") unlikely future auxiliary switch (against JS's native preference) will → shall (Isa 52:12; 3n2042) there are many changes (dozens) that show intrusive and careful editing (e.g. 2n1214, 2n1216, 2n1309, 2n1311, etc.) positing JS as the modifier of biblical quotations requires a creative explanation for the surprising Septuagint phrase "upon all the ships of the sea" (2n1216)
  13. Wordcruncher is a search capability program. It does not have any scripture modules in and of itself. Of course it does.
  14. Can you clarify for us what you think the process of biblical quotation was in the Book of Mormon during the dictation? What precisely did the Lord do and what precisely did Joseph Smith do?
  15. Persistence of meaning isn't my explanation. I mentioned persistence because you argued that Joseph changed from the more archaic to the less archaic meaning by changing interrogative wherefore to conjunction or relative wherefore. My point was simply about the difficulty of arguing for that convincingly when there was persistence of both meanings to his day. I generally consider both possibilities in my work, and particularly in the matter of biblical quotation. The changes in the wherefore passage could have either been Joseph deciding to change it or the Lord deciding to change it (or sanctioning the change made by delegates). When we look at all the biblical evidence, however, the latter emerges as extremely likely. I have considered your 2011 book on this matter, and find that you favor some unclear idiosyncratic version of eidetic imagery: The reality is simple: the Lord transmitted a modified biblical text to Joseph in 1829, who then relayed that to his scribes.
  • Create New...