David Holmes' Compter Analysis - Comments?

[SolarPowered]

I'm not a Mormon. As I read through the BoM, D&C, Moses, Abraham, etc., it just seems to me that one can see a common thread throughout - some of the phrases are the same, and the manner in which the books are written (an attempted duplication of King James English) just seems so contrived.

The Book of Mormon is not "an attempted duplication of King James English." According Royal Skousen, a linguist who has been studying the manuscripts of the Book of Mormon for over a decade, the language of the Book of Mormon is actually the English of the century prior to the publication of the King James Bible.

Explain that discovery, if you will.

[Bibletruth]

The Book of Mormon is not "an attempted duplication of King James English." According Royal Skousen, a linguist who has been studying the manuscripts of the Book of Mormon for over a decade, the language of the Book of Mormon is actually the English of the century prior to the publication of the King James Bible.

Explain that discovery, if you will.

In my opinion it is. And it often alternates between "thys" and "yours." Showing the author was a 19th century speaker.

[SolarPowered]

He's been "debunked"? I'm curious as to that claim, care to post a example?

Glenn already posted that link. It is here.

[MormonMason]

I'm not a Mormon. As I read through the BoM, D&C, Moses, Abraham, etc., it just seems to me that one can see a common thread throughout - some of the phrases are the same, and the manner in which the books are written (an attempted duplication of King James English) just seems so contrived.

I never said that you were Mormon. Is English your second language?

There is a common thread throughout--that common thread being Joseph Smith. If one uses vocabulary analysis one can demonstrate the obvious--that Joseph Smith was involved in the production of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. That is a no-brainer except for Spalding Theorists. But, it does not change the fact that a different methodology using frequently occurring non-contextual words will produce a different result--that of multiple authors.

So, what do we get when we place the results of Holmes' study side-by-side with those of the Larsen and Hilton groups? We get all the evidence we need that Joseph Smith was telling it straight about these works. They are translations by the same man of different actual authors.

Tell you what, take Holmes' methodology and apply it to J.B. Phillip's translation of the New Testament and Moffatt's translation of the Bible and let us know the results. That should be interesting, should it not?

[SolarPowered]

In my opinion it is. And it often alternates between "thys" and "yours." Showing the author was a 19th century speaker.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you were a linguist specializing in English of that time period.

You have my interest. Please post examples from the Original and/or Printer's Manuscripts of the Book of Mormon showing word usages and/or constructs that are typical of 19th century American English and were not used in sixteenth or seventeenth century English.

[phaedrus ut]

Glenn already posted that link. It is here.

I'm guessing you didnt' read the article at all. Or are unfamiliar with the subject matter. I've read the Schaalje, Hilton, Archer work before and I just went through it again. Care to show where Holmes is debunked?

Phaedrus

[SolarPowered]

I'm guessing you didnt' read the article at all. Or are unfamiliar with the subject matter. I've read the Schaalje, Hilton, Archer work before and I just went through it again. Care to show where Holmes is debunked?

Phaedrus

This, for example:

From our studies of texts of known authorship, it is clear that

vocabulary-richness measures do not generally have good power

for differentiating texts according to authors. Thus in authorattribution

studies, a lack of difference between texts for vocabulary-

richness measures does not imply no difference in authorship

of the texts and certainly does not imply that differences detected

using other stylometric measures should be negated.

Would you prefer the phrase "inappropriate for the usage to which it was put" to "debunked"? Or perhaps, "Application of that test to this purpose was debunked"?

[MormonMason]

I'm guessing you didnt' read the article at all. Or are unfamiliar with the subject matter. I've read the Schaalje, Hilton, Archer work before and I just went through it again. Care to show where Holmes is debunked?

Phaedrus

Holmes isn't debunked; he just used a different methodology. I use both results because both are valid in my opinion. One demonstrates a causal link between the three works and Joseph Smith. This kills the Spalding Theory and any other theory that someone else wrote the Book of Mormon.

Take the two study groups that used frequently occurring non-contextual words, excluding vocabulary, and individual authors can be separated out similarly as it has been shown in genuine translated works.

Both statistical methodologies are valid within the contexts of their outcomes. Why pit them against each other when they so well complement each other once this is understood?

[Rommelator]

In my opinion it is.

So what? I have an opinion about a lot of things. Does that mean that any of them are true? No.

Show me facts, evidence, sound reasoning a logic please. I am not interested in merely your "opinion". As Hugh Nibley put it best:

"What on earth have a man's name, degree, academic position, and, of all things, opinions to do with whether a thing is true or not?"

And it often alternates between "thys" and "yours." Showing the author was a 19th century speaker.

This is the saddest linguistic methodology I have ever seen. Right up there next to Tarski's "many S-words" theory in the Book of Abraham.

Can I ask you a question? The KJV Bible contains "thou" and "thee" as well as "yours", etc. Does that mean that the author of the Bible was a "19th century speaker"?

Geez.. I have a nice two hour power nap and this is what I wake up to. You guys really break down here when I am not around, huh?

[phaedrus ut]

Holmes isn't debunked; he just used a different methodology. I use both results because both are valid in my opinion. One demonstrates a causal link between the three works and Joseph Smith. This kills the Spalding Theory and any other theory that someone else wrote the Book of Mormon.

Take the two study groups that used frequently occurring non-contextual words, excluding vocabulary, and individual authors can be separated out similarly as it has been shown in genuine translated works.

Both statistical methodologies are valid within the contexts of their outcomes. Why pit them against each other when they so well complement each other once this is understood?

Exactly. The fact is that the methodology used by Holmes, Hapax Legomena/Dislegomena, is still a vaild and commonly used approach for authorship attributtion.

And while it doesn't completely kill all theories like the Spalding theory it does effectively kill the ones that complete remove Joseph Smith from the text. IMO

Phaedrus

[Glenn101]

Sorry, but I don't consider "debunking" from a non-neutral source to be worth the paper it's written on.

Then there is no reason to even discuss the matter with you. It does not matter what you consider worthwhile. The Berkley Group's methods have passed peer review. If you dismiss information because the source is "non-neutral", you must dismiss all bible scholarship by believing Christians also, because they are "non-neutral".

Glenn

[Rommelator]

And while it doesn't completely kill all theories like the Spalding theory it does effectively kill the ones that complete remove Joseph Smith from the text.

Who said anything about removing Joseph Smith from the text? He was the freaking TRANSLATOR for pete sake! Of course there is going to be his imprint on the text. I challenge you or anyone to show me any translation that in some way did not reflect the personality, culture, or background of the translator.

[MormonMason]

Exactly. The fact is that the methodology used by Holmes, Hapax Legomena/Dislegomena, is still a vaild and commonly used approach for authorship attributtion.

And while it doesn't completely kill all theories like the Spalding theory it does effectively kill the ones that complete remove Joseph Smith from the text. IMO

Phaedrus

In my opinion it would be stupid to claim to remove Joseph Smith from the text. It is, after all, Joseph Smith's vocabulary that would have been used in the translations and revelations. All three works come through the hands of Joseph Smith or by the voice of his dictation. It should be expected that one of more statistical studies will reveal that. But, as I said, that is a no-brainer. However, one cannot use Holmes' study as a weapon against the Book of Mormon, either. It proves that the Book of Mormon came through Joseph Smith and not from Solomon Spalding, Sidney Rigdon or Oliver Cowdery.

But, it also does not debunk the fact that a differing methodology will produce differing results that compare favorably with results of studies of actual translation material that appear to separate out authors underlying the English text of a purported translation.

That is why I like both approaches used together instead of trying to pit them against each other. It is a much better weapon against the critics by having two edges to the argument rather than just one or the other.

[Rommelator]

I think it was Skousen, but I could be wrong, who pointed out that there are 2000 authorial shifts in the Book of Mormon. Not too bad for Joseph Smith, eh?

[Rommelator]

and the manner in which the books are written (an attempted duplication of King James English) just seems so contrived.

Do you think that the chiasmus and other Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon are "contrived"? What about Nephi's psalms in 2 Ne. 4:16-35? Are they contrived?

[Rommelator]

Sorry, but I don't consider "debunking" from a non-neutral source to be worth the paper it's written on.

Then throw out every single book, article, magazine or piece of paper that took some stance on religion, politics or even science. Heck, even throw out your Bible, since it was written by men with some pretty heavy biases (i.e. Jehovah is cool, Jesus is cool, all those pagans and their gods are wrong, etc.)

Objectivity is a myth. Everyone is going to bring biases into their analysis or arguments. The question is not whether the arguer is "unbiased" but whether or not he or she has and argument backed up with solid evidence and sound reasoning.

[Rommelator]

I found the following comments posted by our dear friend bibletruth over at CARM. Here: http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v...ad.php?t=117870

I will quote them in extensio here so that people can see just how serious of a scholar bibletruth is and how he/she deals with competing scholarly results:

The BoM quotes extensively from the Bible, which obviously was written by different authors. However, when you compare word and phrase groups found in D&C and the BoM, it demonstrates a common source for both. In other words, the words of Alma, Mormon and so on, when preaching, appear to have the same source as author,and the same source as the person writing the Book of Abraham, D&C, etc.

One only has to read through these books to note the similarities. I always did.

As specified above, Smith copied extensively from other "authors" in the Bible. Naturally his plagiarized work would indicate varied authors.

I especially like how bibletruth characterized the Mormon approach to this:

She did. Plus, I want to thank her for putting up this thread. Of course, Mormons will say that the results were incorrect, the study flawed, blah, blah, blah. If the results said that these revelations were all from varied sources, you can bet there would be dancing in the streets of SLC tonight!

Amazing! Who is up for the cha-cha tonight? Anyone?

Yes, they always studiously avoid answering anything technical until they check with their masters over at FAIR.

That's news to all of those LDS scholars before FAIR ever came out. Ya know, Hugh Nibley and such...

It's interestin that this study by a non-Mormon contradicts findings by Mormons at BYU. Gee, I wonder why?

Because different methodologies were being used. Refer to the posts of MormonMason and others.

Now, bibletruth, since this conversation is going on over at CARM, and since you CARMites seem to have such a passion for the unadulterated and unsoiled truth, would you be so kind as to report the truth over there? Maybe you could share the real LDS response and not some gross caricature.

[SolarPowered]

I found the following comments posted by our dear friend bibletruth over at CARM.

I will quote them in extensio here so that people can see just how serious of a scholar bibletruth is and how he/she deals with competing scholarly results

I'm still waiting for her examples of uniquely 19th-century language in the Original or Printer's Manuscripts of the Book of Mormon...

[LifeOnaPlate]

This isn't evidence of anything. But, NHM is! /end sarcasm

Except that the horse you beat is living and trampling you.

[Rommelator]

Except that the horse you beat is living and trampling you.

Nice!! LOL!!

[The Spectre]

David I. Holmes, a Senior Lecturer in Statistics at Bristol Polytechnic

He's not even a linguist?

[The Spectre]

The Book of Mormon is not "an attempted duplication of King James English." According Royal Skousen, a linguist who has been studying the manuscripts of the Book of Mormon for over a decade, the language of the Book of Mormon is actually the English of the century prior to the publication of the King James Bible.

Explain that discovery, if you will.

Mr. Holmes, I knew Royal Skousen the linguist. I studied under Dr. Skousen. And you Mr. Holmes are no Royal Skousen. (Said in my best Lloyd Benson voice).

[MormonPeasant]

In my opinion it would be stupid to claim to remove Joseph Smith from the text. It is, after all, Joseph Smith's vocabulary that would have been used in the translations and revelations. All three works come through the hands of Joseph Smith or by the voice of his dictation. It should be expected that one of more statistical studies will reveal that. But, as I said, that is a no-brainer. However, one cannot use Holmes' study as a weapon against the Book of Mormon, either. It proves that the Book of Mormon came through Joseph Smith and not from Solomon Spalding, Sidney Rigdon or Oliver Cowdery.

But, it also does not debunk the fact that a differing methodology will produce differing results that compare favorably with results of studies of actual translation material that appear to separate out authors underlying the English text of a purported translation.

That is why I like both approaches used together instead of trying to pit them against each other. It is a much better weapon against the critics by having two edges to the argument rather than just one or the other.

I look at it that it allows us to have our cake and eat it too. It supports our position that Joseph Smith is the translator, thus being involved in the "writing" of the book. While the other study shows that there are many other authors within the the Book of Mormon, not just Moroni and Joseph Smith. Both ideas you mentioned previously.

A further observation is that Joseph Smith worked on the Book of Mormon well before he did the bulk of the D&C and the Books of Moses and Abraham. Therefore, his prophetic voice would be influenced by his work on the Book of Mormon as demonstrated by this study. Since his prophetic voice is unique from his personal voice, it supports the idea that his prophetic writings are not his solely, but have an influence by an other(s), but obviously excluding Ridgon, Cowdrey, et al.

[Glenn101]

In my opinion it would be stupid to claim to remove Joseph Smith from the text. It is, after all, Joseph Smith's vocabulary that would have been used in the translations and revelations. All three works come through the hands of Joseph Smith or by the voice of his dictation. It should be expected that one of more statistical studies will reveal that. But, as I said, that is a no-brainer. However, one cannot use Holmes' study as a weapon against the Book of Mormon, either. It proves that the Book of Mormon came through Joseph Smith and not from Solomon Spalding, Sidney Rigdon or Oliver Cowdery.

I am not so sure about your reasoning or conclusions there. If Joseph Smith had been learned in reformed Egyptian and was applying his own interpretive skills to the text, his imprint as an interpreter should show up in the resulting works. But if he was merely (merely?) dictating the text as it appeared to him through the Urim and Thummin or the seer stone, one should not expect to see Joseph's imprint in the resulting work. (You would expect to see scribal errors, copying errors, etc.) This is in the case of the Book of Mormon. The method of translation or rather transmission of the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses is much less clear than that of the book of Mormon, so I do not know what to expect of those texts.

Of course, my opinions are subject to revision with more information. I am sure there are many things I do not know about the Book of Mormon and how it was translated or maybe transliterated.

But, it also does not debunk the fact that a differing methodology will produce differing results that compare favorably with results of studies of actual translation material that appear to separate out authors underlying the English text of a purported translation.

That is why I like both approaches used together instead of trying to pit them against each other. It is a much better weapon against the critics by having two edges to the argument rather than just one or the other.

The link that I used in an earlier post pointed out that Holmes had later revised his opinions a bit when he applied his techniques to the Federalist papers and compared them to the techniques used by the Berkley Group. He was honest enough to acknowledge the superiority of the Berkley Group word print analysis and if I understand it correctly, began using a modified set of word print techniques in his own work.

One of the important things I feel came of this is that the Berkley group was using criticisms of the Larsen, Rencher work to improve the methods. The Holmes study came out a little later than that of the Berkley Group and he seemed to be unaware of that study. But once he (Holmes) noted how his work could be improved, he was eager to implement those improvements.

Glenn

[MormonPeasant]

I am not so sure about your reasoning or conclusions there. If Joseph Smith had been learned in reformed Egyptian and was applying his own interpretive skills to the text, his imprint as an interpreter should show up in the resulting works. But if he was merely (merely?) dictating the text as it appeared to him through the Urim and Thummin or the seer stone, one should not expect to see Joseph's imprint in the resulting work. (You would expect to see scribal errors, copying errors, etc.) This is in the case of the Book of Mormon. The method of translation or rather transmission of the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses is much less clear than that of the book of Mormon, so I do not know what to expect of those texts.

Of course, my opinions are subject to revision with more information. I am sure there are many things I do not know about the Book of Mormon and how it was translated or maybe transliterated.

The link that I used in an earlier post pointed out that Holmes had later revised his opinions a bit when he applied his techniques to the Federalist papers and compared them to the techniques used by the Berkley Group. He was honest enough to acknowledge the superiority of the Berkley Group word print analysis and if I understand it correctly, began using a modified set of word print techniques in his own work.

One of the important things I feel came of this is that the Berkley group was using criticisms of the Larsen, Rencher work to improve the methods. The Holmes study came out a little later than that of the Berkley Group and he seemed to be unaware of that study. But once he (Holmes) noted how his work could be improved, he was eager to implement those improvements.

Glenn

Nice background information Glenn. Did Holmes attempt to revise his work on Joseph Smith with his improved model?