Word-print studies and Jockers

[J Green]

I have long advocated using the pagination of the 1830 BoM

as the text segments for computerized examination. Or, if for

some reason the number of words on those pages are too few

for proper data quantification, then perhaps we could join

each set of two pages, in order, throughout the book, for

our experimental text segments.

UD,

Wouldn't it be better to look at textual segments based on structure without regard to artificial barriers like chapters and pages? For example, why divide Jacob's sermon in Jac 2-3 into discrete elements based on chapter or page? Sometimes the textual segments are divided by chapter. For example, Alma's sermon to those at Zarahemla (Alma 5) would be one segment, his sermon to those at Gideon (Alma 7) would be another, and the narrative bridge in between the two sermons (Alma 6) would be a third. But the the textual segments aren't always constructed this way. In some instances we have narrative and then the words direct from an epistle/letter on the same page and in the same chapter. Shouldn't both the narrative and contents of the epistle be broken down into discrete segments regardless of the fact that they are on the same page?

OTOH, I don't have any expertise in this area (although I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express). Just my questions from the sidelines.

Regards

[Uncle Dale]

...

Wouldn't it be better to look at textual segments based on structure without regard to artificial barriers like chapters and pages?

...

Yes -- but we have to begin somewhere, and making use of known, available

historic BoM publications provides a starting point, intelligible to the

average reader.

At some point in the progression of textual studies, the BoM text could

be "rectified" in light of Skousen's work, and properly divided up,

according to its evident internal structure.

If we can get to that point, and get both the Mormons and non-Mormons to

agree upon using that particular new base text, for future studies by all

concerned, then that would be a good step forward.

In the meanwhile, I'll continue to use the 1830 page divisions for

my reporting (breaking a few pages along book division on the page).

We'll have to see where all of this leads in the future.

UD

[Glenn101]

Could you reproduce their BoM chapter attributions?

Or, at least point us to a publication in which each

of the BoM chapters is identified by author?

Unless we can get down to that level of inspection,

it means very little to say that Nephi's writings are

unlike Moroni's writings.

First of all, we need to see data demonstrating how

consistent Nephi's sections of text really are --

and the same for Moroni. Only then can we effectively

compare the various text sections of the two authors.

UD

.

I'll have to do some digging, as I said, but I will try. It has been a while since I looked at those studies. I don't know if I have copies saved on my hard drive or not. I suffered a hard drive crash some time back now and lost some data.

Edited to add: After checking, I found that the Larsen, Wrencher, and Layton study did not segregate by chapter. They did so by author. They only used authors who had produced 1000 or more words of text, and they edited that text to ensure that only the author's actual words, not someone else that was being quoted, were used in the study.

Also, though slightly of topic, the Isaiah unity (i.e. Deutero-Isaiah) was tested. I will quote directly (fair use okay?) from the study:

"2 Could the large differences among authors in the Book of

Mormon be misleading i.e. could we finding similar differences among several works by the same author

In all the studies we are aware of either no significant differences were found or at most very few minor differences As near as we can determine the answer to this question is also no.

We elaborate with a few interesting examples one of the authors assisted inn an analysis of wordprint in the book of Isaiah.

Although virtually all the higher critics believe Isaiah is the product of two or more distinct authors the Adams and Rencher work pointed to a unity of the book of Isaiah in fact it showed a greater internal consistency for Isaiah than any other old testament book of that approximate time period."

Glenn

[MCB]

One of the problems with analyzing the text with the authors that the text itself claims is that the text also claims to be a translated text. And the translator was JOSEPH SMITH. And Jockers, in their revised study, found taht his contributions were minimal. So, unless you claim an absolutely word-for-word translation, which many here still do, there would still be problems.

[mfbukowski]

Could you reproduce their BoM chapter attributions?

Or, at least point us to a publication in which each

of the BoM chapters is identified by author?

Unless we can get down to that level of inspection,

it means very little to say that Nephi's writings are

unlike Moroni's writings.

First of all, we need to see data demonstrating how

consistent Nephi's sections of text really are --

and the same for Moroni. Only then can we effectively

compare the various text sections of the two authors.

UD

.

Here is a link to info about the Berkeley study:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Wordprint_studies

Conclusion

As John Hilton put the matter, if wordprinting is a valid technique, then this analysis suggests that it is "statistically indefensible" to claim that Joseph, Oliver, or Solomon Spaulding wrote the 30,000 words in the Book of Mormon attributed to Nephi and Alma.[9] The Book of Mormon also contains work written by more than one author. Critics who wish to reject Joseph's account of the Book of Mormon's production must therefore identify multiple authors for the text, and then explain how Joseph acquired it and managed to pass it off as his own.

This is a roughly 1 in 15 trillion chance of Nephi and Alma having the same author. Hilton rightly terms this "statistical overkill".

[MCB]

Here is a link to info about the Berkeley study:

http://en.fairmormon...rdprint_studies

That is some good information, but it assumes that one person wrote each whole book within the book, instead attributing authorship to each chapter, or page.

[Uncle Dale]

Here is a link to info about the Berkeley study:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Wordprint_studies

Yeah, I already had that.

I need to translate his computer output into a map of the Book of Mormon,

so that I can compare each of Jockers' chapters to his chapters.

Or, if he has not broken his results down by chapter, I need somebody

to add in that extra step.

It is not enough to say that two of Mrs. Broadhurst's sons went

to college. I need to know how many sons she had and how many did

not go to college. It would also be helpful know which one completed

college and which one dropped out.

THAT is the level of detail I need for comparison purposes.

Can somebody help?

UD

[Glenn101]

One of the problems with analyzing the text with the authors that the text itself claims is that the text also claims to be a translated text. And the translator was JOSEPH SMITH. And Jockers, in their revised study, found taht his contributions were minimal. So, unless you claim an absolutely word-for-word translation, which many here still do, there would still be problems.

Joseph Smith said that the Book was translated by the power of God. He did not actually do any translation himself. He knew nothing of Egyptian at the time, nor Hebrew, nor "reformed Egyptian". So not finding him as a contributor provides no problems whatsoever.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

Yeah, I already had that.

I need to translate his computer output into a map of the Book of Mormon,

so that I can compare each of Jockers' chapters to his chapters.

Or, if he has not broken his results down by chapter, I need somebody

to add in that extra step.

It is not enough to say that two of Mrs. Broadhurst's sons went

to college. I need to know how many sons she had and how many did

not go to college. It would also be helpful know which one completed

college and which one dropped out.

THAT is the level of detail I need for comparison purposes.

Can somebody help?

UD

Dale, I do not know if that will be possible with the information that we have. Larsen. Wrencher, and Layton used 1000 word chunks of test but did not do it by chapter. We would have to have all of those 1000 word chucks from the original study to be able to ascertain which chapter they came from. That is not available in the published paper (available at BYU Studies as a free pdf download).

In the case of the Berkley group, they used much larger chunks of text. We would have to have those actual chunks of text in order to break it down by chapter. That also is not available in the published paper.

I do not know if anyone has that information available. Someone at BYU might. But I do not know anyone personally there myself.

Glenn

[MCB]

.

Joseph Smith said that the Book was translated by the power of God. He did not actually do any translation himself. He knew nothing of Egyptian at the time, nor Hebrew, nor "reformed Egyptian". So not finding him as a contributor provides no problems whatsoever.

So, because you claim an absolutely word-for-word translation, you will expect that Moroni wrote what he said he wrote, Mormon wrote what he said he wrote, and Nephi wrote what he said he wrote? So all a researcher has to do is use NSC, and, along with non-Mormon theorized possible authors, compare one chunk of Mormon's work to every other chunk, one chunk of Moroni's work to every other, and one chunk of Nephi's work to every other.

[MCB]

If you accept this simple solution for the problem, what do you consider to be the most representative sample of each? Just cite a chapter or a few from each. Like I said, I consider Moroni 1-8 to be the best of Moroni's work (since they are short chapters)

[mfbukowski]

If you accept this simple solution for the problem, what do you consider to be the most representative sample of each? Just cite a chapter or a few from each. Like I said, I consider Moroni 1-8 to be the best of Moroni's work (since they are short chapters)

I suppose that would mean that Shakespeare's plays are not his "best" work because they are long?

[MCB]

I suppose that would mean that Shakespeare's plays are not his "best" work because they are long?

If you are trying to suggest, as Dale once did, that the only solution would be to test each chapter against all other chapters, I suppose that could be done. What is most representative of Moroni's work? What is most representative of Mormon's work? What is most representative of Nephi's work? Cite a segment at least four columns long, according to the current edition.

[Glenn101]

So, because you claim an absolutely word-for-word translation, you will expect that Moroni wrote what he said he wrote, Mormon wrote what he said he wrote, and Nephi wrote what he said he wrote? So all a researcher has to do is use NSC, and, along with non-Mormon theorized possible authors, compare one chunk of Mormon's work to every other chunk, one chunk of Moroni's work to every other, and one chunk of Nephi's work to every other.

I did not claim an absolutely word for word translation. I only said that it is claimed to be translated by the power of God. A translation is probably never a word for word translation. But yes, I would expect that Moroni, Mormon, Nephi, et al to have written what they say they have written. I would think that internal consistency can be checked for some of the authors can be checked if the test checks are large enough. Some of the authors only produced only about a thousand words total. I do not know what the minimum word count would be for NSC, but I doubt if text produced by those authors can be broken up into chunks large enough for comparison. That is a question you would have to put to someone with the requisite qualifications to give you an informed answer though.

Glenn

[MCB]

Thank you for your considered reply. I take that back, NSC couldn't be used, since we have only a small number of possible writers, and they are, IMHO, HIGHLY unlikely to be the true authors.

That is why I did not include the minor authors, because their contributions were so small. I think of those three, there should be enough text.

[Bruce Schaalje]

How do you guys do it? I go to work for a day and there is already another thread to try to keep up with. My 17-year-old daughter told me to quit my obsession with this discussion board. You guys must be like my great-grandfather and his old friends in the Mormon community of Raymond (Alberta) after they retired. My grandmother said she had to shoo the

ggobi projections.pdf

[Uncle Dale]

...

It might make sense to work with 2-page segments,

as long as they didn

[cdowis]

I appreciate ERayR

[Uncle Dale]

And I find it interesting that true believers of evolution are not criticized in their research in evolution.

...

Then again, the study and reporting of processes in natural selection

do not depend upon the supernatural. The jargon and theories of the

scientists may sound like magic and mumbo-jumbo to us regular people,

but they all agree that they are not resorting to supernatural stuff.

Imagine a "Science" in which some participants credited the gods

on Mount Olympus with creating weather patterns, while other savants

explained earthquakes as the movements of subterranean dragons.

If Science allowed supernatural explanations into its experimentation

and reporting, then the whole process would soon become a mess of

conflicting superstitions and metaphysics, and would be so bogged

down in arguments over Voodoo, or dark angels, or life after death,

that the whole system would grind to a halt.

Which would be totally acceptable to some folks. I'm sure that the

Amish could go on living without a single mention of Science or any

use of the technology it has fostered.

UD

.

[cdowis]

Then again, the study and reporting of processes in natural selection

do not depend upon the supernatural. The jargon and theories of the

scientists may sound like magic and mumbo-jumbo to us regular people,

but they all agree that they are not resorting to supernatural stuff.

May I assume that you have not read my posts on that subject. Evolution involves faith, perhaps not in a deity, but supernatural processes.

In a PBS documentary, the commentator made mention of the "miracle of evolution". Look specifically in my thread "The allegory of the coin". But let's put this into another thread, and not hijack this one.