Book Of Mormon: New Evidence Of 19Th Century Origin

[wenglund]

You were challenging a hypothesis that you have invented.

 

False. I quoted each of the claims from various parties that had been made here. Those are the hypotheses I am exploring.

 

That aside, we both know that another board has almost 40 pages that are filled with example after example of verses that have weak comparisons (the words match, but not the concepts) and strong comparisons (the words match, and so do the concepts). I don't have the time to cut and paste the good work others are doing, but you are free to go and challenge those works.

 

Since I haven't visited the other board for awhile, and don't intend to (since I found disgusting some of the behavior allowed there), then "we" both don't know what the other board has. I have no idea whether or not there is any order or rhyme and reason to the alleged 40 pages of example. If there is, then it shouldn't take much for you to cut-n-paste some of the examples as they come up here. If there isn't any order to the examples, then perhaps that should tell you something. If it doesn't tell you anything at this point, then perhaps it will be made clear as we continue here.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I'm trying to figure out what the point of the side-by-side comparison is. What exactly is to be gained from such a comparison? I can't see any point to it.

Have you ever seen the film "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" The Coen brothers deliberately modeled their script on the Odyssey, but if you did a line-by-line comparison of the script to Homer, it wouldn't tell you much. Here, no one is talking about a deliberate modeling, let alone plagiarism, so the comparison is even less apt.

In short, what was your point?

 

I have explained the point several times now. You and others claim that there are striking similarities in writing styles, phrasing, concepts, subjects, content, language, themes, and parallels, between the two books in question. I am working sequentially through both books, and am asking you and others to point out the alleged striking similarities for me to see (since I don't see them), in an attempt to determine at what level (starting at the verse level) the alleged striking similarities exist, and whether there is any rhyme or reason to the alleged "parallels."

 

To me, if the Late War substantially influenced the production of the Book of Mormon, then that would be evident in the sequence in which the Book of Mormon was produced. If the similarities and parallels are random and hodge podge, that militates against substantial influence and for coincidence or happenstance.

 

By the way, do you still think I am mistaken that this has something to do with phrases?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cognitiveharmony]

 

 

 

It's essentially the same story.

 

Yes, I see matching themes, but they're so generic as to render a genetic relationship indeterminable. I thought I made that pretty clear. It would be like saying "See, it's boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy wins girl back. It's the same story! It couldn't possibly have been thought up independently!" A siege on a fortified city that fails and results in a retreat, with bodies filling up the ditch around the city? That's not a situation that can't be drummed up without the help of The Late War. 

 

 

 

There are many word matches

 

Yes, many word matches that happen to be found in a lot of stories about battles. Words like "prepared" and "slain" and "wounded" and "fled." These are all quite generic war narrative terms. The matches do not extend beyond discreet and atomistic concepts. There are no clause or sentence matches at all, only individual words or incomplete phrases.

 

 

 

but even more compelling is that the major details of the battle sequence are essentially the same.

 

And these "major details" are similar in stories of battles the world over. The fact that these "major details" are confined to similarly short narratives is not indicative of borrowing. There are quite strict standards that have long been employed by textual and literary critics regarding what kinds of parallels do and do not indicate a genetic relationship, and I'm afraid these kinds of broad thematic outlines simply don't meet them. 

 

 

 

You then add to this that the secondary text appears to expand the primary text and you're left with what appears to be a direct influence.

 

No, it doesn't appear to be direct influence at all. The expansion also includes a change in order (flight of enemy then number of dead > number of dead then flight of enemy), and a lot of the details are different. The similarities are in very broad themes, which is never a good place to start when trying to assert influence. The two stories are similar, but not nearly so similar that we are compelled to conclude there is a genetic relationship.

 

 

 

So if this sequence

 

First, your sequence doesn't match. The only two direct lexical matches that actually occur in order are "were prepared" and "slaughter," but the context of neither suggests direct lexical borrowing:

 

 

 

 

 

The "hip and thigh" phrase is taken from the book of Judges. You'd think that would be a nice phrase to borrow, but no such luck. The exact word matches are simply no indication of borrowing at all. They appear within wholly distinct grammatical constructions, and there's nothing in their usage that demands we conclude they've been plucked from those constructions to be reinserted in distinct ones. So you're left trying to assert that the broad outline was borrowed, but even then the order doesn't match. This is how the TLW narrative progresses, thematically:

 

preparation > defenders attack > ditch strewn with slain and wounded > attackers flee > loss of attackers great, loss of defenders few

 

Then from Alma:

 

preparation > attackers attack > attackers attack again > ditch filled with dead and wounded > loss of attackers great, loss of defenders few > attackers flee

 

Do we need to go broader?

 

preparation > attack > ditch has bodies > attackers flee > great losses v. few losses

preparation > attack > ditch has bodies > great losses v. few losses > attackers flee

 

So we've reduced it down to five broad themes, and the order doesn't match. So Joseph Smith was obviously not copying the battle right out of the book. There is a degree of disparity that does not suggest direct real time copying. So did he read the story one night and then the next day kinda remember the story as he was coming up with this battle sequence? If he's almost 30 chapters deep in this book, why no such influence in other pericopae? Did he sit down with the book and hash out an adaptation of the battle with Cowdery? Why only with this battle? Why does he suddenly need that level of planning for his narrative? Can you account for the way the narrative has been adapted? Is there a rational scenario for how it happened?

 

What about these individual themes elsewhere in the Book of Mormon? The phrase "fled into the wilderness" occurs five other time in the Book of Mormon prior to Alma 49. The phrase "were prepared" in reference to defense in battle occurs four times in the Book of Mormon prior to Alma 49. "Great slaughter" (this is directly parallel to TLW in this chapter, while Alma 49 uses a distinct phrase) occurs twice prior to Alma 49. "Bodies" being "heaped up" occurs twice prior to Alma 49. Comparisons of the numbers of soldiers slain also take place multiple times prior to Alma 49. Really, the only concept from this pericope that is not repeated multiple times prior to the narrative here in Alma 49 is the ditch being filled with bodies.  

 

 

 

and theme are so common, would you be willing to provide another example? Surely you could do that? It would need to be actual history of course and you would get bonus points if it is written in a 19th century adaptation of King James english. Even more bonus points if it's within a decade of these two texts.

 

It would be quite difficult to craft a Google Books search that could find such broad battle themes, and I'm not going to waste a bunch of my time trying right now.

 

 

 

You can't prove plagiarism even in this instance, but a rational mind sees the similarities of these two texts especially in sequences like this and acknowledges that the first text very likely had influence on the second or there were other texts that influenced both of these texts similarly.

 

It's easy to say that, but only if you've never had experience actually arguing for literary influence in an academic environment. Once you've had that experience, and have seen just how clear the evidence for specific influence has to be, you will see how flimsy this case is. "It just seems so likely to me" is not a legitimate argument. I once tried to argue for direct borrowing between two psalms that shared multiple absolutely identical Hebrew phrases, progressed along the same thematic arc, and addressed the exact same historical events, and I still had plenty of people saying the connections were not clear enough. I think you'd be surprised what it takes to pass muster in this kind of argument.

 

 

 

I know that you've said that you already believe in a loose translation theory, so I'd really like to hear your take on what justifies this theory aside from texts like these that make a tight translation very unlikely.

 

Well, there are the numerous and flippant changes to the text on the part of Joseph Smith, the conceptual and linguistic influence of the New Testament, the inconsistencies in the spelling of proper names, and lots of other stuff. This isn't really the place where I'm going to unfold an argument for a loose translation theory, though.

 

 

 

Don't go out of your way on my account if your busy though, I know I'm just some anonymous yahoo on a forum to whom you owe nothing.

 

Well, I will do my best to back up the claims I make, but that's an argument for another day when I do have more time. 

 

 

As you said it is essentially the same story but it can hardly be compared to a classic story such as boy meets girl blah blah blah. You admit that it would be difficult to find a very similar story from an actual historical battle but it would be very easy to provide a classic boy meets girl story from a historical context. I think your dismissal here on that basis is unfounded unless you actually demonstrate that it is a common HISTORICAL theme. To say that both of these guys could have made these stories up independently is a good assumption. However, we know that one of the stories is actually history and NOT made up. And the other story purports to also be history and not made up so I'm a little unsure of your point here. I think this line of reasoning should also be applied to your psalms example unless they were both supposed to be psalms about two different historical events. I believe this situation is rather unique and should be evaluated in it's proper sphere.

 

I agreed with you on the point that you could not prove plagiarism.  If one or both of these texts were fiction, then I would concede your point regarding influence as the imagination is not limited by reality and such constraints as actual history would apply. But since this is not the case, I believe that the similarities prove influence if not directly then at least by one or more other common texts.

[ERayR]

After all this will someone please tell me where the Book of Mormon really came from.  Was it Hunt's book, Spalding's manuscripts or the endless frontier library where Joseph Smith supposedly spent all his waking moments?  I really don't know how he had time to write anything with all that reading and treasure digging and all. 

[volgadon]

You admit that it would be difficult to find a very similar story from an actual historical battle

 

 

Umm, Badajoz?

[wenglund]

How would that be helpful? I'm really trying to understand what you're talking about, but to borrow a phrase from you, I'm left scratching my head.

West Side Story is heavily influenced by Romeo and Juliet.

The Lion King borrows its plot and themes from Hamlet.

Ran is a variation on King Lear.

Forbidden Planet is based on The Tempest, with Robby the Robot covering Ariel.

And so on.

Would you find it valuable to go line by line comparing the film scripts with the plays?

There's already been some interesting discussion here and elsewhere about common language and themes, but IMO, what you're proposing adds little or nothing to the conversation.

 

See my explanation to you above.

 

And, yes, it would be valuable, as a starting point, to go line by line comparing the film scripts to the plays, as well as from beginning to end at less detailed levels, in order to determine the extent to which there is an influence, particularly in terms of alleged striking similarities in phrases and language. If we are just talking about themes, then there may still be some value.

 

Certainly, I would consider it more valuable than running an algorithm with n-grams.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 24, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Reading through Ben's post makes me wonder if the study in question may deserve mention in the "Bad Science" thread.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 24, 2013 by wenglund

[maklelan]

As you said it is essentially the same story

 

Yes, in the broadest terms. 

 

but it can hardly be compared to a classic story such as boy meets girl blah blah blah. You admit that it would be difficult to find a very similar story from an actual historical battle

 

No, I said it would be difficult to create a search in Google Books that would search for broad themes, and I don't want to take the time to do it. I have searched just for terms like "filled," "slain," and "ditch," and "were prepared," and that produces a number of hits, but that's not the kind of thematic parallel were looking for, that's just lexical overlap, which is different from what you're asserting.

 

but it would be very easy to provide a classic boy meets girl story from a historical context.

 

Yeah, because you know the story well and know off the top of your head many examples from the past. 

 

I think your dismissal here on that basis is unfounded unless you actually demonstrate that it is a common HISTORICAL theme.

 

I pointed to three different historical authors that contain those themes in my first post addressing this text (Plutarch, Cortez, and Pinkerton all have accounts of sieges that end with the attackers fleeing and the dead filling the ditches around the strongholds). There's another here, along with an accounting of the numerous dead of the attackers compared to the few casualties among the defenders:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=TBlbAAAAIAAJ&pg=PT85&dq=dead+wounded+filled+ditches&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9k9pUq6yN8i1iwLA2YH4Dw&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=dead%20wounded%20filled%20ditches&f=false

 

An account of a battle associated with Napoleon also has the dead filling ditches surrounding a stronghold, followed by a description of the vast number of dead among the attackers:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=wJ_SAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA628&dq=dead+wounded+filled+ditches&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9k9pUq6yN8i1iwLA2YH4Dw&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=dead%20wounded%20filled%20ditches&f=false

 

Here's a letter published in 1815 that does the same:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=wVA8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA375&dq=dead+wounded+filled+ditches&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9k9pUq6yN8i1iwLA2YH4Dw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=dead%20wounded%20filled%20ditches&f=false

 

These are just exact matches to a search for "dead wounded filled ditches" in publications from 1700 to 1829. If I wanted to take the time to search for broader themes instead of just lexemes, I have no doubt many, many more examples could be found. There is nothing unique in the broad themes of the battle described in The Late War. 

 

To say that both of these guys could have made these stories up independently is a good assumption. However, we know that one of the stories is actually history and NOT made up.

 

Absolutely and utterly irrelevant.  

 

And the other story purports to also be history and not made up so I'm a little unsure of your point here. I think this line of reasoning should also be applied to your psalms example unless they were both supposed to be psalms about two different historical events. I believe this situation is rather unique and should be evaluated in it's proper sphere.

 

The situation is not unique, and I don't think you understand my case. 

 

I agreed with you on the point that you could not prove plagiarism.  If one or both of these texts were fiction, then I would concede your point regarding influence as the imagination is not limited by reality and such constraints as actual history would apply. But since this is not the case, I believe that the similarities prove influence if not directly then at least by one or more other common texts.

 

I don't understand why you think history v. fiction is in any way relevant. As I've pointed out, the notion of the bodies of fleeing besiegers filling ditches is found in multiple places, and is not historically uncommon. I mentioned three texts predating Joseph Smith that mention it.

[cognitiveharmony]

Umm, Badajoz?

Semi similar, hits on fewer details in the general theme especially considering that the assailing army won the battle and did not flee into the forest/wilderness.  Do you have a text in mind that you feel describes this battle in a similar way so that we can look for things such as King James English in the 19th century vernacular?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

 

 

I don't understand why you think history v. fiction is in any way relevant. As I've pointed out, the notion of the bodies of fleeing besiegers filling ditches is found in multiple places, and is not historically uncommon. I mentioned three texts predating Joseph Smith that mention it.

 

See, this just proves that JS barrowed from all of them.

[Benjamin McGuire]

You see how we get the narrower and narrower list of requirements?

 

Cognitive Harmony misunderstands the problem. I deal with both aspects of this in my review of Grunder's work. The first aspect of it was first discussed in detail (as far as know) here:

 

I have often thought how easily two important reigns in our own history might be dealt with in the way that I have spoken of, how easily the later reign might be judged to be a mere repetition of the former, if we knew no more of them than we know of some other parts of history. Let us suppose that the reigns of Henry the First and Henry the Second were known to us only in the same meagre way that we know the reigns of some of the ancient potentates of the East. In short and dry annals they might easily be told so as to look like the same story. Each king bears the same name; each reigns the same number of years; each comes to the crown in a way other than succession from father to son; each restores order after a time of confusion; each improves his political position by his marriage; each is hailed as a restorer of the old native kingship; each loses his eldest son; each gives his daughter Matilda to a Henry in Germany; each has a controversy with his archbishop; each wages war with France; each dies in his continental dominions; each, if our supposed meagre annals can be supposed to tell us of such points, shows himself a great lawgiver and administrator, and each, to some extent, displays the same personal qualities, good and bad. Now when we come really to study the two reigns, we see that the details of all these supposed points of likeness are utterly different; but I am supposing very meagre annals, such as very often are all that we can get, and, in such annals, the two tales would very likely be so told that a master of higher criticism might cast aside Henry the Second and his acts as a mere double of his grandfather and his acts. We know how very far wrong such a judgment would be; and this should make us be cautious in applying a rule which, though often very useful, is always dangerous in cases where we may get utterly wrong without knowing it.

Edward A. Freeman, The Methods of Historical Study (London: Macmillan, 1886), 138–139.

We tend to describe similar events in similar ways - but this doesn't mean that we should simply assume that we are reading a retelling of a single event.

 

The second issue is a bit more complex.

 

As a final note, there needs to be some basic discussion of the idea of coincidence. One of the issues that very frequently crops up in a discussion of parallels is how likely or unlikely the parallels are that have been found (particularly when we find them together in a group). Bruce G. Schaalje made this observation:

One of the messages that I hope my Intro Stats students remember after the semester is that apparently-weird stuff happens. The classic example is of a guy, call him Bob, who won a million dollar lottery twice in a seven year period. The probability seems way small. The probability of winning once is 1 in 13 million, so the probability of winning twice would seem to be 1/13M squared, or about 1 in half a quintillion. That just couldn’t happen, so Bob must be a cheater. However, this calculation is misleading. The question is not about Bob winning the lottery twice in a seven-year period, it’s about someone, somewhere winning a million-dollar lottery twice in seven years. Bob wasn’t identified before he started playing the lottery, and then followed up. He was identified after the thing happened. It turns out that, given all the people who repeatedly buy lottery tickets, the probability of someone-somewhere winning the lottery twice in a seven year period is over 90%.

This, as Schaalje insists, is “the crux of parallelomania.” You look for any parallels between two texts, and when you find them (perhaps several of them), “you act (mistakenly, not maliciously) as if you had that exact coincidence in mind before you started looking. The real probability that … you would find a bunch is actually very high.”  In this case, what may seem highly suspect or too coincidental to be believable as random chance is really quite believable.

It's not necessarily the act of finding the same parallel in the same way that matters from a statistical perspective. We can find any parallel that matches to the same sort of complexity and it will fit the bill. When you begin by suggesting a parallel that has already been found, and then laying on these conditions, you are pretending (as Bruce suggested) that you found something you were looking for - when that isn't the case at all.

 

Ben M.

[wenglund]

I know you didn't address this to me, but I am not arguing for a heavy influence, and certainly not for Hunt's book as a source.

 

I find it interesting that you would say so given your analogy: "it's like writing a song and then realizing someone else wrote it first," and your claim that, "The similarities in style and content are too uncanny to be coincidence." But, I will take you at your word here.

 

What it offers me is another point of reference for a contemporary document that uses KJV-style language to develop certain religious and, oddly enough, military themes. For example, I'd never seen anything other than the Book of Mormon from that era that so thoroughly weds righteousness/liberty and military battles.

 

Joan of Arc?

Does this mean the book is a source for the Book of Mormon? No, but it shows me that someone else was using the same linguistic choices to develop similar themes, thus giving another tidbit of information about the environment into which the Book of Mormon emerged.

 

Agreed.

Let me give you an analogy. I read Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling when it first came out, and then read Brodie's book a few months later. Unlike Bushman, Brodie spent time talking about different people in Joseph Smith's time and place who had claimed similar religious epiphanies. I'd never heard about these people before, so to me, Brodie's book gave me a better picture of the environment that produced Joseph Smith than Bushman's book did. Does that mean that Joseph Smith merely copied these other religious experiences? No, but it tells me that the First Vision fits in nicely with the context, and it provided more context than I had previously understood. That's how I feel about the Hunt book. It's not "proof" either way, but it helps me contextualize the Book of Mormon.

 

Sounds reasonable.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

I have explained the point several times now. You and others claim that there are striking similarities in writing styles, phrasing, concepts, subjects, content, language, themes, and parallels, between the two books in question. I am working sequentially through both books, and am asking you and others to point out the alleged striking similarities for me to see (since I don't see them), in an attempt to determine at what level (starting at the verse level) the alleged striking similarities exist, and whether there is any rhyme or reason to the alleged "parallels."

 

To me, if the Late War substantially influenced the production of the Book of Mormon, then that would be evident in the sequence in which the Book of Mormon was produced. If the similarities and parallels are random and hodge podge, that militates against substantial influence and for coincidence or happenstance.

 

By the way, do you still think I am mistaken that this has something to do with phrases?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have no idea what you think, honestly. If you're asking about "substantial influence" (which I haven't argued), you're asking the wrong guy and definitely taking the wrong approach, anyway. I'll take my time and may eventually come up with something other than my initial impressions, but whatever I may come up with will not involve a verse-by-verse comparison, which is, again, pointless.

[wenglund]

I have no idea what you think, honestly. If you're asking about "substantial influence" (which I haven't argued), you're asking the wrong guy and definitely taking the wrong approach, anyway. I'll take my time and may eventually come up with something other than my initial impressions, but whatever I may come up with will not involve a verse-by-verse comparison, which is, again, pointless.

 

Starting at a verse-by-verse level may seem pointless from your zoomed-out point of view (which I don't see as all that different from mine), but it isn't pointless when scrutinizing the stated claims of others here that there is substantial influence, particular in terms of phrases. The examples of parallels that have been posted thus far to this thread are at the verse or multi-verse level. I am simply interjecting some order and method into the madness by working from beginning to end at the same level.

 

So, if the scrutinizing glove doesn't fit you, then don't try to wear it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cognitiveharmony]

 

 

 

 

Yes, in the broadest terms. 

 

 

 

 

No, I said it would be difficult to create a search in Google Books that would search for broad themes, and I don't want to take the time to do it. I have searched just for terms like "filled," "slain," and "ditch," and "were prepared," and that produces a number of hits, but that's not the kind of thematic parallel were looking for, that's just lexical overlap, which is different from what you're asserting.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, because you know the story well and know off the top of your head many examples from the past. 

 

 

 

 

I pointed to three different historical authors that contain those themes in my first post addressing this text (Plutarch, Cortez, and Pinkerton all have accounts of sieges that end with the attackers fleeing and the dead filling the ditches around the strongholds). There's another here, along with an accounting of the numerous dead of the attackers compared to the few casualties among the defenders:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=TBlbAAAAIAAJ&pg=PT85&dq=dead+wounded+filled+ditches&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9k9pUq6yN8i1iwLA2YH4Dw&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=dead%20wounded%20filled%20ditches&f=false

 

An account of a battle associated with Napoleon also has the dead filling ditches surrounding a stronghold, followed by a description of the vast number of dead among the attackers:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=wJ_SAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA628&dq=dead+wounded+filled+ditches&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9k9pUq6yN8i1iwLA2YH4Dw&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=dead%20wounded%20filled%20ditches&f=false

 

Here's a letter published in 1815 that does the same:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=wVA8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA375&dq=dead+wounded+filled+ditches&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9k9pUq6yN8i1iwLA2YH4Dw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=dead%20wounded%20filled%20ditches&f=false

 

These are just exact matches to a search for "dead wounded filled ditches" in publications from 1700 to 1829. If I wanted to take the time to search for broader themes instead of just lexemes, I have no doubt many, many more examples could be found. There is nothing unique in the broad themes of the battle described in The Late War. 

 

 

 

 

Absolutely and utterly irrelevant.  

 

 

 

 

The situation is not unique, and I don't think you understand my case. 

 

 

 

 

I don't understand why you think history v. fiction is in any way relevant. As I've pointed out, the notion of the bodies of fleeing besiegers filling ditches is found in multiple places, and is not historically uncommon. I mentioned three texts predating Joseph Smith that mention it.

 

 

Alright, shame on me for arguing such a narrow piece of evidence for the similarities between these texts. You've successfully shown that this theme in a very general sense has occurred previously in a historical context. This is a very common debate tactic which is to narrow the debate to a specific area as to exclude the naturally additive weight of complimentary evidence and I think you started salivating at my example as your chance to do just that. The general theme has been done before but not rendered in the King James English using a 19th century vernacular. The reason that one would never take any of these historical texts that you've listed and try to prove direct influence on the BoM is for precisely the reasons you enumerate. However, the added weight of evidence that the common phraseology, style etc. in LW adds differentiates it substantially from these other texts. If you can't or won't see these similarities and how they affect the weight of supplementary evidence such as common themes then fine. In my opinion there are plainly many similarities in these two texts in a variety of ways that suggest direct influence. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

In my opinion there are plainly many similarities in these two texts in a variety of ways that suggest direct influence.

And in my opinion, it doesn't even begin to come close ...

 

Ben M.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And in my opinion, it doesn't even begin to come close ...

 

Ben M.

Whose opinion to take??

[jkwilliams]

And in my opinion, it doesn't even begin to come close ...

 

Ben M.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you said somewhere that you did think the Hunt text does indicate that some of what was previously thought unique in the Book of Mormon may reflect the larger cultural environment. Is that a fair assessment?

[cdowis]

West Side Story is heavily influenced by Romeo and Juliet.

The Lion King borrows its plot and themes from Hamlet.

Ran is a variation on King Lear.

Forbidden Planet is based on The Tempest, with Robby the Robot covering Ariel.

 

 

And please tell us exactly how you know this.  (This is an informal CFR.)

[maklelan]

Alright, shame on me for arguing such a narrow piece of evidence for the similarities between these texts. You've successfully shown that this theme in a very general sense has occurred previously in a historical context. This is a very common debate tactic which is to narrow the debate to a specific area as to exclude the naturally additive weight of complimentary evidence and I think you started salivating at my example as your chance to do just that.

 

The number alone of lexical or thematic parallels elsewhere between the two books have no bearing whatsoever on the discussion of whether or not these verses in Alma were directly influenced by The Late War. If you think that compartmentalizing the other parallels was a conscious tactic on my part, then by all means, share all the other parallels you wish that you believe bear directly on whether or not borrowing has taken place in Alma 49.

 

The general theme has been done before but not rendered in the King James English using a 19th century vernacular.

 

But since the entire Book of Mormon has been written in King James English, the use of this "general theme" within that composition is evidence of nothing, unless you can show the entire composition was written in KJV English specifically in imitation of TLW.    

 

The reason that one would never take any of these historical texts that you've listed and try to prove direct influence on the BoM is for precisely the reasons you enumerate. However, the added weight of evidence that the common phraseology, style etc. in LW adds differentiates it substantially from these other texts.

 

Not really. As I explained, TLW probably influenced his linguistic profile at some point or another, but nowhere is there evidence of direct borrowing. This pericope here is the only thing that extends beyond discreet words and phrases, but the majority of the elements contained in the narrative in Alma 49 are scattered throughout the Book of Mormon, so we're back to only one concept that is unique to these particular segments of text: bodies filling up ditches. Even then, TLW does not describe ditches being filled with bodies, but just bodies strewn about a ditch. The congruity is not absolute, but just partial. The notion of bodies filling up ditches has also been shown to be a not uncommon theme in descriptions of particularly harsh battles. The evidence for direct influence is nill. 

 

If you can't or won't see these similarities and how they affect the weight of supplementary evidence such as common themes then fine. In my opinion there are plainly many similarities in these two texts in a variety of ways that suggest direct influence.

 

And I would conclude from this that you have little no formal training in statistics or textual criticism. You're appealing to a common fallacy that is one of the cardinal sins of both fields. 

[jkwilliams]

And please tell us exactly how you know this.  (This is an informal CFR.)

I've seen all of them, for one thing. Other than the Lion King, the other ones are pretty well known. With West Side Story and Ran, the filmmakers were quite open about what they were doing, and with Forbidden Planet, several scholars have noted the similarities. Here's a random one I found on the Internet just now.

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1214&context=clcweb

The Lion King is just my observation based on obvious plot similarities, but apparently I'm not the only one who has noticed. I just happen to have watched that movie over and over with my kids when they were young and got bored, so I started noticing things.

[Benjamin McGuire]

jkwilliams writes:

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you said somewhere that you did think the Hunt text does indicate that some of what was previously thought unique in the Book of Mormon may reflect the larger cultural environment. Is that a fair assessment?

No. You are wrong. I don't think that Hunt adds anything to the discussion about the Book of Mormon that we don't already understand or know. It is a separate issue to discuss what people may or may not think is unique in the Book of Mormon.

 

Ben M.

[jkwilliams]

jkwilliams writes:

 

 

No. You are wrong. I don't think that Hunt adds anything to the discussion about the Book of Mormon that we don't already understand or know. It is a separate issue to discuss what people may or may not think is unique in the Book of Mormon.

 

Ben M.

Hmmm. Then I did misunderstand. Not the first time. Nice to see you, btw.

[Benjamin McGuire]

I want to point something out about this idea of using language from the Bible. Hunt's objective in using the language of the KJV is to give it a stylistic flavor - to make it palatable reading material for a specific audience. The Book of Mormon actually engages the Biblical text. In places it expands on it, in others it shows how those issues might play out within Nephite culture. This isn't a sort of casual, lets adopt the language of the Bible to enhance our authenticity or to make the work more readable or enjoyable sort of thing that Hunt does. So everyone who has been suggesting that Hunt provides us with an example of how a 19th century text might try to emulate the language of the KJV has clearly missed the boat with the Book of Mormon, whose use of the biblical text is not so superficial.

 

Ben M.

Edited October 24, 2013 by Benjamin McGuire

[jkwilliams]

I want to point something out about this idea of using language from the Bible. Hunt's objective in using the language of the KJV is to give it a stylistic flavor - to make it palatable reading material for a specific audience. The Book of Mormon actually engages the Biblical text. In places it expands on it, in others it shows how those issues might play out within Nephite culture. This isn't a sort of casual, lets adopt the language of the Bible to enhance our authenticity or to make the work more readable or enjoyable sort of thing that Hunt does. So everyone who has been suggesting that Hunt provides us with an example of how a 19th century text might try to emulate the language of the KJV has clearly missed the boat with the Book of Mormon, whose use of the biblical text is not so superficial.

 

Ben M.

 

As I read it, that wasn't Hunt's objective, but no matter. I agree with you that the Book of Mormon does engage and expand on the Biblical text, no question about it. Of course, that's another matter.