Nick Frederick on New Testament -- BOM intertextuality

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, Steve J said:

Just a few questions/points..

1. 1887 seems like a late recollection. Especially when you take into accounts his other statements that he saw saw four men and a mysterious person.. and then the brother of Joseph Smith states that one of them was Sidney Rigdon. This puts the rest of his account under suspicion. Also, according to him we have this grand conspiracy that will later involve hiding, secrets, sleight of hand, etc.. but they repeatedly just left their working materials and manuscript in the open in front of a non-conspirator repeatedly over multiple times/years. Other reports during this period have JS, Oliver Cowdery, and others (possibly Sidney Rigdon) hiding out at nights in the forest, caves creating and writing down the manuscript. But according to Saunder's he just saw them all with books and manuscripts hanging out together preparing and writing it down.. Somehow that rumor and knowledge did not catch on or he felt that it was not important to state until 1887.  

I said that in my initial response. It is indeed a late recollection. That said, Saunders' account is consistent with his account 7 years earlier. But yes, plenty to be skeptical of. I should note that Martin Harris's accounts are quite contradictory: he wasn't allowed to see Joseph translate, or he was; the stones in the Urim and Thummim were clear, white with gray streaks, or brown, etc. 

Quote

2. The fact that for most of the time period Joseph Smith was not at the house, but in Pennsylvania. 

Correct. However, the statement from Saunders doesn't say he saw Oliver at the Smith home, only that he saw him writing the Book of Mormon, as he presumed. Given that Joseph and Oliver made several trips to New York during the translation process and finished the translation in nearby Fayette, you can't totally discount Saunders's statement. 

Quote

3. The statement is that he saw Oliver Cowdery writing... it makes no mention of Joseph Smith. Unless you are arguing that Cowdery wrote the BOM(or at least parts of it) w/o JS and JS then dictated that part in his words... 

Yes, the statement is rather vague, so I'm not sure of its value. But it is interesting, as you say, that he has Oliver, not Joseph, working with manuscripts and books. Who knows? My point was that we keep hearing that there's zero evidence that the translation involved manuscripts or other books. The text is certainly evidence that the KJV was used, as the OP notes.

[Steve J]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I said that in my initial response. It is indeed a late recollection. That said, Saunders' account is consistent with his account 7 years earlier. But yes, plenty to be skeptical of. I should note that Martin Harris's accounts are quite contradictory: he wasn't allowed to see Joseph translate, or he was; the stones in the Urim and Thummim were clear, white with gray streaks, or brown, etc. 

Correct. However, the statement from Saunders doesn't say he saw Oliver at the Smith home, only that he saw him writing the Book of Mormon, as he presumed. Given that Joseph and Oliver made several trips to New York during the translation process and finished the translation in nearby Fayette, you can't totally discount Saunders's statement. 

Yes, the statement is rather vague, so I'm not sure of its value. But it is interesting, as you say, that he has Oliver, not Joseph, working with manuscripts and books. Who knows? My point was that we keep hearing that there's zero evidence that the translation involved manuscripts or other books. The text is certainly evidence that the KJV was used, as the OP notes.

Ok. Really no major disagreements. The text certainly uses the KJV

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Steve J said:

Ok. Really no major disagreements. The text certainly uses the KJV

I remember Dale Broadhurst, who knows way more about this stuff than anyone here, suggesting to me that the "original manuscript" (as opposed to the printer's manuscript) was either copied or dictated from an existing document. Of course, back then I was a believer and thought his suggestion ridiculous. Certainly the text is evidence of reliance on the Bible, so I don't necessarily take at face value the time of production or the means of translation. David Whitmer's testimony is inconsistent about the Urim and Thummim (stones in bows) or stones in hat method. So is Martin Harris. Oliver Cowdery is silent on the method. John Whitmer explicitly states it was done with the Urim and Thummim: "When the work of translation was going on he sat at one table with his writing material and Joseph at another with the breast-plate and Urim and Thummim. The latter were attached to the breast-plate and were two crystals or glasses, into which he looked and saw the words of the book." Emma's is the only absolutely consistent testimony: the Urim and Thummim were used for the first 116 pages, and the rest used the seer stone. Of course, that contradicts other testimony. 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the only real direction compatible with the scholarly evidence is similar to the BoA catalyst theory.  Calling all the productions of Joseph inspired revelations, rather than ancient and historical.  But it will also take a major adjustment for orthodox Mormons to recognize that the gospel texts aren't historical accounts by contemporaries to Jesus, but rather written generations past for theological purposes, and that these texts don't harmonize, but that they reflect the opinions and concerns of their authors and followers.  This is a major change for an orthodox person.  What is scripture, is the important question, and how do we read scripture in order to get value from it without just confirming our own biases.  

Depends upon what you mean by "scholarly evidence." I get the desire by some to mainstream the fictional view. As I've said, at that point the Church loses all value except in a very weak utilitarian sense. Further other claims by the Church such as the need for and monopoly on authority gets severely undermined. Once that happens I think at best you'll have something akin to the transition from the RLDS to the Community of Christ. Effectively you become just an other liberal protestant sect hemorrhaging members. 

Now of course I'd argue that the scholarly evidence is much more complicated. Further that completely neglects personal revelation which most of us see as key for considering the Church true. Obviously some of those points have already been raised in this thread.

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I remember Dale Broadhurst, who knows way more about this stuff than anyone here, suggesting to me that the "original manuscript" (as opposed to the printer's manuscript) was either copied or dictated from an existing document.

For the fraud model that's certainly the best presumption. I can't see how it'd work for the other fictional models like Taves. One of the big problems for spirit writing is the internal consistency - especially distances and positions. That at minimum seems to require a prepared map. Now a Taves like platonic conception where Joseph is physically creating props to replicate what he sees in a spirit realm might work there - but then he'd be having to constantly be looking at the map during writing for the consistency to work. One of many reasons I find the Taves model unworkable even if I completely understand why many want such an account, especially those espousing an inspired fiction version.

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Emma's is the only absolutely consistent testimony: the Urim and Thummim were used for the first 116 pages, and the rest used the seer stone. Of course, that contradicts other testimony. 

There's other accounts suggesting the use of the seer stone after the lost 116 pages. I'm a bit more skeptical, although don't really have a strong position. I think that if he got the U&T returned he likely popped one of the stones out of the spectacles to make it easier to use. He may have done that before the 116 pages were lost. At which point witnesses would have a harder time identifying what was the U&T versus the seer stone. (Yes the seer stone typically seen as in use is the brown one, but I think the point remains)

Edited August 24, 2018 by clarkgoble

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

For the fraud model that's certainly the best presumption. I can't see how it'd work for the other fictional models like Taves. 

There's other accounts suggesting the use of the seer stone after the lost 116 pages. I'm a bit more skeptical, although don't really have a strong position. I think that if he got the U&T returned he likely popped one of the stones out of the spectacles to make it easier to use. He may have done that before the 116 pages were lost. At which point witnesses would have a harder time identifying what was the U&T versus the seer stone. (Yes the seer stone typically seen as in use is the brown one, but I think the point remains)

As I said, it's difficult to say anything conclusive about the method of translation, as even the scribes themselves disagree on what the seer stones and Urim and Thummim looked like and how they were used. I don't know that Dale necessarily adheres to a "fraud model," but then you would have to ask him. 

[hope_for_things]

59 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Depends upon what you mean by "scholarly evidence." I get the desire by some to mainstream the fictional view. As I've said, at that point the Church loses all value except in a very weak utilitarian sense. Further other claims by the Church such as the need for and monopoly on authority gets severely undermined. Once that happens I think at best you'll have something akin to the transition from the RLDS to the Community of Christ. Effectively you become just an other liberal protestant sect hemorrhaging members. 

I wouldn't emphasize "fiction", but rather talk about different genre's being represented for different purposes by different authors.  Conflating and harmonizing scripture has been a major problem.  I also think there is great value in works of fiction throughout history, actually I think the most powerful stories are essentially fiction.  But it would be hard to just introduce this idea and not lose a lot of believers, so I think a gradual education on critical scholarship will help educate and if this can be done alongside of thoughtful leadership on how people reconcile this knowledge, it would work in my opinion.  

As for membership, I think the church is already stagnant at best overall and potentially hemorrhaging active members in the USA, wish we had actual numbers to see what the trends really show.  

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm not sure why we shouldn't use the term supernatural. Orthodox Latter-day Saints would usually use the term "miracle" but that implies divine intervention. Those who don't share our assumptions naturally want a word that doesn't have such theological connotations. So they use supernatural. It leaves the door open for them to entertain other possibilities. Aliens, devil, and other out of the ordinary phenomenon. In both contexts, the words basically refer to something unexplainable by typical natural laws. The term "miracle," for instance, wouldn't mean anything if the miraculous phenomenon didn't transcend the natural order of the cosmos (at least as typically discerned by humans).

I get that Latter-day Saints have a nuanced understanding of matter and that we accept that all miracles are actually in accordance with higher, currently unknown laws, but why insist on this nuance when most people who use the term "supernatural" could easily, and most likely do, feel the same way about "supernatural" phenomena. In each case, I think everyone would agree that the phenomenon is probably explainable, but simply that it defies our current understanding of natural laws. 

Mainly because the 'supernatural" also invokes the aura of superstition. HFT implicitly invoke that when he mentioned the words appearing in a stone.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

As for membership, I think the church is already stagnant at best overall and potentially hemorrhaging active members in the USA, wish we had actual numbers to see what the trends really show.  

Latest data shows we're still keeping up with the US growth rate. So not only we are not hemorrhaging members but we're growing. Admittedly not as fast, although I'll blame in large part the choices of the missionary department there. (Again usual caveat that missions aren't only about convert baptisms and if the Brethren were worried about other things that's fine - but I think some choices should be rethought)

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

Latest data shows we're still keeping up with the US growth rate. So not only we are not hemorrhaging members but we're growing. Admittedly not as fast, although I'll blame in large part the choices of the missionary department there. (Again usual caveat that missions aren't only about convert baptisms and if the Brethren were worried about other things that's fine - but I think some choices should be rethought)

If you think about it, the higher birth rate among church members, coupled with the aggressive missionary program, ought to at a minimum show growth greater than the US growth rate. That it's "keeping up" seems like a problem, IMO.

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, blueglass said:

Kim Peek with 98% reading retention

Joseph kept all that under wraps??? Did Joseph ever exhibit any of those traits? Ability to read two pages simultaneously? Peek's I.Q was 87. Being able to read and retain prodigious amounts of information was his one "savant" skill and it started or at least was recognized when he was about eighteen monts old. He could recite what he had read but could not do anything with it.  There are people that can manipulate columns of figures (add, subtract, multiply, etc.) as fast as they read or hear them. I have known severl of those. But they do not understand  abstract mathematical concepts, at least the ones I have known.

Pearl Curran/Patience Worth is the closest thing I have found that competes with Joseph Smith and the production of the Book of Mormon. There have been a lot of speculation about how Pearl Curran was able to accomplish the things she did under the direction of the Patience Worth persona, but none of them answer all of the questions. The biggest of those have to do with language. From one article:

Quote

The distinguished and influential literary critic William Marion Reedy made a careful study of the Patience Worth scripts, and he spent a great deal of time with Pearl at the Ouija board. And since he was also intrigued by Patience’s distinctive lexicon, he consulted an authority on the English language, who studied the case thoroughly, and who confirmed that:

the words are not of any given period, nor are they all from one early English locality. They are from almost all the counties and shires and many of them peculiar locutions to those subdivisions of England. They are always used in their exact original sense. The language, as a whole, is of such a consistency of word-texture as no mere student could use through hundreds and hundreds of thousands of words without an occasional break into the speech of today… not the most practiced writer of the speech of any special period, except one’s very own period, can keep out of his writings the words in which he does his ordinary thinking. (Litvag, 1972, p. 58.)

All of the different speculations do not propose an answer to how Pearl could have absorbed words from across the sea from "almost all of the counties and shires." Unless a more mundane explanation can be evidenced (and the conclusion of the writer of the article is that there is no real evidence for any of the mundane speculations) you are left with an uncomfortable for you rather supernatural origin.

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Latest data shows we're still keeping up with the US growth rate. So not only we are not hemorrhaging members but we're growing. Admittedly not as fast, although I'll blame in large part the choices of the missionary department there. (Again usual caveat that missions aren't only about convert baptisms and if the Brethren were worried about other things that's fine - but I think some choices should be rethought)

 

Does this really tell us about the LDS members activity though?  I was trying to find in the data what the exact question asked in this survey compared to the 2011 survey they contrasted this with, and couldn't find the question, but I wonder if this tells us about activity levels.  There are probably a lot of inactive members that would also still identify as Mormon depending on how the survey question is worded.  

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Does this really tell us about the LDS members activity though?  I was trying to find in the data what the exact question asked in this survey compared to the 2011 survey they contrasted this with, and couldn't find the question, but I wonder if this tells us about activity levels.  There are probably a lot of inactive members that would also still identify as Mormon depending on how the survey question is worded.  

I would imagine you and I both would still self-identify as LDS. Here in the US, it's more of a cultural identity. Compare that with Latin America, where the official membership numbers the church has vastly overstate the numbers when compared to self-identification in a census. Heck, a lot of converts in Bolivia don't even realize they have joined the church. 

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I would imagine you and I both would still self-identify as LDS. Here in the US, it's more of a cultural identity. Compare that with Latin America, where the official membership numbers the church has vastly overstate the numbers when compared to self-identification in a census. Heck, a lot of converts in Bolivia don't even realize they have joined the church. 

Agreed.  I know many people that would still identify as Mormon who don't attend.  There are two metrics that would really tell us about the health of the church, and they are current active members and tithing revenue.  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Does this really tell us about the LDS members activity though?  I was trying to find in the data what the exact question asked in this survey compared to the 2011 survey they contrasted this with, and couldn't find the question, but I wonder if this tells us about activity levels.  There are probably a lot of inactive members that would also still identify as Mormon depending on how the survey question is worded.  

It's self-identification numbers. While we don't have absolute activity numbers, the very notion of activity is pretty ambiguous. Pew's poll is older, but found that 77% of those self-identifying attend services weekly which is better than I can say. 15% say monthly. Only 8% say seldom. 82% say religion is very important in their lives. 13% say somewhat. 

It's dangerous to assume that over 6 years nothing is changed in activity, but probably it's not a huge change. PRRI didn't ask these more detailed questions though. Presumably an ARIS or Pew study will be coming soon though with more detail.

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's self-identification numbers. While we don't have absolute activity numbers, the very notion of activity is pretty ambiguous. Pew's poll is older, but found that 77% of those self-identifying attend services weekly which is better than I can say. 15% say monthly. Only 8% say seldom. 82% say religion is very important in their lives. 13% say somewhat. 

It's dangerous to assume that over 6 years nothing is changed in activity, but probably it's not a huge change. PRRI didn't ask these more detailed questions though. Presumably an ARIS or Pew study will be coming soon though with more detail.

Interesting, do you know if those activity rates were specific to the Mormon respondents or for the entire population across all religions?  Reason I’m asking is I imagine it could vary significantly.  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Interesting, do you know if those activity rates were specific to the Mormon respondents or for the entire population across all religions?  Reason I’m asking is I imagine it could vary significantly.  

Yes. They went back and asked many more questions of the Mormon respondents to their original broad religious survey.

[Rajah Manchou]

11 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Sure, you can always ascribe Joseph Smith's ability to extraordinary human capacity. But how many people have been able to do the types of things he did?

William Hyde, describing Joseph Smith Sr.

"From the time of his first visit until his religious scheme was sprung I don't believe he missed a night without stopping with me for at least three hours. There wasn't a subject he couldn't discuss intelligently, and my opinion of him was high. His memory was something extraordinary. He could repeat several chapters of a book verbatim after it had been read rapidly."
 

[Calm]

Quote

don't believe he missed a night without stopping with me for at least three hours.

How long was the period Hyde talking about and was Joseph married yet, because I would be ticked off if my husband was spending three hours a night talking with someone besides me for much longer than a week or two? (And if we were broke or just starting our home, that would doubly set me off as a waste of his time.)

-----

add-on:  missed that it was JS sr.  what religious scheme is Hyde talking about?

Found source:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/mischig.htm#101488

Quote

He has a remarkable memory, and can recall events that happened when he was 5 years of age with apparently little reflection. His descriptions are very graphic, especially in giving his version of the figureheads of the "Latter-Day Saints...

Makes me wonder how much was storytelling and how much was memory.

Quote

The villainous impostors had already became quite popular with about a score of people, but they were without a system to fleece them. Eventually Smith, Sr., the great concocter and originator, enacted a little deal that successfully duped the innocents.

There seems a bit of a bias there.  Anyone else report Sr. with a marvelous memory?  Or with whiskers?

Quote

After whipping around the stump with his fire-escape whiskers flapping with the wind

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by Calm

[Rajah Manchou]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

Makes me wonder how much was storytelling and how much was memory.

I thought the same. Hyde and Smith Sr. probably got along so well because they were both storytellers.

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

There seems a bit of a bias there.  Anyone else report Sr. with a marvelous memory?  Or with whiskers?

The Hyde interviews are a mixed bag. The Chicago Times interview comes with negative bias, and the Deseret News follow-up overcompensates with positivity. But both are clear that Hyde was fond of Smith, and enjoyed his interactions. For example, the Deseret News asked him if he consider Smith a schemer:

"Not exactly in the common sense of the word. The slight suspicion I entertained at one time, that he might be up to some money making scheme, was entirely obliterated by subsequent occurrences, that is, by his taking such a prominent part in religious affairs. I had at all times the highest regard for him. He used to see me night after night and speak to me of former inhabitants of this continent, how a large portion of the earth now covered by the Pacific Ocean was once occupied by land, etc. 

Many of the things he told me seemed absurd in those days, but have since been proven to be correct, and I have seen with my own eyes in Wisconsin and other parts of this country, at excavations, a verification of the wonderful things he used to tell me, and while his knowledge of these things seemed marvelous to me at that time, now that this knowledge is proven to be correct, it is incomprehensible to me how he could have obtained it. He was indeed a marvelous man."

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

I thought the same. Hyde and Smith Sr. probably got along so well because they were both storytellers.

The Hyde interviews are a mixed bag. The Chicago Times interview comes with negative bias, and the Deseret News follow-up overcompensates with positivity. But both are clear that Hyde was fond of Smith, and enjoyed his interactions. For example, the Deseret News asked him if he consider Smith a schemer:

"Not exactly in the common sense of the word. The slight suspicion I entertained at one time, that he might be up to some money making scheme, was entirely obliterated by subsequent occurrences, that is, by his taking such a prominent part in religious affairs. I had at all times the highest regard for him. He used to see me night after night and speak to me of former inhabitants of this continent, how a large portion of the earth now covered by the Pacific Ocean was once occupied by land, etc. 

Many of the things he told me seemed absurd in those days, but have since been proven to be correct, and I have seen with my own eyes in Wisconsin and other parts of this country, at excavations, a verification of the wonderful things he used to tell me, and while his knowledge of these things seemed marvelous to me at that time, now that this knowledge is proven to be correct, it is incomprehensible to me how he could have obtained it. He was indeed a marvelous man."

That contradicts the quote I linked to which said it was all a get rich scheme.  If he is that inconsistent, I would toss out his comments unless collaborated by others.

Quote

It might be appropriate to state now that the Smiths were monogamists and not polygamists; their sole object was to obtain riches, which they did, but ultimately it cost the 'modern Daniel' his life.

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

Oops, misunderstanding

Rule 1 : read the thread before posting.

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Deleted

See above.

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by mfbukowski

[champatsch]

On 8/23/2018 at 11:44 AM, churchistrue said:

This is a topic I am keenly interested in and write about a lot, so I wrote up a blog post on it.

http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/nick-frederick-new-testament-in-the-book-of-mormon/

A few points:

Dr. Frederick has identified 650 intertextual phrases between [Book of Mormon] and the King James New Testament.

Nick Frederick speaks of "the King James English 19th century Book of Mormon". This statement may have in mind the biblical blending that he studies and is interested in. But it also tends to obscure an extremely important, more fundamental aspect of Book of Mormon English: its syntax and lexis.

In terms of syntax, the present-tense verbal system of the Book of Mormon is archaic and non-biblical. It is not accurately characterized as a mixture of King James English and 19c English, which is how Frederick characterizes Book of Mormon English in the introduction to his 2016 monograph: "These [biblical] phrases were merged together with nineteenth century vernacular to create modern American scripture" (The Bible, Mormon Scripture, and the Rhetoric of Allusivity, 2016:xi; emphasis mine).

For example, the earliest text of the Book of Mormon has much more -s inflection than the 1611 King James Bible (which actually has a tiny bit), yet it is still heavily dominant in -th inflection. Inflectional mixing — sometimes in the same sentence — was common in the early modern era, and is found in the Book of Mormon. The earliest text also has 180 ± 5 instances of non–3sg -th inflection, including five fine examples of the Early Modern English pronoun constraint. This was not 19c usage. It also has quite a few examples of plural -s, another archaic feature of English that is studied by linguists. It has higher levels of non-emphatic, affirmative periphrastic do/doth usage than the King James Bible. This too is archaic, not 19c in character.

The past-tense verbal system of the Book of Mormon is archaic and non-biblical. It contains some rare variants found in the early modern era.

The perfect-tense verbal system of the Book of Mormon is archaic and non-biblical. "Had (been) spake" is a stand-out example. The best fit is with 17c usage.

The future-tense verbal system of the Book of Mormon is close to biblical, but aspects of it, such as subject–auxiliary inversion rates, are closer to the 1568 Bishops' Bible than to the 1611 King James Bible. Some pseudo-biblical authors were able to mimic this aspect of biblical usage.

Verb complementation in the Book of Mormon is archaic and non-biblical. It is heavily finite (think that-clauses). The King James Bible is heavily infinitival. Pseudo-biblical texts are heavily infinitival. Modern English was even more heavily infinitival. The modal auxiliary usage accompanying this verb complementation in the Book of Mormon is impressively archaic.

The complex finite complementation of the Book of Mormon is often non-biblical and hardly any of it is found in pseudo-biblical texts. Causative syntax is a noteworthy non-biblical feature of the earliest text.

Subjunctive shall usage in the Book of Mormon far exceeds the biblical in several domains. Needless to say, it far exceeds pseudo-biblical usage.

The Book of Mormon's "of which hath/has been spoken" phraseology is archaic and non-biblical.

The Book of Mormon's "more part" phraseology is archaic and non-biblical.

The Book of Mormon's "for this cause that <subject> may/might" phraseology is archaic and non-biblical.

The Book of Mormon's archaic "that" usage after subordinate conjunctions exceeds pseudo-biblical usage, in particular in the cases of "because that" and "before that". The earliest text also has archaic "since that" and "to that", which aren't found in the King James Bible.

The Book of Mormon's unsurpassed "if it so be (that)" usage is archaic and non-biblical.

The Book of Mormon's unsurpassed plural "mights" usage with prepositions is archaic and non-biblical.

The Book of Mormon's unsurpassed usage involving the conjunction "save" is archaic and non-biblical. For example, "save it were/be/was/is" occur in the Book of Mormon 130 times and are not found in the King James Bible.

The Book of Mormon's personal relative pronoun profile is archaic and non-biblical and non-pseudo-biblical.

The Book of Mormon's unsurpassed object "they" usage (36 examples) is archaic and non-biblical and non-pseudo-biblical.

The Book of Mormon's double negative usage is archaic and non-biblical. "Nor no manner of X" is a good example — there are four of these in the earliest text.

The Book of Mormon's 57 instances of invariant "exceeding great" is unexpected in a text of 1829.

The conclusion from all this hard linguistic evidence, and much more not mentioned here, is that neither Joseph Smith nor anyone associated with the 1829 dictation had the implicit linguistic knowledge to word the text that was produced that spring.

These realities should inform Frederick's work. They certainly show that his larger view of Book of Mormon English, at least as expressed in his monograph, is inaccurate. Although fully aware of Skousen's and my work, I haven't seen that he takes seriously an array of Book of Mormon lexical and (morpho)syntax evidence. From what I have seen, he continues to assume an unstudied and inaccurate view of Book of Mormon English. I would ask him and others to study the issue so as to avoid supplying the public with inaccurate information. Such things were perhaps excusable in past decades, but certainly not anymore.

[cdowis]

On 8/23/2018 at 12:30 PM, churchistrue said:

iThanks for the heads up on the video.  I found it.  

 

Is anyone interested in my opinion?

In most cases, these very similar quotes are not  from the New Testament but from previous (Old Testament) prophets whose works are no longer extant.  Both the NT and BOM writers are quoting from the same texts. Short phrases are not quotes but common prophetic phrases -- prophetic speak, independent of each other.

People assume that they are unique to the NT -- in my view, they are not.

Edited September 1, 2018 by cdowis