Fence Sitter wrote: ↑Sat Oct 10, 2020 3:21 pm
I would be interested in seeing these several articles. AFIK there are only three publications on this. The short publication put out by Wilson for her grant, the expansion of the same article published as chapter 11 in
Producing Ancient Scripture, and the agenda driven legacy protecting review by Jackson in the Interpreter. I have not heard of a forth coming book and the grant paper and the final chapter are very similar. What are the several articles you have read?
Several online articles/blog posts, and the University of Illinois Press-published item from the Mormon History Association (I have this one through JSTOR). I haven't read the chapter from the book published by the University of Utah Press, but given its length and descriptions of it, it doesn't seem any different from what has already been published.
kairos said that "[Wayment] replied that he was working on getting the long list of parallels in publication form- he said he did not yet have a venue for publishing but is working in that direction" (personal email).
I don't personally think anything else will be forthcoming; I think that Wayment and Wilson-Lemmon have been trading on the few parallels they've shared, while hinting that they have "hundreds" of them.
Like Jackson, you are misstating the case Wayment and Wilson are trying to make, perhaps that is because you have not actually read the paper?. Wayment and Wilson are not arguing compelling impact so much they are pointing out that Smith was referencing Clarke's when he was working on the JST. The number of instances becomes important because a "few crumbs" can be dismissed as coincidence as Jackson attempts to do, a few hundred cannot.
Wilson-Lemmon indicated that "there are maybe 25 to 30 relevant passages in the New Testament, and fewer, maybe 10-15 in the Old Testament (or numbers something like that). That occurrence is very believable to me. I did a study of every JST revision to 1 Corinthians, and one thing I looked for was whether any of them were attested in a secondary source (the four sources I used for this purpose were the Clarke Commentary, the Campbell translation, the Coverdale translation and Wesley’s Explanatory Notes). As I recall, the incidence of possible secondary source influence I noted was in the range of 7%, which seems consistent with Haley’s findings." (Kevin Barney)
https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/08/15/ ... ommentary/
Frankly if you are going to find what Nibley, Sorenson, and Gee have done as evidence of antiquity, than what Rick Gunder has put together showing 19th century sources is much more impressive.
Mormon PARALLELS: A Bibliographic Source And, to preempt the argument from ignorance "How could Joseph Smith have known?", that isn't Rick's point This point is the material was available in the 19th century. It is up to those making supernatural claims about how Joseph Smith produced something to show he did not take it from his own environment, Rick is just showing it was there.
At some point, though, this growing massive library of what Joseph Smith "could have used" runs into Occam's Razor, doesn't it? When I was a member of FAIR, we had an inside joke: "Joseph Smith: The Cambridge Years." Clarke's six-volume work is now added to this hypothetical library, next to "The Late War" on the shelf. Future academics, trying to make their mark on pretty well worked-over ground, are going to add other massive works to add to the mix of hypothetical works Smith (and inevitably, a committee of others) used in producing what Smith produced in his environment.
I think it is clear you haven't read their article.
As I said, I've read the MHA article published by the University of Illinois Press.
If the shoe were on the other foot (if what you call Mopologists were hinting for years at "hundreds" of parallels, but only ever giving a handful as examples), this place would be going bananas over it. But, because it aligns with the desired outcome here, they are given a pass at using the "Elder Perry's briefcase" tactic.