For Roger: Methods in evaluating literary depedence

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Marg writes:

Question for you Ben: Can one show using parallels between texts that the writer/writers/ of the Book of Mormon borrowed concepts, phrases and words from those texts?

Yes. And I do a kick-ass job of it, if I say so myself. In about 8 weeks, it should be available for you to read.

[_marg]

And then, what texts have you determined the writer/writers of the Book of Mormon borrowed from?

[_marg]

Looking at your web site, you have Figure 1.

Please explain what you mean by "unique" words.

by the way, if you are interested I will go through your article and give it a critical analysis. It will be critical though, that is I see extremely poor reasoning in it, so I'm not sure if you are interested or not. I'm also not sure if you are capable of appreciating where your reasoning lacks or falls apart.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Unique used here can mean one of several things.

1: Suppose that we look in the Book of Mormon and we find something unusual - a word, for example, that is only used once. It's presence (when the author almost universally prefers a different word) creates something unique. So, for example, the Book of Mormon talks about moving bodies of water. They are called "rivers". The Book of Mormon almost universally refers to them as "rivers". Unlike, for example, the D&C, which has streams, and rills, and brooks, and so on, the Book of Mormon only has "rivers". Except once. In 2 Nephi 21:15 we have "streams". Now, we all understand that this word occurs there because of the way the text appears in Isaiah chapter 11. But, is a good example to make the point.

This kind of lexical uniqueness has a technical name: hapax legomena. And it is a concept which is considered to be very good evidence of borrowing. The borrowing explains an otherwise unusual feature in a text.

2: Similarly, there is a uniqueness of vocabulary. If a word or phrase only occurs in the two texts in question, there is an increased chance that there is a organic connection between the two. However, if the same word or phrase is quite common in other literature, its presence in both texts doesn't actually mean anything.

3: Related to this is the notion applied to quotation. This occurs when we can definitively state that the text occurs in one place precisely because of the way it occurs somewhere else. In the Book of Mormon, this is most obvious in the quotations of Isaiah from the KJV. No matter how you slice it (believer or not - it really doesn't matter on this point), we can say definitively that the KJV material occurs the way it occurs in the Book of Mormon precisely because of the way it occurs in the KJV.

I have used this argument in the past, for example, when talking to Metcalfe and Vogel on the issue of their first witnesses who were reading masonic references into the Book of Mormon. One of his "first readers" was quoting another of his "first readers" - and we could tell because he made a mistake - thinking that a part of the first writer's comments was a direct quote from the Book of Mormon and presented it as such (it wasn't the only issue). In this case, the text could only have come from the one source.

4: A third application of this deals with interpretation. For example, in Jacob chapter 1, Jacob quotes Psalm 95, and when it refers to entering into God's "rest". It does so in a way that duplicates Old Testament references, but is quite foreign to the interpretation of the New Testament. (This of course is only a good example of this particular kind of issue - not that the Old Testament and New Testament are the only possible sources for this kind of reading - but, given the uniqueness of the interpretation of the text, we would exclude New Testament borrowing for the phrase in favor of Old Testament borrowing - a point which we already recognize because of the quotation).

[_Benjamin McGuire]

As a side note Marg, I think that I do have a large body of scholarly literature solidly behind me on this issue. So, whether you like it or not, this isn't merely my opinion. I can provide references and citations where necessary. This might help bolster my argument wouldn't you think?

[_marg]

As a side note Marg, I think that I do have a large body of scholarly literature solidly behind me on this issue. So, whether you like it or not, this isn't merely my opinion. I can provide references and citations where necessary. This might help bolster my argument wouldn't you think?

The problem Ben is that just because someone cites a scholar does not mean they are either using the scholar's reasoning appropriately if they did understand it, nor evidence that they do understand the reasoning.

I don't get the impression from reading your web site that you know what you are talking about on parallels between texts and what can be deduced from them. I get the impression you've read some scholars perhaps who are respected by peers who have discussed parallels with respect I believe for one, the N.T. and Homer and you are trying to give the impression you understand not only what they are saying but that you are now capable of transferring their reasoning into an analysis of Tom Donofrio's article.

AS a weakness in your reasoning, take for example your explanation of what constitutes "unique" words. Where is your list of unique words, it looks to me like whatever words you choose that it was a subjective choice. And yet you talk about methodology as being important. You have no methodology that is open to be evaluated. At least I can see Tom's reasoning, there's nothing hidden. Everything is there, with explanations to be evaluated.

But immediately straight off to bat, without even evaluating any further your article I can see it is subject to your subjective view on what you have decided are unique words and I'm not able to evaluate your choices. And that's only the beginning Ben in my critical evaluation of your piece. There is stuff further on just glaringly problematic that I'm sure the scholars you cite as if they would support your piece would never support it.

[_AlmaBound]

...we can say definitively that the KJV material occurs the way it occurs in the Book of Mormon precisely because of the way it occurs in the KJV.

...
we would exclude New Testament borrowing for the phrase in favor of Old Testament borrowing

Hi Ben,

This is interesting stuff - I'm interested in reading the finished product.

One question, though. It appears you account for Old Testament borrowing in certain instances, i.e. terms and phrasings, but in the finished article do you account for similarities that reflect New Testament phrases and thought?

Ok, a second question: Marg has mentioned that you have a webpage - would you post a link to the webpage, please? I'm interested in reading more of your work.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

AlmaBound writes:

This is interesting stuff - I'm interested in reading the finished product.

One question, though. It appears you account for Old Testament borrowing in certain instances, i.e. terms and phrasings, but in the finished article do you account for similarities that reflect New Testament phrases and thought?

This isn't the subject of my essay. I have been kicking around working up a discussion of Jacob's use of the Old Testament (probably with David B.), but this is just a general description of the issues.

My essay does include a fairly detailed section on methodology for my purposes, which is the discussion of a literary allusion (textual dependence) between two narratives not discussed here.

[_AlmaBound]

My essay does include a fairly detailed section on methodology for my purposes, which is the discussion of a literary allusion (textual dependence) between two narratives not discussed here.

Ah, I see. I'm still interested, however, as I think this methodology has some merit, and I'd like to know more about how you are putting it to use.

As for this methodology's application to the Book of Mormon, to me it would become a matter of who was borrowing what when, if you catch my drift, and whether this can be seen as reflected in the Book of Mormon.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Marg writes:

The problem Ben is that just because someone cites a scholar does not mean they are either using the scholar's reasoning appropriately if they did understand it, nor evidence that they do understand the reasoning.

Which is why I am happy to provide references.

In this case, however, we aren't talking about a single individual, or a small group, but rather widely recognized and accepted methods and criteria. And just because you may not understand the reasoning appropriately doesn't make it inappropriate to invoke it.

I don't get the impression from reading your web site that you know what you are talking about on parallels between texts and what can be deduced from them. I get the impression you've read some scholars perhaps who are respected by peers who have discussed parallels with respect I believe for one, the N.T. and Homer and you are trying to give the impression you understand not only what they are saying but that you are now capable of transferring their reasoning into an analysis of Tom Donofrio's article.

And I think you are rather clueless on issues of literary analysis. But don't take it from me. Why not do a little reading on your own apart from Donofrio's pages (Donfrio is not a scholar). And, as I pointed out, I am perfectly willing to start with the methodologies used by the N.T. and Homer arguments - because those methods (as I also pointed out) dismantle Donofrio quite successfully.

AS a weakness in your reasoning, take for example your explanation of what constitutes "unique" words. Where is your list of unique words, it looks to me like whatever words you choose that it was a subjective choice. And yet you talk about methodology as being important. You have no methodology that is open to be evaluated. At least I can see Tom's reasoning, there's nothing hidden. Everything is there, with explanations to be evaluated.

Actually, I am criticizing Donofrio. I don't need to provide a list of unique words. What I do is show that Donofrio's phrases are anything but unique. This ought to be clear by the fact that I can find these phrases in lots of other pieces of literature. There is nothing special about them that requires that we believe that the Book of Mormon draws them from Donofrio's sources.

But immediately straight off to bat, without even evaluating any further your article I can see it is subject to your subjective view on what you have decided are unique words and I'm not able to evaluate your choices. And that's only the beginning Ben in my critical evaluation of your piece. There is stuff further on just glaringly problematic that I'm sure the scholars you cite as if they would support your piece would never support it.

Yeah, yeah. Whatever. It is obvious to me that you don't want to interact with a reasonable critique, and you have no intention of doing so - even though my points all seem quite valid.

Really, I understand I am not going to change your mind. You are wrong, you have a right to be wrong. But, in the long run, what you aren't going to be able to do is to successfully convince the rest of us that your list of parallels - your "parallelomania" is actual evidence for plagiarism. Because it isn't.