Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_CaliforniaKid]

But if we can use reason to arrive at the reasonable conclusion that the candidates tested are probably the most likely of possible 19th century suspects, then, given that assumption, even Ben agrees the results are very accurate if the real author is in the mix.

Obviously if the Book of Mormon is ancient so far we haven't found samples of Moroni's non-Book of Mormon abridgments or Nephi's other writings, etc. And that will most likely continue to be a problem without solution. But if the real author is among the candidate list, what has Bruce's study done to make Ben's assertion false?

This is precisely the assumption Bruce's study was designed to test. Assuming that word frequencies are an accurate measure of authorship, Bruce's study basically shows that the real author is not in the mix.

[_Roger]

Chris:

There are several things that could differentiate the style of various parts of the Book of Mormon. For example, one part might quote extensively from Isaiah, while another might quote extensively from Luke. Or one part could be a narrative, while another is a theological discourse. Or Joseph's style could have changed over time, so that one end of the book differs from the other end. When you combine the effects of all of these factors, you could get quite a stylistic "spread" across the book. This stylistic differentiation doesn't necessarily have to be the result of deliberate efforts on Joseph's part to create different "narrative voices".

I thought the point of non-contextual word prints is that they allegedly work on a sub-conscious level that cannot substantially change.

This is precisely the assumption Bruce's study was designed to test. Assuming that word frequencies are an accurate measure of authorship, Bruce's study basically shows that the real author is not in the mix.

Well I know you don't agree with that, unless you're ready to convert to Mormonism.

With all due respect, that sounds like a pretty absolute assertion and as such supports what I wrote to Glenn that it's not the Jockers side that is drawing absolute conclusions from the data.

If Bruce's study actually and objectively does what you are suggesting I can see why Dr. Peterson would be shouting it from the rooftops. Needless to say I am not convinced it truly does that. On the contrary, I'm pretty confident the real author(s) are in the candidate set tested by Jockers and am then inclined to accept Ben's conclusion that Jockers methodology produces accurate results in that case.

Again, this is why we need more from the experts on both sides. All I can say is I don't think Matt would agree with you that "Assuming that word frequencies are an accurate measure of authorship, Bruce's study basically shows that the real author is not in the mix."

All the best.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I thought the point of non-contextual word prints is that they allegedly work on a sub-conscious level that cannot substantially change.

Ideally, yes. However, as I explained to Glenn above, the Jockers method doesn't use "non-contextual word prints." Rather, it uses a large number of word-frequencies that have been "tuned" for this particular set of authors. And there's the rub: this method of "tuning" only works under certain conditions, which the design of the Jockers study does not satisfy.

With all due respect, that sounds like a pretty absolute assertion and as such supports what I wrote to Glenn that it's not the Jockers side that is drawing absolute conclusions from the data.

Unless you can point out a flaw in the design of Bruce's study, that is what it shows.

I believe the flaw lies in the word-frequency method itself (at least as it has been applied to the Book of Mormon).

But if you accept the validity of the Jockers method, then you'll have to either find some other flaw in Bruce's experimental design, or accept his conclusions.

Again, this is why we need more from the experts on both sides. All I can say is I don't think Matt would agree with you that "Assuming that word frequencies are an accurate measure of authorship, Bruce's study basically shows that the real author is not in the mix."

Actually, I think he might.

Peace,

-Chris

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Lots to read and comment on this morning - so lets see if I make it all the way through.

First this from Buffalo:

Why should an ancient book that was translated, not written, in the 19th century share features with the other 19th century works?

As a general rule of thumb, texts are written language, with an author and an intended audience. (Exceptions to this rule of thumb are themselves a fascinating topic). Communication occurs well through texts when the intended audience - the virtual audience envisioned by the author - resembles the real audience that encounters the text. As the real audience moves further and further from the intended audience, the meaning intended by the author becomes less and less accessible to the audience. This is especially true when dealing with issues like allusion - where, no matter how blatant the allusion might be, if the audience is completely unfamiliar with the source of the allusion, then they will never understand it (they become incapable of accessing any meaning intended through a literary allusion). When an ancient book is translated, it isn't translated (generally speaking - we can always, of course, find exceptions to these kinds of statements) into some unfamiliar language, it is translated with the same notion of an intended audience in mind. The audience for the Book of Mormon is presumably, Joseph and those near him - who lived in a 19th century environment. This intended audience then determines in many ways the language that is used.

This is a rather lengthy way of explaining this idea, but I think it is an important one. If Joseph Smith is a translator (and lets ignore for the moment trying to specify what exactly that means, since there is such a spectrum of opinions among believers) then he is restricted in some ways as to the language that he can use - either because it is the language that he knows, or because it is the language familiar to his intended audience. And this is why I suggest that any early 19th century translation of an ancient text will share features with other 19th century literature.

It is the unexpected things (and not the expected ones) that tend to give us points for discussion.

Ben M.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Buffalo writes:

To reflect 19th century (or 15th century) language use is one thing, to reflect 19th century ideas is quite another.

Now, this brings up a different aspect. You are absolutely right - although I think that this argument is not as simple as you think it is. To show that something is uniquely 19th century is quite problematic. It isn't enough to say that this idea can be found in the 19th century, you have to suggest that it is only found in the 19th century, and you also have to show that your own reading of the text reflects what its author intended. Reading the text and supplying your own suppositions as to its meaning doesn't work well in this kind of question.

Ben M.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Harmony writes:

And this is a line of bull. Believers do NOT see God as acting in a limited way... on the contrary, believers see the hand of God in every word. I've lived with a BIC DUP true believer for 40 years, and that is NOT what he or any of his relatives believes.

Well, then you and I move in different circles Harmony. My own experience is different from your own. And certainly, I as a believer, don't see the hand of God in every word. Nor do my family (well most of them, I do have a lot of brothers). And living where I do (which is not anywhere near Utah), we tend to have a much broader range of views in the church on many of these issues.

But on some level, that is all beside the point. Saying that God's hand is in every word is rather vague platitude that doesn't mean a whole lot - particularly when we are talking about specifics. And the Book of Mormon itself doesn't give God this kind of credit (rather just the opposite). So, I think, given the chance to make my case, most members of the church would agree with me.

Again: baloney. Blasphemy, even. My entire ward would be horrified at that statement.

I am not terribly interested in anecdotal evidence Harmony. There is an entire dialogue in 1 and 2 Nephi where Nephi goes into a fair amount of detail about himself as an author and what he thinks that means - and there is nothing in there about God in the sense that you raise.

Not from a true believer's perspective.

I am not sure what you meant by this. I was speaking more or less strictly from the critics perspective. It is the interaction among the various theories of the critics that has changed the dialogue to some extent.

Ben M.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

MCB writes:

True. but when one looks at which places Jockers found likelihood of Joseph Smith content, it matches with Vogel's contention of autobiographical content. Of course, it might actually be Lucy. Until we put her into the recipe, the jury is still out, as you said.

Vogel's work was more of a psychobiography (whether he claims it was autobiographical or not).

Ben M.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Roger writes:

Can you succinctly state, in layman's language, (preferably without an appeal to an outside source) what the minimum criteria would be, in your opinion, in order for the similarities that are touted between the Book of Mormon and Spalding's extent work to rise above a level of mere coincidence?

No. I am not sure I can succinctly state it in layman's language. I think though, that there are a number of accessible and widely recognized methodologies and criteria used to do just this. And I think that any critic who engages this material using such a methodology would deserve my full attention. And you are welcome to try. The one thing to be aware of though is that parallels are themselves considered to be the weakest kind of evidence for a genetic link between texts.

I want to repost something along these lines. This is from Alexander Lindey's book Plagiarism and Originality (Greenwood Press, 1952).

But the narrow nature of their function must never be lost sight of. They must not be allowed to becloud or eclipse the paramount canon that the crucial test of plagiarism is and must be a reading of the rival works themselves in their entirety. Whether the virtues of parallels outweigh the vices is open to debate. The fact remains that the vices are considerable.

1. Any method of comparison which lists and underscores similarities and suppresses or minimizes differences is necessarily misleading.
2. Parallels are too readily susceptible of manipulation. Superficial resemblances may be made to appear as of the essence.
3. Parallel-hunters do not, as a rule, set out to be truthful and impartial. They are hell-bent on proving a point.
4. Parallel-huntingis predicated on the use of lowest common denominators. Virtually all literature, even the most original, can be reduced to such terms, and thereby shown to be unoriginal. So viewed, Mark Twain's The Prince and the Pauper plagiarizes Dickens' David Copperfield. Both deal with England, both describe the slums of London, both see their hero exalted beyond his original station. To regard any two books in this light, however, is to ignore every
factor that differentiates one man's thoughts, reactions and literary expression from another's.
5. Parallel columns operate piecemeal. They wrench phrases and passages out of context. A product of the imagination is indivisible. It depends on totality of effect. To remove details from their setting is to falsify them.
6. Parallels fail to indicate the proportion which the purportedly borrowed material bears to the sum total of the source, or to the whole of the new work. Without such information a just appraisal is impossible.
7. The practitioners of the technique resort too often to sleight of hand. They employ language, not to record facts or to describe things accurately, but as props in a rhetorical hocus-pocus which, by describing different things in identical words, appears to make them magically alike.
8. A double-column analysis is a dissection. An autopsy will reveal a great deal about a cadaver, but very little about the spirit of the man who once inhabited it.
9. Most parallels rest on the assumption that if two successive things are similar, the second one was copied from the first. This assumption disregards all the other possible causes of similarity.

Whatever his vices or virtues, the parallel-hunter is a hardy species. He is destined, as someone had said, to persist until Judgment Day, when he will doubtless find resemblances in the very warrant that consigns him to the nether regions

Like I said, find a methodology in the literature, follow it to make your argument, and it should become apparent whether or not you have a case to make. But it is something that you need to do. I can disagree with your notions until I am blue in the face, and it won't do a bit of good - because I have already tainted anything I have said. You need to go through the effort to find out what I have been telling you all along.

Ben M.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Roger writes:

This appears to be the strawman argument referred to by Matt and taken to it's logical conclusion. As Matt points out, the Jockers method is only fatally flawed if one is attempting to read something into the premise that was never there. As Matt puts it, the test was to determine the most likely suspect within a closed set:

No, this wasn't the case. Only once in the entire paper does it refer to a relative frequency. In every other instance it seems to be suggesting an absolute probability. If this was Matt's intention, then he failed to communicate that intention, and we analyze the paper, not Matt's intentions.

In fact, in the abstract to the article, we read this:

Our findings support the hypothesis that Rigdon was the main architect of the Book of Mormon and are consistent with historical evidence suggesting that he fabricated the book by adding theology to the unpublished writings of Spalding (then deceased).

This is not the same thing as saying that they were merely looking for the most likely candidate from a closed set. I think that those responsible for the historical part in the introduction made the assumption that it was a closed set that included the real author, and this assumption clouds the entire piece. I stand by my comments. Matt may have clarified the purposes of his paper - but the paper itself does not provide a basis for this perspective - and so I can say that the paper is fatally flawed.

Ben M.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

CK writes:

The Book of Mormon appears, on the face of it, to be the wrong kind of problem for the word-frequency method.

I would tend to agree with this. I think that there are clearly texts which - for a variety of reasons - will simply not work well with stylometric analysis. And it may be that we can eventually determine when we expect such an analysis to work well and when we expect it to fail based on features in the text itself. As I also noted, the appeal of stylometric analysis is that it is a purely internal study of a text which does not rely on the historical questions (and in fact, the inclusion of the historical elements in the Jockers paper were not to establish anything about the stylometric examination itself, but to merely provide some kind of justification for assuming that the closed set included the real author).

Ben M.