MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 18, 2023 5:09 pm
Wunderli’s ‘pickin’ and choosin’ is questionable.
I have different problems than Roper et al., but I'll still stand by my statement he makes a very good case for single authorship. The fact that Roper's methods can be used to show all sorts of different results for Book of Mormon authorship--including some clearly absurd conclusions--doesn't bode well for the approach. While Roper et al. offers some cautions I already thought of myself (e.g., standardized frequencies), their analyses have problems of their own. In their critique of Wunderli's raw count of the words
power, faith, blood, destruction, suffer, and
miracles, they use Mormon's entire word count to show massive differences between Mormon and Moroni. However, Wunderli was specifically addressing firsthand accounts. The proper apples to apples comparison would not be Mormon's entire 170,783 words. It would actually be the word counts for Words of Mormon, his interpolations, Mormon, and the letters copied in Moroni as compared to Moroni's completion of Mormon, his interpolations in Ether, and Moroni. I don't know how this affects the rates, but I'm willing to bet Wunderli's conclusion will hold.
As I’ve said the authorship question precedes the issues involved in geography, historicity, and all the rest. If Joseph couldn’t have composed the Book of Mormon on his own then we are looking at the traditional narrative as being correct. If so, the other concerns become peripheral.
Regards,
MG
Here, I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Issues of "geography, historicity, and all the rest" are
basic. Resolve those issues, and the authorship question largely resolves itself.