Book of Mormon (er, -- of Solomon)

[_MCB]

In both stories,

1. the losing army is more than double the number of the winning army, but
2. the warriors are so struck with "terror" by the ambush that they "throw down" their arms and surrender. Then, in both stories,
3. the losing commander has a personal conversation with the opposing commander,
4. asking him to "spare their lives,"
5. after which a treaty of peace is made
6. and the losing warriors return to their own country (Manuscript Story pp. 38-39; cf. Alma 43:51, 44:15, 19).
7. Warriors [among] the opposing nations in both stories were related
8. -- being offspring of the same family --
9. and called each other "brother."

Those same parallels occur in Clavigero. And many many more.

Yes, I am using 1806. It is a gold mine. I would love to travel back in time and steal that man from the church!! Grin. :))

I am assuming you meant that if we were to compare any book written in the early 19th century New England that we'd find a similar vocabulary overlap.

The language of the times may result in some strong false positives. Even a liberal translation of an older work will be influenced by the language of the times of the translator. There is an excellent example in Cullen's Clavigero.

The word print data is valuable, but not conclusive. The vocabulary overlap is valuable but not conclusive. The thematic parallels are valuable but not conclusive. The testimony is valuable but not conclusive. The documentary evidence is valuable but not conclusive.

If I may use an analogy that others might not identify with, a restrictive definition of mental reatrdation must include IQ test, medical and developmental history, academic achievement, and adaptive behavior. All must confirm each other.

However, why do we have to tie everything down so tightly when the opposition is happy with NHM and tapirs?????

[_MCB]

OMG!!! They are beginning to discuss Vine Deloria's diffusionism on the MADB board. ROFLMAO!!!

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Dale... didn't Jockers use a control of some sort?
...

Yes -- two different 19th century writers whose known literary vocabulary was
somewhat similar to that found in the Book of Mormon, but who could not have
possibly contributed to that text.

They also manufactured a "quasi-control" in amalgamating Isaiah and Malachi,
as found in the KJV Bible. And of course that quasi-control plotted out high
in the spots in the Book of Mormon where we know of Isaiah and Malachi reproductions,
but fairly low elsewhere in the text.

I think they would have done better to have left out the Isaiah-Malachi
amalgamation and added a couple of other near contemporary writers
such as James MacPhearson and Robert Southey, as "controls."

In his second study (on trying to derive a Joseph Smith wordprint, etc.)
Jockers did eliminate the Isaiah-Malachi amalgamation -- and, oddly
enough, in a few spots where that quasi-control had plotted out
slightly above its otherwise low average throughout the text, the new
word-print for Joseph Smith appeared in its place.

If I could have the study conducted all over again, from scratch, I'd want:

1. A few more "control" authors added in
2. Several more "likely candidate" authors added in
3. Isaiah and Malachi left out
4. Somebody other than Jockers conducting the study and reporting

I'm told that I may get my wish -- but that I'll see no results any time
soon, in any published media.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...
steal that man from the church!!
...

Cullen or Calvigero?

Both Calvigero and his predecessor in publishing, Acosta, rendered valuable
service, in reporting on Mexico and Peru, in the days when memories of the
preColumbian situation in the Americas were still fresh in people's minds.

These writers present a picture of preColumbian peoples roughly analogous
to what we might have found in East Asia at about the same time. Compare
the Southeast Asian and Chinese cultures to those in Mexico and Peru,
and the cultures of the Mongolians and Siberians to those of the Woodlands
and Great Plains, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

When the Spanish explored the southern part of what is now the USA,
they came upon the last, lingering remnants of "mound-builder" culture
among the Natchez, etc. In Asia we might compare that to the Tibetans --
a people with a rich historic culture, who have been reduced to little
more than a memory of their past, by various circumstances.

Without Acosta and Clavigero, people might have still been arguing that
the preColumbians were perhaps not even "human," as late as Spalding's day.

UD

[Guest]

MCB:

However, why do we have to tie everything down so tightly when the opposition is happy with NHM and tapirs?????

Now THAT is a good question! ROFL!

[_Roger]

Ben wrote:

And finally, to be frank, all of my discussions with you have had your point of view tinged with ideology.

In the first place, I make it a point never to hide or to downplay my "ideology." I have adopted a certain "ideology" because I think it is the correct one, so, on the contrary I tend to flaunt it in the hopes of spurring meaningful challenges from which I can evaluate whether it is worthy of my continued devotion. Frankly, if it isn't, I will drop it. But in the process, I reserve the right to vigorously defend it. Given that, S/R has so far not been a disappointment.

In the second place, we all know that you also have an "ideology" which--in my judgement at least--you do tend to downplay in discussions like this. Nevertheless, that "ideology" does influence your logic--IMO--whether you acknowledge it or not.

Which is to say, I show a connection between Spalding and Warren, and your immediate conclusion is that Spalding and Warren have some kind of textual history.

Actually I had come to that conclusion long before you showed a connection on this thread. My conclusion was reached based on Tom Donofrio's research--the same research you describe as "parallelomania." It seems, in this case at least, you agree with Tom's conclusions. I guess Tom got lucky?

This is why I asked for you to provide me with some texts that I can use to create some kind of base line data. Because until I can do that, I don't think you are interested in accepting my point that these numbers Dale provides are not noteworthy.

Why not use something that we know could not have been used? Mark Twain perhaps?

I would also like to see comparisons between two works by the same author. Preferably on two very different subjects. I would like to see how far results can skew in the wrong direction (using both methods) to give us the equivalent of a +/- percentage of error in polling data.

[_Roger]

Ben wrote:

No, I think that these are very different stories. The parallels seem rather forced. It's easy to make the case when you are allowed to condense several thousand words into a few key phrases. But really, Holley is ignoring the context.

It's interesting how we can come to such radically different conclusions. You see Holley as "ignoring the context" while I see Holley as pulling the similarities out from the context so we can see them. Either way, you are not denying that they exist... instead you seem to be claiming that the differences surrounding them make them different.

Can you find another story from the time period that retains all 9 of the elements Holley identified? The surrounding context can be as different as it is here.

This brings up for me two related questions:

1) How does a parallel like this mean anything when it isn't really proposed that the Book of Mormon is borrowing from the Oberlin manuscript, but from some other manuscript which may or may not resemble the Oberlin manuscript on this point?

You maybe surprised to know that I find this a fair question. Actually, I think this is probably your best attack. The fact that we are comparing an extant ms written by the same author but not the one we theorize was used is indeed a weakness. It cannot be denied, nor remedied.

However, it is unfortunate--from your position--that we find any resemblances at all. Certainly resemblances between a ms produced by a guy that people had associated with the Book of Mormon since 1832 should not hurt the S/R position. When non-contextual word prints derived from that same ms yield favorable results when compared to certain sections of the Book of Mormon, that also does no damage the S/R theory.

So while, yes, it is acknowledged that the parallels can only go so far since we are not claiming that this particular ms was used in Book of Mormon production, the parallels, nevertheless, do carry some weight since they are written by the same author as the hypothesized ms and they do seem to resemble some themes in the Book of Mormon.

The fact that there is nothing preventing them from being totally different from the Book of Mormon (ie. not existing at all) is the counter-balance to your question of, "How does a parallel like this mean anything..." They do mean something because Fairchild and Rice could have been correct in their earliest assessments. It could have been the case that there really was no resemblance at all between the two works. But with a little beyond-the-surface observation, people like Holley and Dale have shown that is simply not the case. That is significant in light of preceeding testimony.

2) Why would the authors of the Book of Mormon take this narrative by Spalding, and only borrow these few rather unrelated features from this story to use, when the vast majority of the narrative is very, very different.

I don't think it's as simple as that. In fact, it is more likely that Spalding himself altered these portions. It is quite common for authors to write a draft only to revise, alter and embellish it the second time around. This is exactly what the S/R theory proposes... and you should at least acknowledge the fact that Spalding witnesses were suggesting this more than a century before Holley and Dale made their observations.

All the best.

[_Roger]

MCB:

Those same parallels occur in Clavigero. And many many more.

Yes, I am using 1806. It is a gold mine. I would love to travel back in time and steal that man from the church!! Grin. :))

Well there you go! We see that and think: There might be a connection between Spalding and Clavigero and Ben thinks: see! happens all the time!

LOL.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
It is quite common for authors to write a draft only to revise, alter and
embellish it the second time around.
...

Ever read the Edgar Rice Burroughs' "Tarzan" books? There are a couple
of dozen of them, and I know a thing or two about the series (as you'll
see by Googling my name on the subject).

Somebody once told me that we only "need to read one of them," because,
"if you've read one, you've read them all."

I get the same feeling reading the last part of Etehr, after having read
the last part of Alma -- and while reading Mormon's final account...

In the Tarzan books, after the first couple of stories in the series, they
settle down into a pot-boiler repetition of the second novel, sold again
and again, under different titles, with slightly different characters.

Tarzan goes wandering in the unexplored jungle -- he comes upon a
valley, unfrequented by modern visitors -- in the valley are the remnants
of an ancient civilization -- the people came from some other place --
they settled in Africa after lengthy wanderings -- their original home
land has been destroyed, or greatly changed -- they cannot go back --
they eventually split into two rival factions -- the factions split up and
each one has a city or portion of the lost valley -- Tarzan arrives at an
ominous time -- a final conflict is at hand -- Tarzan is taken prisoner --
Tarzan befriended by a queen of one of the rival factions -- she helps
him escape imprisonment -- Tarzan fights on one side in a civil war --
some disaster wipes out the valley -- Tarzan escapes the disaster...

It wasn't just that Mr. Burroughs was "writing a draft only to revise,
alter and embellish it the second time around." He just liked telling the
same old story, containing the same set of episodes, again and again.

The hostile foe attacks -- the attacked people need to defend themselves,
but the abhor bloodshed -- a leader comes up with a stratagem -- the
hostile foe are outwitted, or made drunk, or ambushed -- they throw
down their weapons of war -- the leaders on both sides meet -- either
the conflict is resolved, or there is single combat -- either the hostiles
return to their own land in peace, or everybody is exterminated...

Sound familiar?

UD

[_MCB]

Hey, others thought it was OK to steal from Spalding, the Book of Mormon made a significant mark on the culture of this country. What makes you think that Burroughs couldn't have thought it was an excellent boilerplate???

Clavigero is my love. He even speculated on tectonic plate theory to explain similarities and differences in flora and fauna of South America and Africa. Something I played around with at one time, too.

If you have read that far, "satire" and "satyr" are "satira" and "satiro" in Spanish. Accent on "a" for both.

I am going to polish my bibliography today. Been quite a while since I added much to it.