Word frequency analysis in Book of Mormon and Bible etc

[_kairos]

After putting this TBM off who really wants me to convert, i have agreed to sit down with on his chosen topic as above.

my questions: what is the apologetic gold standard paper analysis for word frequency in the Book of Mormon, Bible ,D&C and what is the critics gold standard similar analysis?

i would appreciate any references and insights you have and perhaps for some who have looked into this deeply, what conclusions have been reached on either side , including realibility/unrealibility of word frequency analysis in this context.

thanx in advance

Kairos

[_CaliforniaKid]

The best attempt on the apologist side was the study by John Hilton titled "On Verifying Wordprint Studies: Book of Mormon Authorship." Of all the word print studies that have been done on the Book of Mormon, this one was the most exhaustively controlled and used the most generally reliable method. However, the Hilton study still has some pretty significant problems. For one thing, some of the "non-contextual" words it relies upon are words that would not have been present in Hebrew. For another thing, the Book of Mormon imitates the syntax of the KJV Bible, so any method that relies on syntax is pretty much dead on arrival.

On the critic side, the most credible study was probably David Holmes's "A Stylometric Analysis of Mormon Scripture and Related Texts." This paper, however, used vocabulary richness, a method that has plenty of problems and is considered to be of marginal usefulness even under ideal circumstances. Another widely talked-about study is the Jockers/Criddle paper, which relies on word frequencies. Like the Hilton study, this method seems to be genre-sensitive and is probably useless for analyzing a highly genre-distinctive text like the Book of Mormon.

Personally, I don't believe that there's a statistical method that will be effective for determining the authorship of the Book of Mormon. According to a study by Michael Brennan and Rachel Greenstadt, the accuracy of stylometric methods is reduced “to the level of random guessing” when an author attempts to obfuscate his style or to imitate the style of another author. This is true even for authors who are unfamiliar with stylometric methods.

[_Bazooka]

I predict that the 'meeting' will end with the TBM telling you to put to one side the evidence in favour of reading The Book of Mormon and then praying about it.

It's how it always ends.

[Guest]

The best attempt on the apologist side was the study by John Hilton titled "On Verifying Wordprint Studies: Book of Mormon Authorship." Of all the word print studies that have been done on the Book of Mormon, this one was the most exhaustively controlled and used the most generally reliable method. However, the Hilton study still has some pretty significant problems. For one thing, some of the "non-contextual" words it relies upon are words that would not have been present in Hebrew. For another thing, the Book of Mormon imitates the syntax of the KJV Bible, so any method that relies on syntax is pretty much dead on arrival.

On the critic side, the most credible study was probably David Holmes's "A Stylometric Analysis of Mormon Scripture and Related Texts." This paper, however, used vocabulary richness, a method that has plenty of problems and is considered to be of marginal usefulness even under ideal circumstances. Another widely talked-about study is the Jockers/Criddle paper, which relies on word frequencies. Like the Hilton study, this method seems to be genre-sensitive and is probably useless for analyzing a highly genre-distinctive text like the Book of Mormon.

Personally, I don't believe that there's a statistical method that will be effective for determining the authorship of the Book of Mormon. According to a study by Michael Brennan and Rachel Greenstadt, the accuracy of stylometric methods is reduced “to the level of random guessing” when an author attempts to obfuscate his style or to imitate the style of another author. This is true even for authors who are unfamiliar with stylometric methods.

Outstanding. Thanks, Chris.

A critical, credible and balanced commentary on dueling word print analysis studies is a really nice thing to have available when the questions come up.

Very helpful.
_________________

Oh, and Bazooka is probably right.

[_bschaalje]

The thing that comes strongly from Hilton’s paper is that Nephi’s sand Alma’s doctrinal discourse styles are consistent within speaker, but completely distinct between these speakers. Larsen’s paper agrees with these results using different indicators of style, namely those used by Mosteller and Wallace in their heralded Federalist study. Larsen also shows that Mormon’s style is consistent and unique, but his writings are almost always narrative, so genre is a confounding issue.

So you have a hard time not concluding that there were multiple authors in the Book of Mormon – whatever message you want to draw from that.

[_Always Changing]

So you have a hard time not concluding that there were multiple authors in the Book of Mormon – whatever message you want to draw from that.

That is a given. Those who say "Joseph Smith wrote it." are being overly simplistic. That statement just does not fit the evidence.

[_bschaalje]

But it’s more than that. The writers didn’t just write different chapters, they consistently wrote as different characters.

[_Always Changing]

But it’s more than that. The writers didn’t just write different chapters, they consistently wrote as different characters.

That doesn't eliminate the probability of the Smith & Co. theory. "OK, Lucy [Sidney, Joseph Jr, Hiram, Oliver, etc.], it is your turn as _______[whoever]." As in improv theater.

[_bschaalje]

You’re right, it doesn’t. But I (personally – you might not) have a hard time getting my head around a conspiracy of 3 or 4 con artist types taking turns, staying in character, writing a continuous back stroy, and pulling that off while each writing the profound (and sometimes poetic) stuff found in Alma 12, Alma 37, 2 Nephi 2, 2 Ne 4, Mosiah 2, etc.

[_Always Changing]

Copied from other authors.