Some Latin and Uto-Aztecan Correspondences

[_Doctor Scratch]

I am trying sincerely to be as nice as I know how over on the new Stubbs post. I am defending Symmachus, and letting Dr. Peterson know there is simply no fear whatever in critics about Stubbs work.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... qus_thread

With all due respect, Philo, and if I may be permitted to weigh in as the B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic studies, I think we need to pay careful attention to what Dr. Peterson said:

Over at the Interpreter Foundation, there is a very interesting and vigorous conversation going on.

Hardly surprising, given the revolutionary implications of Brian Stubbs's claims and how disturbing they plainly are to critics of the Book of Mormon.

The two portions of this that are deserving of attention are the phrases, "revolutionary implications" and "critics of the Book of Mormon." My first question is: In what sense are Stubbs's conclusions "revolutionary"? Don't they just affirm Mopologetic orthodoxy? Or maybe he means it in a more hopeful sense--i.e., that this will actually *change* academic views on languages in ancient MesoAmerica? Well, as I'm sure he knows, that isn't going to happen unless he's getting his theories peer-reviewed in a venue other than Mormon Interpreter. Well, at least one other legitimately academic journal *did* review Stubbs's work, which prompted this latest silliness from "Interpreter."

So that brings us to the phrase, "critics of the Book of Mormon." Who are these people, in DCP's mind? Of course he means non-LDS critics, who think that the LGT is nonsense (like Phillip Jenkins) and to ex- or current-LDS critics such as the people who post on this board and elsewhere. But I think you're forgetting that he *also* means the Maxwell Institute, and people affiliated with it, such as Chris Rogers, who published his criticism in the Mormon Studies Review *That*, in my opinion, is DCP's main target in that remark: and you can see how Midgley erupts with rage in his comment on the Interpreter thread:

I strongly urge those who have read Professor Robertson’s review of what seems like a very deeply flawed treatment by Chris Rogers of the important academic work by Stubbs that appeared in the recent issue of Journal of Book of Mormon Studies to also read carefully the review of Stubbs work by Professor Robertson, which appeared in Interpreter, as well as the review by Dirk Elzinga that was published in the BYU Studies in 2016.

I also wonder if the editor (or one of those involved in editing) the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies sought, urged or encouraged Chris Rogers to write that review of the work of Stubbs in what was published by the University of Illinois for the Maxwell Institute. If that publication is still under the editorial control of the Maxwell Institute, they should be held fully responsible for publishing the clearly deeply flawed essay by Rogers.

By encouraging or allowing this to happen, it seems that those currently in charge of the Maxwell Institute, as well as the editor(s) of a journal over which they have supervision and control, have not taken seriously the scolding and pleading by Elder Holland last November about the direction being taken by the institution that carries the name of Elder Neal Maxwell.

I think that it is urgent for Chris Rogers to clarify how he came to have his name on the review to which Professor Robertson has responded. However, I feel sorry for Chris Rogers, and especially if he was urged to write that review.

I would also like to see some official clarification on whether the Maxwell Institute has fully severed its relationship with the Mormon Studies Review, rather than merely ceasing to publish it, while still retaining editorial control over the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. Perhaps they have fully yielded ownership and hence editorial control of both these publications to the whims of those at the University of Illinois who are now in the business of pumping out academic journals. If they have ceased having control over both, then they cannot be held responsible for publishing the review by Chris Rogers. But they can be held responsible for not just ceasing to publish those two undertakings, both of which were begun by those who sought as well as they could to make them a means for both advancing and defending the faith of the Saints.

Here we go again with the "scolding and pleading by Elder Holland." So, basically, DCP's comment was just yet another thinly veiled attack on the Maxwell institute--which is to say, yet more fellow LDS, much in the same vein as with the Mormon Transhumanists, and the Heartlanders.

[_Kishkumen]

I get a kick out of the obviously fantastical image of “critics” these guys concoct. From my vantage point, this looks like yet another instance in which a well-meaning and sincerely devoted LDS scholar has let his desire to prove the Book of Mormon is an ancient text get the better of him. Symmachus has been handily tearing Stubbs’ methodology to shreds. Who is concerned about Stubbs? Certainly not I.

Because, at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter in the least. There is insufficient evidence of the Book of Mormon’s antiquity and plenty of evidence of 19th-century authorship. Although it does not look to be the case, Stubbs could be right, and it would not have moved the ball forward on the Book of Mormon one iota.

What in Stubbs’ work actually deals with the gold plates or the Book of Mormon text? Nothing. All he has attempted (and not succeeded) to do is to show that a Semitic/Egyptian infusion resulted in significant Uto-Aztecan borrowing from this infusion. Even if Stubbs were right—and it looks like he probably is not—then what would that actually do to help demonstrate that Lehi and Nephi walked the Americas? That Jesus Christ visited the people in this hemisphere?

There are so many layers of improbability here that one could drill down a very long time and still fail to reach the bottom. Good luck getting from a 19th century AD Book of Mormon to a 6th century BC migration through 16-century AD (et al.) texts.

This ain’t history, folks. Not by a long shot. This is wishful thinking borne aloft on the wings of bad scholarship.

[_Lemmie]

DanielPeterson Mod Dr. VelhoBurrinho • 13 hours ago

....Interpreter's peer review process intentionally replicates standard academic peer review processes...

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 4675095613

“Standard academic... processes”? Peterson needs to stop saying that. It is patently NOT true.

[_Kishkumen]

I could understand why he would say “imitates,” but “replicates”? No.

[_Philo Sofee]

Dr. Scratch, Kishkumen, Lemmie, Gadianton, and Symmachus, you are the 5 horsemen of the Mormon apocalypse -

The level of education and learning how to think through Mormon issues is one of the truly delightful things I have with reading this board. SHADES! Thou hast done a magnificent thing here... that will reverbate for decades if not centuries to come. You DO realize that don't you? I am sincerely serious.

[_Philo Sofee]

Dr, Peterson responded to me and so I responded back attempting to keep the focus where it needs to be. He is admitting that he wants to see which side has the last say so, so in my opinion, this is progress.

TheBackyardProfessor to DanielPeterson • 3 minutes ago
Yes there actually is an exceptionally strong interest in the philology aspects, for a very simple reason, and it is not because there is dismay and fear. It is because the underlying assumptions of Dr. Stubbs may be marring his work. It is not that all the sudden this demonstrates Nephi was a real historic person in Jerusalem 600 B.C., or that it is proof the Jaredites built barges and sailed over the ocean in them. It is the item of peculiar interest that no apologetic scholar does what your mentor Hugh Nibley called for decades ago, that is, publish in the world scholars' journals and hold the discussion of evidences there, not in a specific apologetic journal which only Mormons will find and care about. I am not trying to say your work is not good. It is. But if the intent is to help the world scholars grasp the reality of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc., than vastly more mileage can occur within the pages of the Harvard Theological Review or other journals of well known and deserved stature.

We all know this. Yet fail to see it occur. When the HTR or the JEA or the CJ (Classical Journal) ask for contributions from Mormon scholars ***on specific Mormon themes***, then THERE is where the clout will begin to occur. If there was something actually real, or even valid with the Mormon claims, others would sit up and take notice. But so far, based on discussions at Interpreter concerning hosts of issues from several articles on Bayes, and archaeology, or historical reality, there is nothing to go on for the world to sit up yet, and take notice. This is not to disparage anything from Mormon scholars, it is to make sure we see the proper focus and reality. Stubbs really needs to get his work involved with Mesoamerican scholars in their journals and discussions, not in Interpreter. There is simply not the same clout here. I am not making mockery, I am simply pointing out the obvious. The debate with Jenkins and Hamblin demonstrates this as well. The world scholars simply are not impressed, and critics are not even dismayed or terrified they have been scooped, refuted, and thus must come back to church. That is apologetic wishful thinking, honestly.

[_Gadianton]

Probably the most helpful comment I've seen yet from the apologist side is this from the publisher:

the literature is replete with all kinds of systematic approaches. It is true that they don’t compare languages that don’t have known proximity but it doesn’t mean that they can’t.

It's the only outright quote that admits Stubbs methods rather than his thesis about Near East infusion are non-standard. Lindsay, Peterson, Midgley, Robert F., and the myriad of Junior apologists who have commented mistakenly believe that Stubbs is using tried-and-true methods to demonstrate an unpopular thesis, in particular, they think he's using methods that show descent, which is the mistake Rogers allegedly made (I haven't read his paper myself). Neither Robertson nor Elzinga nor Stubbs himself clarify one way or the other. Robertson and Stubbs certainly have clarified that he is not showing descent, but they do not offer any other work that shows borrowing determined by sound laws alone, however, neither do they say that what Stubbs is doing is atypical. I have a feeling they don't want to clarify that too much because if the method and the thesis is controversial, it's even more hopeless. They don't want scholars tainted before hitting the raw material, as they think the data will wow any honest-minded inquirer. Apparently, that hands-off approach has caused more confusion than anything, as much or more on their own team as with critics.

So I'm sorry philo, the team at Sic et Non has not invested the time to understand what the controversy is all about. That is obvious from DCPs posts, and B. Wilson's posts are an outright laugh-fest. At Interpreter, the problem is they have a big opportunity to clarify in light of what Symmachus has written, but it looks to me like they aren't even considering it at this point. No responses in nearly 2 days now.

Maybe this is really an impasse for them? Clarify, and increase the chance of discovery, but greatly increase the risk of clear rejection. The advantage of as it stands, with methods employed nobody on their side in the know is willing to clarify, is they can retain the mantra of having something really technical that nobody is willing to investigate, and then work that angle at FAIR conferences for the next ten years.

[_Kishkumen]

It's the only outright quote that admits Stubbs methods rather than his thesis about Near East infusion are non-standard. Lindsay, Peterson, Midgley, Robert F., and the myriad of Junior apologists who have commented mistakenly believe that Stubbs is using tried-and-true methods to demonstrate an unpopular thesis, in particular, they think he's using methods that show descent, which is the mistake Rogers allegedly made (I haven't read his paper myself). Neither Robertson nor Elzinga nor Stubbs himself clarify one way or the other. Robertson and Stubbs certainly have clarified that he is not showing descent, but they do not offer any other work that shows borrowing determined by sound laws alone, however, neither do they say that what Stubbs is doing is atypical. I have a feeling they don't want to clarify that too much because if the method and the thesis is controversial, it's even more hopeless. They don't want scholars tainted before hitting the raw material, as they think the data will wow any honest-minded inquirer. Apparently, that hands-off approach has caused more confusion than anything, as much or more on their own team as with critics.

Judging by Symmachus’ posts, it would seem that once again we have an apologetic theory built on exceptions and the multiplication of “hemicycles.” If the data don’t work, create a new rule, or even a new dialect. It ends up looking like the linguistic equivalent of Mesomaerican eisegesis a la Brant Gardner.

[_Gadianton]

Judging by Symmachus’ posts, it would seem that once again we have an apologetic theory built on exceptions and the multiplication of “hemicycles.” If the data don’t work, create a new rule, or even a new dialect. It ends up looking like the linguistic equivalent of Mesomaerican eisegesis a la Brant Gardner.

How about Nibley's gas law of learning that Kiwi57 appeals to now and again? Any amount of data, no matter how small, will fill any intellectual void, no matter how large.

[_Kishkumen]

How about Nibley's gas law of learning that Kiwi57 appeals to now and again? Any amount of data, no matter how small, will fill any intellectual void, no matter how large.

This tends to be true of the study of antiquity. The evidence is often sparse, and yet something will be made of it. As long as it is done responsibly and with candor, largely free of overconfidence or overstating of the case, I don't have a problem with it. Often, however, you have sparse evidence for a specific phenomenon within a field that is rich with evidence about a lot of related things. So, in that situation there is a basis for educated guessing.