The Jockers study was peer reviewed but ultimately didn’t fare so well. Word print studies aren’t the end all discussion/proof of Book of Mormon historicity. Most of the experts agree. But they are interesting and are generally supportive (with some exceptions) of multiple voices in the Book of Mormon.Morley wrote: ↑Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:42 pmThe Berkeley Group was not composed of 'nonLDS folks'. It was composed of 'John Hilton and non-LDS colleagues at Berkeley'. As I understand it, John Hilton is LDS and had some non-Mormons help him input the data and run the numbers. I'd like to determine authorship, but can't locate a copy of the study itself.
According to the link, their methods have been peer reviewed. That does not mean this particular study was peer reviewed. Besides, peer reviewed does not mean 'valid' or 'accurate' or 'significant'. It means some others in the field have looked and haven't found obvious problems.
This last paragraph in your linked article is golden:
As John Hilton put the matter, if wordprinting is a valid technique, then this analysis suggests that it is "statistically indefensible" to claim that Joseph, Oliver, or Solomon Spaulding wrote the 30,000 words in the Book of Mormon attributed to Nephi and Alma.[6] The Book of Mormon also contains work written by more than one author. Critics who wish to reject Joseph's account of the Book of Mormon's production must therefore identify multiple authors for the text, and then explain how Joseph acquired it and managed to pass it off as his own.
For argument's sake, let's assume Hilton's study is valid. Why must critics identity the authors? Why do critics need to explain how 'Joseph acquired it and managed to pass it off as his own'. Indeed, why should critics even care?
Yes, Hilton was LDS. Those that worked along with him were not.
It would be interesting to know if any of these folks ended up in the church.
Whereas all we have from Joseph Smith is that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, we have to look elsewhere for any physical evidence. Word print studies along with other internal proof studies are pretty much all we have to go with at this point. Archaeology hasn’t panned out anything definitively so far except for little tidbits here and there. Fairly large bits if you go with Brant Gardner.
Elder Maxwell’s summarization still rules the day. Paraphrasing what he said, he said that there would be more and more evidence come forth to support the veracity of the Book of Mormon but that nothing definitive would prove the truthfulness of Book of Mormon other than a witness from God.
Regards,
MG