Jeff Lindsay briefly reports on a couple of recent publications that have been years in the making:
I don’t pretend to be much of a historical linguist — I’m interested in elements of the field, and I suppose that I know more than most folks do, but my acquaintance with the subject is at best avocational — let alone a specialist in historical Semitic linguistics. And I know effectively nothing about Uto-Aztecan.
But Brian Stubbs’s work has caught my attention, too. He seems, thus far, to be making a very interesting case.
He doesn’t need to be right for the Book of Mormon to be true, of course. And, if he’s right, his evidence doesn’t necessarily prove the Book of Mormon true. His arguments could be correct and the Book of Mormon could nonetheless be false.
But, if he’s right, we live in a world where the secular probability of the Book of Mormon’s being true seems to me considerably higher than skeptics have assumed.
I’m looking forward to seeing what actual specialists in the relevant disciplines — besides Brian Stubbs himself, obviously — have to say. (There are very few indeed who possess real academic background in both Semitics and Uto-Aztecan, as he does.)