Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

390 Excellent

1 Follower

About champatsch

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This raises an interesting question. Do we privilege Joseph Smith's 1837 edits above the other possibilities? Textually blindness is the least likely of the three. Awful state variants collocate with wickedness. And woundedness is in O. We know that JS made mistakes in his 1837 editing. He didn't have formal training for such a difficult endeavor (although he was much more prepared for it in the late 1830s than he was in 1829). And of course he didn't have the text on a computer to analyze internal tendencies thoroughly and systematically. But, if you think it was his text, that he worded it, then it makes sense to maintain his edits, even though he occasionally made errors in his editing, worsening his original dictation. If it wasn't his text, then it doesn't make sense to maintain this edit. One of the other two possibilities is the better choice. There is a large amount of syntactic and lexical evidence supporting the position that it wasn't Joseph's text. Nevertheless, there are many Latter-day Saint scholars who want the text to be his, for various reasons, and no amount of hard linguistic evidence will change their minds.
  2. This author died in 1640: (1647, A41120 | pages 193–194) THE Soveraigne Vertue OF THE GOSPEL. PSAL. 147. 3. “He healeth them that are broken in heart, and bindeth up their wounds.” HEre are two things con⸗tained in this Text: the Patients, and the Phyſiti⸗an. Firſt, the Patients; the broken in heart. Secondly, the Phyſitian, Chriſt, it is he that healeth and bindeth up their wounds. The Patients here are felt and diſcerned to have two wounds or maladies; Firſt, brokenneſſe in heart; Secondly, wound⸗edneſſe: He binds up ſuch.
  3. In his ATV entry, Skousen points out that The linkages are certainly reasonable, making wickedness as likely a reading as woundedness, which is visually similar. It might have been a misreading by JS during the dictation — that is, he saw wickedness but said woundedness. If woundedness is the correct reading, there are three instances supporting an early modern view of it.
  4. EEBO: 1639, a1641, 1650; GOOG: 1751, 1829; doesn't turn up in ECCO currently.
  5. Italics is significant in places, but it's just part of the story, and so many of the non-italics changes cast doubt on the hypothesis that it was Joseph Smith making the changes. As for archaic vocabulary, if you look at section 1 of NOL there are 39 candidates. Under a very critical inspection there are enough that hold up as genuinely archaic and nonbiblical to support the weaker candidates. That determination is based not only the Oxford English Dictionary, but on other dictionaries and databases like EEBO, ECCO, and Google Books. There were at least five OED entries that we found to be deficient. And there's further lexical usage to consider in another three sections of NOL that holds up as authentically archaic as well. I don't know how many of those will hold up on a critical inspection. Joseph didn't come up with this obsolete lexis, which supports ruling him out as the one who changed all the italicized words and who made the more than 500 other changes to the biblical quotes. Supporting all this is the syntax. There's a large amount of nonbiblical archaic syntax, in patterns and in individual instances, not found in pseudo-biblical texts or Joseph's early writings.
  6. You'll be able to refine this with the grid Skousen is publishing soon, similar to but different from your grid.
  7. Call me a rube, but I fail to see how this makes your argument stronger. Italics are the most common change...but even in your best case scenario that still leaves 62% to other causes. This does not give me confidence that Joseph Smith was targeting italics for his revision. So it's apologetic spin to count textual differences, make a note of whether italics were involved, and perform some simple arithmetic. Huh.
  8. I've worked with Skousen on his thorough analysis of biblical quoting in the Book of Mormon, which has already gone to press and will be out next month. After finally carrying out a complete analysis, he has reached firm figures on word/constituent changes in the quotes, including that less than 1/4 of the changes have to do with italics. Focusing solely on italics changes is convenient for your favored conclusion, but there are more than 500 other word/constituent differences. Because of that you must believe that Joseph Smith read from a heavily edited Bible to his scribes, something there is no external evidence for — neither advance preparation of a Bible nor reading from one. Nor is there evidence for him knowing what italics meant in 1829. The early 1830s quotes you put out there, one of which I'd seen before, are irrelevant. Ultimately, it's extremely unlikely that hundreds of the changes, some of them complex, would have been made by Joseph for the quotes. And the clustering point about italics leaves the wrong impression about the influence that the italics had on Book of Mormon changes. For example, at 1n1903, where italics them was left unchanged, the two very close changes are independent of the italicized pronoun; it doesn't motivate the changes. Indeed, there's no motivation for most of the non-italicized changes, whether near or far from an italicized word or phrase. Your position ultimately comes down to this. Joseph deceived people to think he didn't know much about biblical details in 1828 and 1829; he knew much more than he led people to believe, including about italics. He hid from many people his careful and extensive biblical preparations (editing) before the dictation. He fooled dictation witnesses, including Morse, into thinking that he didn't use any aids in dictating the text; he actually dictated from a heavily edited Bible at least 40 times during the dictation.
  9. There are big holes in this position, which I doubt is based on systematic, thorough analysis of all King James quoting in the Book of Mormon. More than 3/4 of the changes aren't related to italics. You don't know that Joseph knew what italics indicated in 1829. He probably knew a few years later.
  10. The best matches Skousen has found, using most of your points as well as quite a few others, and looking at 29 different editions, are three editions from the early 1800s: 1815, 1816, 1823.
  11. This is just a technical designation which for your purposes is irrelevant.
  12. I compare Book of Mormon syntax to pseudo-biblical texts and to Joseph Smith's early writings and to the King James Bible and to the greater textual record. I believe in systematic and thorough investigation of textual data. I don't agree with the approach of various prominent Latter-day Saint scholars who lightly investigate Book of Mormon English and make inaccurate pronouncements. Comparing content-rich phraseology with very simple syntax is weaker evidence for authorship determination, since the production of such phraseology relies on conscious thought to a high degree. For example, "curious workmanship" is a content-rich phrase with very simple syntax. The first attestation in the EEBO Phase 1 database is 1549; its use persisted into the late modern era. The presence of this phrase in the Book of Mormon and two pseudo-biblical texts tells us very little about Book of Mormon authorship. The meaning of curious in this phrase in the Book of Mormon is probably 'elaborate', although it has probably been thought to mean 'odd' or 'strange' through the years.
  13. Syntactic descriptions of lengthy texts provide a lot of hard, quantifiable data. English usage made broad shifts in a number of ways through the decades and centuries. One way it shifted from the early modern period to the late modern period was in personal relative pronoun selection. It is clear from Joseph Smith's early writings that he used these relative pronouns in a modern way, preferring who(m) over that over which. His 1829 dictation strongly preferred which over that and who(m). 24 pseudo-biblical texts that I've looked at don't have this profile. They either have modern profiles or biblical–modern profiles. (The King James Bible strongly prefers that over which over who(m).) The Book of Mormon profile is a less-common early modern profile. The text has a lot of less-common early modern usage in it. Another way English made a macro shift was in verb complementation. Finite verb complementation became less common over time. It is clear that Joseph's own verb complementation pattern was almost entirely infinitival. The Book of Mormon is very heavy in finite complementation, unlike pseudo-biblical texts, and it has nonbiblical complex finite constructions not found in pseudo-biblical texts. Some of these aren't found in the late modern period. The way the Book of Mormon employs the conjunction save also tends to rule out Joseph as the author. It is inaccurate to exclude the 17th century and merely say the 16th century. And it is inaccurate to think the mix of early modern and late modern is 50/50. It is closer to 98/2. It would take a lot of work to get a reliable figure. It doesn't really matter for purposes of authorship determination, however, since the original Book of Mormon text has plenty of nonbiblical archaic syntax and lexis that isn't found in pseudo-biblical texts, which is the determining factor.
  14. This is surpassed by Skousen, NOL, 2018, which presents 80 possible candidates of archaic lexis in sections 1,3,4,7. Some of these won't stand up to scrutiny, but many will. For example, ECCO's search capability improved at the time NOL went to press in 2018, enabling the researcher to now find a few of the archaic candidates in the 1700s. Syntactic comparisons are more valuable, generally speaking. Thee and thou persistence is basic stuff. What's interesting, for example, is noting that the Book of Mormon has close singular ye ~ thou variation, which can be found in the extrabiblical textual record. I'd say that for authorship determination, syntax is most important, then lexis, then grammar. Everything else is weaker evidence. The part in bold is circular and stipulative in relation to the unique case of the Book of Mormon: Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon so it's his spoken language. Syntactic studies like personal relative pronoun selection and verb complementation patterns are strong evidence for authorship determination. One looks at pseudo-biblical texts, the King James Bible, late modern usage, early modern usage, and Joseph's own tendencies, as found in his early writings (letters and his 1832 history). These comparisons clearly indicate that the Book of Mormon's patterns in these two cases are distinct, that they're not like any of those except for a subset of early modern usage. There is mutual support for this finding in many different syntactic domains and in the archaic lexis, which doesn't show up in pseudo-biblical texts, and even from a lot of the Book of Mormon's interesting grammar, since there's plenty that isn't known to be Joseph's own grammar: things like the Hebrew-like and after complex subordinate clauses, "things which is", most object they usage, a lot of the multiple negation, etc.
  • Create New...