1500S Grammar In The Book Of Mormon. Help Me See Why That's "dramatically Exciting"

[VideoGameJunkie]

I wonder how we'll talk and communicate with everyone in heaven. I'm assuming we'll be able to read people's minds and communicate with our thoughts and understand each other.

[Danzo]

Why are people (including Dan Peterson) getting excited about apparent 1500s grammar in the BoM. Why is Early Modern English (EmodE) and past tense syntax evidence of ancient (Mesoamerican) origin?

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153030887386357&id=634891356

As some of the later commenters point out: the "did go" past tense syntax is found in the writing of Joseph's mother AND his own modern revelations. Stuff he was dictating in 1828-1830 all has examples of this. If we find it in his modern scripture (sections 9 and 10 of D&C) then why is it remarkable when found in the Book of Mormon.

I'm baffled why anyone considers this to be in any way evidence for the Book of Mormon's authenticity.

Here's the abstract from the article referenced:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-implications-of-past-tense-syntax-in-the-book-of-mormon/

The only evidence is the frequency of use, not its use at all.

Given there's evidence that both Joseph and his mother used the particular past tense syntax in their other writing, why should this be remarkable that it's also found in the Book of Mormon?

 

 

Scholars are always getting excited about learning new things.  They are funny like that.

 

[ERayR]

Definitely interesting.   Trying to figure how it hooks up, but in this wacky world anything can happen.  I don't discount anything as a possibility- a coherent and reasonable story is another thing.

 

Maybe Moroni met one of his descendants in the spirit world and asked him to do the "English Translation" for him, which Joseph channeled.   Hey- I have heard worse explanations for some of this stuff. 

 

If you haven't read the piece I linked to I would recommend it.

[Coreyb]

I wonder how we'll talk and communicate with everyone in heaven. I'm assuming we'll be able to read people's minds and communicate with our thoughts and understand each other.

I hope not. I have no desire to read anyone's thoughts or have anyone read mine.

[mfbukowski]

If you haven't read the piece I linked to I would recommend it.

I read it but I guess I missed how this relates to the 16th century.   If I concede there were Nephites in the British Isles in ancient times who had descendants etc and even go with the idea, let's say, that they were practicing Nephite religion into the 16th century (just to be agreeable and as open as I can to the idea) - How do we get to the translation in 16h century English?

 

Did I miss something?

[Robert F. Smith]

Why are people (including Dan Peterson) getting excited about apparent 1500s grammar in the BoM. Why is Early Modern English (EmodE) and past tense syntax evidence of ancient (Mesoamerican) origin?

.....................................................   

Not sure what Mesoamerica has to do with this issue . . .

However, the facebook conversation was interesting, even if it didn't observe all the particular nuances of Carmack's argument.  It is clear that more research must be done.

By the way, who is Gideon Wilkins on this board?  Anyone care to fess up?

[Robert F. Smith]

The premise is that the Lombards were Hagoths ships that landed in Europe and spread out through out Europe, including England. It is an interesting read.

 

My brilliant connection is the possibility of the english language development being influenced by this intermingling.  Fun maybes.

Did they link up with British Israel at any point?

[mfbukowski]

And the Lombardic peoples spoke a Germanic language?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombardic_language

[canard78]

I'd be interested to see the same syntax analysis done on D&C compared to BM and Bible. Also, since it's not really present in the PoGP (by a quick count I found only 7 - Moses 1:10; 4:12,18,19; 5:1; 8:27, Abr 1:10), I'd also be curious to see if the D&C loses the 16c past-tense syntax overtime, suggesting that Smith's writing was influenced by the BM in the early years but later he developed his own writing style by the time the books of Moses and Abraham come on the scene.

There does seem to be a slightly higher frequency of use in the earlier sections of D&C.

Your theory could be explained another way: frequent use of the syntax WAS Joseph's writing style which only changed later as others started influencing him and his ideas (Rigdon etc)

[Uncle Dale]

 

...

 

Did I miss something?

 

No need to worry about Hagoth, Nephites, or whatever.

The interesting point made in the article is that PARTS

of the Book of Mormon make use of language that was

archaic even in the days of King James (Jacobin times).

His Bible revived some older elements of the language,

so the KJV was a bit old-fashioned, even when first

published. But that was in 1611.

 

The fragments of really archaic English found in PARTS

of the Book of Mormon were more widely used in 1511

than in 1611. And that's an interesting thing.

 

But, before we get all heated up about this discovery

(which has been kicking around for several years in

scholarly domains), we should also remember that we

are talking about literary English -- the way books are

written -- the language of universities and scholars.

 

The common folk, out in the rural areas of Cornwall,

or Lancashire, or wherever, were generally a couple

of generations "older" in their traditional vernacular.

And, when they shipped off to America and moved

up into the colonial wilderness (and eventually into

the hills and mountains) some of those migrants

were still talking 1511 style in 1711, or perhaps in

1811, when it came to singing ballads or reciting

passed-down oral stuff.

 

So -- it is marginally possible that young Joe Smith

himself was using pre-Jacobin English.

 

But I doubt it.

 

Maybe some of his Quaker neighbors preserved a

bit of the old style speech -- but I suppose that they

mostly emulated the KJV Bible talk.

 

No -- there is some literary connection in PARTS

of the Book of Mormon with archaic, pre-KJV English,

and it did not all come from the Hillbillies of that era.

 

We need to very carefully chart out the varieties of

English found in the book -- their distributions and

intensities. We need to know where one style ends

and another begins -- keeping in mind, all the while,

that editorial redaction ("abridgement in Saintspeak)

can blur and obscure the transitions.

 

Let's look again at an except from the article summary:

 

The 1611 King James Bible — which borrowed heavily from Tyndale’s biblical translations of the 1520s and ’30s — employs this syntax less than 2% of the time. While the Book of Mormon’s rate is significantly higher than the Bible’s, it is close to what is found in other English-language texts written mainly in the mid- to late 1500s. And the usage died out in the 1700s. So the Book of Mormon is unique for its time — this is especially apparent when features of adjacency, inversion, and intervening adverbial use are considered. Textual evidence and syntactic analysis argue strongly against both 19th-century composition and an imitative effort based on King James English. Book of Mormon past-tense syntax could have been achieved only by following the use of largely inaccessible 16th-century writings.

 

 

What does "largely inaccessible 16th-century writings" entail?

Where were such specimens of archaic English still referred

to, quoted, and passed down?

 

We might look at the work of another Carmack (Noel at USU) to

get a hint. The genre is conjuring, seer-stones, angelic visitations,

sleep-prophesying, magic, alchemy, astrology, and Freemasonry.

 

Look there. Look to John Dee and to Edward Kelley. Look to the

Royal Arch rituals.

 

Just a suggestion.

 

UD

[canard78]

Uh, think that one through. You wouldn't be here if you didn't believe a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago, and that has a direct bearing on where you will spend eternity.

Now THAT is a story that "strains credibility".

So because we all believe in certain supernatural events from the past we should also accept any fantastical theory presented? I don't think so.

Besides, it strains credibility that the Book of Mormon was translated in 1500s and then beamed into the mind/stone of Joseph because of the 100s of verbatim quotes from a translation of the Bible that would exist for another 50-100 years. How could those 1500s translators possibly have got Matthew's sermon on the mount or the Mark 16 farewell sermon word perfect??

[canard78]

The biblical characters did not speak in King James English. They spoke in Hebrew, Greek,

etc. The Book of Mormon switches between various English tones. Dallin H. Oaks says

the proper language to pray in is using the KJE forms. See the April 1993 GC.

"But as we gain experience as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,

we need to become more mature in all of our efforts, including our prayers".

Seems to say that if you don't use 'thee', 'thou', etc, then you are praying in an immature

way. Personally, I don't see any less honor in saying "We humbly petition you Lord for the

safe protection of your servants" versus "We humbly petition thee Lord for the safe protection

of thy servants".

Regards,

Jim

That also only works in English. The French "tu/toi" in prayers. That's also what's used for close friends, children and pets.

Thee/thou feels formal and reverent these days, but back in the day it was the same as the French. It was the singular/informal way of addressing someone.

It had started falling out of use by 1800s. The Book of Mormon regularly gets it mixed up. It sometimes uses "you" when addressing one person and "thee/thy" when addressing multiple people and then reverts back again later. Sometimes it's even mixed up in a single verse.

You'd expect that of a loose translation or fabrication in 1800s. You wouldn't of a tight one (especially if it was a transmission of a 1500s one).

[omni]

I think there's a pretty simple explanation for the usage of syntax. If the BoM is not if divine origins, then its author was simply trying to make it sound like the KJV - often times succeeding, sometimes failing. The specific form of the syntax in question is found in the Bible which JS could have very easily picked up on. While is usage is much greater in the BoM, that should be expected of some grammatical forms. I'm sure if we all tried right now to write a book in Jacobian English we would underuse some syntaxes while overusing others.

[Glenn101]

To claim that finding 15-16th century syntax in the BoM is proof that JS didn't write it wouldn't the argument also need some level of proof that JS didn't have access to 15-16th century literature? Maybe that syntax wasn't in the KJV of the bible but was it in other popular writings such as Shakespeare plays? If JS or his close associates had any access to this kind of popular writing wouldn't it be possible that JS picked up the syntax from those sources?

 

I'm with the OP. I fail to see how this discovery accomplishes anything at all.

 

 

Shakespeare was Early Modern English. As I was reading your post something zinged my mind back to my high school days in Literature Class (it could be senility) and a refrain from the Canterbury Tales (which happen to Middle English, originally). I will hereby copy and paste a portion, the part that keeps haunting me, for your edification. I am sure that the copyright has expired on this one, but even so, I am claiming "fair use".

 

     Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote

The droghte of March hath perced to the roote

And bathed every veyne in swich licour,

Of which vertu engendred is the flour;

Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth

Inspired hath in every holt and heeth

The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne

Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,

And smale foweles maken melodye,

That slepen al the nyght with open eye-

(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);

Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages

And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes

To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;

And specially from every shires ende

Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,

The hooly blisful martir for to seke

That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke.

 

I am sure that poor Joseph was going prematurely grey trying to wrest some coherence out of such texts to embellish his KJV plagarisms with some EModE stuff to throw us off the scent.

 

Glenn

[ERayR]

So because we all believe in certain supernatural events from the past we should also accept any fantastical theory presented? I don't think so.

Besides, it strains credibility that the Book of Mormon was translated in 1500s and then beamed into the mind/stone of Joseph because of the 100s of verbatim quotes from a translation of the Bible that would exist for another 50-100 years. How could those 1500s translators possibly have got Matthew's sermon on the mount or the Mark 16 farewell sermon word perfect??

 

You have certainly picked the least likely solution.  I don't believe that one either but there are certainly several better ones so try again.  I am sure that if you concentrate you can do it.

[Glenn101]

I think there's a pretty simple explanation for the usage of syntax. If the BoM is not if divine origins, then its author was simply trying to make it sound like the KJV - often times succeeding, sometimes failing. The specific form of the syntax in question is found in the Bible which JS could have very easily picked up on. While is usage is much greater in the BoM, that should be expected of some grammatical forms. I'm sure if we all tried right now to write a book in Jacobian English we would underuse some syntaxes while overusing others.

 

 

Please show us how Joseph could have "easily picked up on" that one form of syntax to the extent that is in the Book of Mormon. The article by Carmack argues against it.

 

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

I think there's a pretty simple explanation for the usage of syntax. If the BoM is not if divine origins, then its author was simply trying to make it sound like the KJV - often times succeeding, sometimes failing. The specific form of the syntax in question is found in the Bible which JS could have very easily picked up on. While is usage is much greater in the BoM, that should be expected of some grammatical forms. I'm sure if we all tried right now to write a book in Jacobian English we would underuse some syntaxes while overusing others.

 

 

I think you're on to something there, omni -- but perhaps a

wider perspective is called for, in examining the BoM text.

 

Here and there we can pick out very poor attempts at emulating

KJV English -- they stand out like sore thumbs, when compared

alongside the book's actual copying from Isaiah, Malachi, etc.

The impetus to try and render Jacobin English of that style might 

have come from reading the Protestant KJV, or KJV Apocrypha,

or early translations of Josephus (printed in some Bibles) or even

from listening to Quaker vernacular.

 

But the Book of Mormon also includes rather proper and successful

Jacobin English emulations -- just the sort of dichotomy we might 

expect if the Nephite Record was a joint product of two 19th century

writers, one of whom was more adapt at mimicking biblical passages 

(say, Joseph Smith, Jr. and Hyrum -- or perhaps Mother Smith, or

even Oliver Cowdery being the second, more accomplished writer).

 

However, besides all of that, there are two other interesting phenomena

discernible in the BoM text (sans the biblical borrowings) -- one of those

is its incorporation of two different contemporary American English

vernaculars (a variety common to New England, and another style more

typically found in the late 18th century Appalachians). 

 

And the second discernible oddity is just what Carmack's article points to,

and that is occasional instances of an archaic (pre-KJV) literary English.

And, as I also mentioned here in this thread, it is the sort of English we

might see in a John Dee or Edward Kelley treatise on conjuring, which

included lengthy quotations from a previous era, a couple of generations

before their time. See Noel Carmack's article in the summer 2014 JofMH

for some background on this arcane literature.

 

 

Somebody who contributed passages to the 1830 Book of Mormon text

was familiar with this esoteric, magickal lore -- with the Faculty of Abrac;

either that, or else a contributor to that Nephite Record had access to

examples of archaic English relating to religion, theology, supernatural,

etc. Perhaps a "Walters the Magician" from Sodus, New York (from which

place came another early 19th century prophet, speaking biblical prose,

who shared Palmyra's Dr. McIntire with the Joseph Smith family). Or,

perhaps the Master of the Palmyra Lodge, attended by Joseph Smith, Sr.

Or perhaps some neighbor Royal Arch Mason, interested in Enochian

lore promoted by that masonic fraternity (and explicated by Dee, Kelley

and other proto-masons, decades before Scottish Rite Freemason Bruce

actually tracked down and communicated the contents of Ethiopian Enoch).

 

Look for a Joseph Smith contemporary who was literate enough to have

an interest in archaic English, preserved in arcane and occult writings, and

then search for a possible association with the Smith family at Palmyra.

 

UD

[mfbukowski]

So because we all believe in certain supernatural events from the past we should also accept any fantastical theory presented? I don't think so.

Besides, it strains credibility that the Book of Mormon was translated in 1500s and then beamed into the mind/stone of Joseph because of the 100s of verbatim quotes from a translation of the Bible that would exist for another 50-100 years. How could those 1500s translators possibly have got Matthew's sermon on the mount or the Mark 16 farewell sermon word perfect??

My point was about epistemology.

You get to pick whatever fanciful story you like.

[stemelbow]

I think there's a pretty simple explanation for the usage of syntax. If the BoM is not if divine origins, then its author was simply trying to make it sound like the KJV - often times succeeding, sometimes failing. The specific form of the syntax in question is found in the Bible which JS could have very easily picked up on. While is usage is much greater in the BoM, that should be expected of some grammatical forms. I'm sure if we all tried right now to write a book in Jacobian English we would underuse some syntaxes while overusing others.

I still have the sneaking suspicion that Joseph was author, by and large, of the Book of Mormon. But not in the fraud sense. But in the sense that he spoke the story as it was told to him, rather than reading it off, even if at times he did have some things to read to the scribe. I know the work of Skousen and this work and many others would reject my sneaking suspicion though.

I see things like the above and then I hear critics get all worked up about how the study doesn't work and doesn't mean anything, as they shrug it off, and realize we're never really going to get what it takes to create scripture like Joseph did. We'll never be able to duplicate the process and without that, we're all just desperately clinging to our biases. That comes off, I'm sure as the cynical view, but I see it as a hopeful view.

[mfbukowski]

I think you're on to something there, omni -- but perhaps a

wider perspective is called for, in examining the BoM text.

 

Here and there we can pick out very poor attempts at emulating

KJV English -- they stand out like sore thumbs, when compared

alongside the book's actual copying from Isaiah, Malachi, etc.

The impetus to try and render Jacobin English of that style might 

have come from reading the Protestant KJV, or KJV Apocrypha,

or early translations of Josephus (printed in some Bibles) or even

from listening to Quaker vernacular.

 

But the Book of Mormon also includes rather proper and successful

Jacobin English emulations -- just the sort of dichotomy we might 

expect if the Nephite Record was a joint product of two 19th century

writers, one of whom was more adapt at mimicking biblical passages 

(say, Joseph Smith, Jr. and Hyrum -- or perhaps Mother Smith, or

even Oliver Cowdery being the second, more accomplished writer).

 

However, besides all of that, there are two other interesting phenomena

discernible in the BoM text (sans the biblical borrowings) -- one of those

is its incorporation of two different contemporary American English

vernaculars (a variety common to New England, and another style more

typically found in the late 18th century Appalachians). 

 

And the second discernible oddity is just what Carmack's article points to,

and that is occasional instances of an archaic (pre-KJV) literary English.

And, as I also mentioned here in this thread, it is the sort of English we

might see in a John Dee or Edward Kelley treatise on conjuring, which

included lengthy quotations from a previous era, a couple of generations

before their time. See Noel Carmack's article in the summer 2014 JofMH

for some background on this arcane literature.

 

 

Somebody who contributed passages to the 1830 Book of Mormon text

was familiar with this esoteric, magickal lore -- with the Faculty of Abrac;

either that, or else a contributor to that Nephite Record had access to

examples of archaic English relating to religion, theology, supernatural,

etc. Perhaps a "Walters the Magician" from Sodus, New York (from which

place came another early 19th century prophet, speaking biblical prose,

who shared Palmyra's Dr. McIntire with the Joseph Smith family). Or,

perhaps the Master of the Palmyra Lodge, attended by Joseph Smith, Sr.

Or perhaps some neighbor Royal Arch Mason, interested in Enochian

lore promoted by that masonic fraternity (and explicated by Dee, Kelley

and other proto-masons, decades before Scottish Rite Freemason Bruce

actually tracked down and communicated the contents of Ethiopian Enoch).

 

Look for a Joseph Smith contemporary who was literate enough to have

an interest in archaic English, preserved in arcane and occult writings, and

then search for a possible association with the Smith family at Palmyra.

 

UD

Thanks for your effort.

You like arcane details, I like to see how minutia fits into a rational world view, or might fit into a picture that could actually change the way we see the world.

That is what is still missing here for me

[mfbukowski]

I still have the sneaking suspicion that Joseph was author, by and large, of the Book of Mormon. But not in the fraud sense. But in the sense that he spoke the story as it was told to him, rather than reading it off, even if at times he did have some things to read to the scribe. I know the work of Skousen and this work and many others would reject my sneaking suspicion though.I see things like the above and then I hear critics get all worked up about how the study doesn't work and doesn't mean anything, as they shrug it off, and realize we're never really going to get what it takes to create scripture like Joseph did. We'll never be able to duplicate the process and without that, we're all just desperately clinging to our biases. That comes off, I'm sure as the cynical view, but I see it as a hopeful view.

Well Teryl Givens would be on your side. Read "Wrestling The Angel".

You still get to be a Mormon, you radical, you.

[stemelbow]

Well Teryl Givens would be on your side. Read "Wrestling The Angel".

You still get to be a Mormon, you radical, you.

Wife just set that book on my nightstand the other night, as luck would have it. I'll have to get into it.

[CV75]

I think there's a pretty simple explanation for the usage of syntax. If the BoM is not if divine origins, then its author was simply trying to make it sound like the KJV - often times succeeding, sometimes failing. The specific form of the syntax in question is found in the Bible which JS could have very easily picked up on. While is usage is much greater in the BoM, that should be expected of some grammatical forms. I'm sure if we all tried right now to write a book in Jacobian English we would underuse some syntaxes while overusing others.

Kind of like Clark Griswold saying a few words over his dearly departed mother?

[Uncle Dale]

I still have the sneaking suspicion that Joseph was author, by and large, of the Book of Mormon. But not in the fraud sense. But in the sense that he spoke the story as it was told to him, rather than reading it off, even if at times he did have some things to read to the scribe. I know the work of Skousen and this work and many others would reject my sneaking suspicion though.

I see things like the above and then I hear critics get all worked up about how the study doesn't work and doesn't mean anything, as they shrug it off, and realize we're never really going to get what it takes to create scripture like Joseph did. We'll never be able to duplicate the process and without that, we're all just desperately clinging to our biases. That comes off, I'm sure as the cynical view, but I see it as a hopeful view.

 

 

I'll paste in below the final paragraph from Noel Carmack's

Summer 2014 MHA paper, "The Curious Case of Joseph Howard,

Palmyra’s Seventeen-Year-Old Somnium Preacher" --

 

...This, of course, assumes a belief in Joseph Smith as translator of an ancient text.

Regardless of the tools used -- whether by a Urim and Thummim, a seer stone,

or staring into a hat -- the outcome of Smith's method of translation was religious

utterances recorded by scribes. However one chooses to characterize it,

Joseph Smith's mediumistic method of translation (or dictation) can now be

placed in context with two other known examples of subconscious religious

exhortations taken down by dictation -- one of which occurred only blocks

away from the reflective, developing boy prophet.

 

I'm convinced that the young farmboy "Prophet" Joseph Howard (who lived

just north of Palmyra, in Sodus) was a fake -- what folks back then called

a "juggler" or a "necromancer." But he was evidently mimicking the more

likely authentic prophesying in biblical language, reported as coming from

Rachel Baker. She was a resident of Onondaga Co., New York -- the same

place that Samuel L. Mitchell identified as the ancient Garden of Eden. She

was brought to Mitchell for examination and analysis. This was the same guy

to whom Nephite "caractors" were later brought for examination and analysis.

 

At any rate, young Howard played the part of a prophet, to the satisfaction

of many of his upstate New York admirers. Whether his prophecies were

delivered in KJV English or in earlier, archaic literary English, I don't know.

However, I have the sneaking suspicion that Joseph Howard's trances were 

imitation Mesmerizings, produced by "Walters the Magician" of Sodus, who 

claimed to have traveled to Europe. Mesmer's hypnosis was in vogue there

quite awhile before it became popular in America. Either an authentic display

of hypnosis (or a con artist's bogus show of hypnosis) would have caused

quite a sensation in and around Palmyra in 1818-19 (the year before the

purported "first vision" of another prophetic farmboy from that same area).

 

???

 

UD

[Uncle Dale]

 

...a rational world view...

 

.

Rational? Who? Me?

 

Naw -- I'm much more taken by the mystical muse --

the transcending of reason -- the life of prayer --

becoming one with God -- and the final realization --

the ultimate theosis.

 

I just read the Journal of Mormon History to occupy my

attention during my increasingly frequent trips to the

"little boys' room."

 

UD