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

[name]

Hello Stem!
 

But I'm wrong about nearly everything, so whateves.

 

 

(Hope all is well with you and yours, friend.)

[Uncle Dale]

Certainly, I would say, the bigger question that seems outstanding is what influenced the syntax?

I agree that something like this piece isn't going to mean much to critics, after all they've approached

the issue that Joseph created the book, most likely, with some help.

...

 

.

I'm not so sure that very many hostile critics have concluded that

there was "some help." However, if we include defending "critics"

as well, their admissions of "some help" seems limited to:

 

1. Joseph Smith made use of the "some help" offered by

his own command of early 19th century American English

vernacular (and did not simply call off the spellings of words

magically appearing upon a parchment-like surface inside

the darkness of his white tophat.

 

2. Joseph Smith made use of the "some help" offered by

his memories of reading the KJV text -- so that each time he

came across Nephite narration corresponding closely with

biblical accounts, he could employ the KJV English. A

refinement of this notion lies in the possibility that Smith

actually had a KJV Bible available to him, and that he now

and then consulted its pages directly.

 

3. Joseph Smith made use of the "some help" offered by

Oliver Cowdery's slightly superior command of English and

scribal orthography -- thus, it may have been Oliver himself

who decided upon the wording of the very short summaries

found atop some of the Dictated MS pages, etc. A refinement

of this notion can be found in the possibility that Oliver now

and then contributed to the text. However, since only a single

passage in the extant Dictated MS pages is in Smith's hand,

Oliver's dictation would have been very, very limited. Add to

that the "burning in the bosom" D&C section's information,

and it would appear that Oliver's input was limited to a single,

not very successful attempt at "translation."

 

So far as I know, the above pretty much shows the limitations

that defensive critical analysis would offer for "some help."

 

Even if we consider only the disinterested, objective explanations

of Smith's purported "translation," they amount to such far out

speculations as "automatic writing," or split-personality disorder,

or epileptic fits, etc.

 

The hostile critics are prone to introduce all sorts of "some help"

notions -- but, I'd say, in 95% of contemporary criticism, the idea

remains very strong that Smith himself composed the entirety of

the Nephite Record, with no help from family, friends or neighbors;

also that he did not copy from existing written/published works,

other than a phrase from Shakespeare here, and a clause from

the Westminster Confession there -- along with, perhaps, a brief

paraphrase of a sentence published in the dedication preface

of the original KJV.

 

I can discover practically zero contemporary critics who speculate

Smith's receiving "some help" from other writers, living or dead.

The one substantial exception to that 0% being Prof. Criddle.

 

UD

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 

I can discover practically zero contemporary critics who speculate

Smith's receiving "some help" from other writers, living or dead.

The one substantial exception to that 0% being Prof. Criddle.

 

UD

Yeh, but is Criddle credible?  And is he readable?

Perhaps you could edit for him . . .

[Uncle Dale]

Yeh, but is Criddle credible?  And is he readable?

Perhaps you could edit for him . . .

 

We have spoken -- on occasion.

 

I get the feeling that he views me in much the same way

that a rap singer looks upon a classical harpist with

over-callused fingers.

 

"Doe -- a deer, a female deer...

Ray -- a drop of golden sun..."

 

UD

[canard78]

I think Hugh Nibley's point at the end of this excellent section (bolded) is very relevant to the OP:

 

-SNIP-

 

“Actually the Bible passages quoted in the Book of Mormon often differ from the King James Version, but where the latter is correct there is every reason why it should be followed.

 

So does that mean that if the Book of Mormon quotes the KJV perfectly then we can be confidence that the KJV is correct? In which case, isn't there a problem when the BoM quotes KJV perfectly in passages that actually are incorrect. Not only incorrect compared to other renditions and versions but even incorrect if the benchmark is the Joseph Smith Translation. Or is the JST correcting incorrectly? It's fairly clear from the words of Joseph that he felt he was created an inspired correction and translation through revelation. See this article for example. 

 

We do not claim the King James Version or the Septuagint to be the original scriptures—in fact, nobody on earth today knows where the original scriptures are or what they say. Inspired men have in every age been content to accept the received version of the people among whom they labored, with the Spirit giving correction where correction was necessary.  

 

Since the Book of Mormon is a translation, ‘with all its faults,’ [this was the title of a series of articles on Bible manuscripts and texts in Christianity Today at the time of Nibley’s article]  into English for English‐speaking people whose fathers for generations had known no other scriptures but the standard English Bible, it would be both pointless and confusing to present the scriptures to them in any other form, so far as their teachings were correct.

 

So was Nibley a "loose" translation advocate... if it's a book with all its faults and rendered in the language of the day? What would he have made of grammar from 1500s? Grammar which apologists claim Joseph couldn't have known or used? Grammar that predates the KJV.

 

-SNIP-

Now as to [the] question, ‘Why did Joseph Smith, a nineteenth century American farm boy, translate the Book of Mormon into seventeenth century King James English instead of into contemporary language?’  The first thing to note is that the ‘contemporary language’ of the country‐people of New England 130 years ago was not so far from King James English. Even the New England writers of later generations, like Webster, Melville, and Emerson, lapse into its stately periods and "thees and thous" in their loftier

passages.

 

And this is exactly the problem with the past tense syntax "to go..." etc. It was apparently falling out of use by the time of the translation of the KJV. 1550s is Tudor era (Mary I or Elizabeth I) not Jacobean. The grammar is claimed to be from the 1550s. KJV translation was started in 1604, a year after James I became king.

So I repeat the question: what possible explanation can anyone give for the presence of 1550s grammar in a book translated in the 1820s with language inspired from a book published in 1611? The only satisfactory explanation I can see are:

1) It's a tight translation and God chose to put 1550s grammar in because... (who knows...)

2) It's a loose translation and Joseph simply liked using the syntax.

 

Given there is evidence of this syntax appearing in Joseph's modern writings and dictations in 1820s and early 1830s then this second options seems by far the most obvious answer.

[canard78]

Keep trying.

Do you actually have a theory? Or do you just enjoy pretending you do?

If you think there's a credible reason for the "did go" appearing in the BoM then I'd gladly consider it. No one else seems to have one.

[DJBrown]

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?

 

I have a theory about scriptural language.  And the findings in this paper seem to support that theory.

 

Why does the church insist of using the KJV of the Bible?  Why does the language of the Book of Mormon- God's tool for converting the world- include archaic, formal English? I think the answers to these two questions are similar and related.

 

If you had to choose a language in which to deliver to the world a message of supreme importance in preparation for the second coming of Christ, which language would offer the greatest possible influence for that message?  English.  No doubt.  By a large margin, the most common second language in the world is English. That is not insignificant. And what is that message?  The Book of Mormon.

 

Why is English the most common second language?  Most likely, it is the result of the enormous influence English speaking people have had in the world over the last 500 years.  If you look at politics, religion, science, economics- no other group of people has had as big an influence as those who speak English.  So it could be argued that "getting the message out" would be most effective if English was chosen as the language from which that message originated.

 

Now, what form of English makes the most sense?  Well, what is being communicated?  A message from God, calling the world to repent and accept the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

 

Researchers at the University of Liverpool have discovered some fascinating things about cognitive function and texts.  They have used MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) to evaluate brain activity in people reading various documents and forms of English.  They have found that writing from classic English writers, typified by Shakespeare, stimulates the brain like no other form of English.  They took classic literature, like Shakespeare, and had subjects read samples of the original as well as more "modernized" variations of the poems and literature.  

 

Researchers state that such formal readings, "increases activity in the right hemisphere of the brain, an area concerned with 'autobiographical memory', helping the reader to reflect on and reappraise their own experiences in light of what they have read." The academics said this meant the classics were more useful than self-help books.  "Serious literature acts like a rocket-booster to the brain."

 

The reading of the classic version of the literature caused a "greater degree of brain activity, lighting up not only the left part of the brain concerned with language, but also the right hemisphere that relates to autobiographical memory and emotion." It seems to "trigger 'reappraisal mechanisms' causing the reader to reflect and rethink their own experiences in light of what they read."

 

The paper by Carmack is further evidence that the text of the Book of Mormon did not result from a 19th century source, Joseph Smith or others.  Rather, the text more closely reflects a 16th century use of the English language in a way that no 19th century individual could have reproduced, although many tried.  And my goofy theory offers one possible explanation for why God would want the Book of Mormon text to come forth in early Modern English.

 

By the way, in arguing that Lucy and Joseph Smith used this type of past tense syntax in their writings, I think you are oversimplifying the structures discussed by Carmack.  I don't think it is a simple matter of using the word "did" in front of verbs.  

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9797617/Shakespeare-and-Wordsworth-boost-the-brain-new-research-reveals.html

[canard78]

I have a theory about scriptural language. And the findings in this paper seem to support that theory.

Why does the church insist of using the KJV of the Bible? Why does the language of the Book of Mormon- God's tool for converting the world- include archaic, formal English? I think the answers to these two questions are similar and related.

If you had to choose a language in which to deliver to the world a message of supreme importance in preparation for the second coming of Christ, which language would offer the greatest possible influence for that message? English. No doubt. By a large margin, the most common second language in the world is English. That is not insignificant. And what is that message? The Book of Mormon.

Why is English the most common second language? Most likely, it is the result of the enormous influence English speaking people have had in the world over the last 500 years. If you look at politics, religion, science, economics- no other group of people has had as big an influence as those who speak English. So it could be argued that "getting the message out" would be most effective if English was chosen as the language from which that message originated.

Now, what form of English makes the most sense? Well, what is being communicated? A message from God, calling the world to repent and accept the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Researchers at the University of Liverpool have discovered some fascinating things about cognitive function and texts. They have used MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) to evaluate brain activity in people reading various documents and forms of English. They have found that writing from classic English writers, typified by Shakespeare, stimulates the brain like no other form of English. They took classic literature, like Shakespeare, and had subjects read samples of the original as well as more "modernized" variations of the poems and literature.

Researchers state that such formal readings, "increases activity in the right hemisphere of the brain, an area concerned with 'autobiographical memory', helping the reader to reflect on and reappraise their own experiences in light of what they have read." The academics said this meant the classics were more useful than self-help books. "Serious literature acts like a rocket-booster to the brain."

The reading of the classic version of the literature caused a "greater degree of brain activity, lighting up not only the left part of the brain concerned with language, but also the right hemisphere that relates to autobiographical memory and emotion." It seems to "trigger 'reappraisal mechanisms' causing the reader to reflect and rethink their own experiences in light of what they read."

The paper by Carmack is further evidence that the text of the Book of Mormon did not result from a 19th century source, Joseph Smith or others. Rather, the text more closely reflects a 16th century use of the English language in a way that no 19th century individual could have reproduced, although many tried. And my goofy theory offers one possible explanation for why God would want the Book of Mormon text to come forth in early Modern English.

By the way, in arguing that Lucy and Joseph Smith used this type of past tense syntax in their writings, I think you are oversimplifying the structures discussed by Carmack. I don't think it is a simple matter of using the word "did" in front of verbs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9797617/Shakespeare-and-Wordsworth-boost-the-brain-new-research-reveals.html

Very interesting link. I wonder what implications this has for other countries that are using more modern versions of their language for translations of the bible (and the Book of Mormon). In France, for example, the church has no approved translation of the bible.

That gives a good rationale for why use the KJV English. But... given the past tense syntax is pre-KJV translation and given KJV only uses it 2% of the time... What is the 1500s grammar doing there. What cognitive benefit does it offer and how did it get in there?

[rongo]

I think the answer is from my previous post, canard. Here is the relevant portion (from a Hugh Nibley quote):

 

Now as to [the] question, ‘Why did Joseph Smith, a nineteenth century American farm boy, translate the Book of Mormon into seventeenth century King James English instead of into contemporary language?’  The first thing to note is that the ‘contemporary language’ of the country‐people of New England 130 years ago was not so far from King James English. Even the New England writers of later generations, like Webster, Melville, and Emerson, lapse into its stately periods and "thees and thous" in their loftier passages.   For that matter, we still pray in that language and teach our small children to do the same; that is, we still recognize the validity of a special speech set apart for special occasions. My old Hebrew and Arabic teacher, Professor Popper, would throw a student out of the class who did not use ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ in constructing. ‘This is the word of God!’ he would cry indignantly. ‘This is the Bible! Let us show a little respect; let us have a little formal English here!’   Furthermore, the Book of Mormon is full of scripture, and for the world of Joseph Smith's day, the King James Version was the Scripture, as we have noted; large sections of the Book of Mormon, therefore, had to be in the language of the King James Version—and what of the rest of it? That is scripture, too.  

 

One can think of lots of arguments for using King James English in the Book of Mormon, but the clearest comes out of very recent experience. In the past decade, as you know, certain ancient non‐biblical texts, discovered near the Dead Sea, have been translated by modern, up‐to‐date American readers. I open at random a contemporary Protestant scholar's modern translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and what do I read? ‘For thine is the battle, and by the strength of thy hand their corpses were scattered without burial. Goliath the Hittite, a mighty man of valor, thou didst deliver into the hand of thy servant David.’   Obviously the man who wrote this knew the Bible, and we must not forget that ancient scribes were consciously archaic in their writing, so that most of the scriptures were probably in old‐fashioned language the day they were written down. To efface that solemn antique style by the latest up‐to‐date usage is to translate falsely.   At any rate, Professor Burrows . . . falls naturally and without apology into the language of the King James Bible. Or take a modern Jewish scholar who purposely avoids archaisms in his translation of the Scrolls for modern American readers: ‘All things are inscribed before Thee in a recording script, for every moment of time, for the infinite cycles of years, in their several appointed times. No single thing is hidden, naught missing from Thy presence.’ Professor Gaster, too, falls under the spell of our religious idiom.   By frankly using that idiom, the Book of Mormon avoids the necessity of having to be redone into ‘modern English’ every thirty or forty years. If the plates were being translated for the first time today, it would still be King James English!” (Hugh Nibley, “The Prophetic Book of Mormon,” [salt Lake City: Deseret, 1990] pp. 214‐218).

 

I think the archaic nature of the Book of Mormon's specific language is significant, and I find Nibley's claim that the Book of Mormon would be translated in that same language if it were translated today, in 2015, or any other year to be intriguing. This mode of speech has a  certain feel about it that even puts those who tend towards modern English renditions "under its spell," as Nibley demonstrated with Gaster and Burrows.

[mfbukowski]

I have a theory about scriptural language.  And the findings in this paper seem to support that theory.

 

Why does the church insist of using the KJV of the Bible?  Why does the language of the Book of Mormon- God's tool for converting the world- include archaic, formal English? I think the answers to these two questions are similar and related.

 

If you had to choose a language in which to deliver to the world a message of supreme importance in preparation for the second coming of Christ, which language would offer the greatest possible influence for that message?  English.  No doubt.  By a large margin, the most common second language in the world is English. That is not insignificant. And what is that message?  The Book of Mormon.

 

Why is English the most common second language?  Most likely, it is the result of the enormous influence English speaking people have had in the world over the last 500 years.  If you look at politics, religion, science, economics- no other group of people has had as big an influence as those who speak English.  So it could be argued that "getting the message out" would be most effective if English was chosen as the language from which that message originated.

 

Now, what form of English makes the most sense?  Well, what is being communicated?  A message from God, calling the world to repent and accept the gospel of Jesus Christ.  

 

Researchers at the University of Liverpool have discovered some fascinating things about cognitive function and texts.  They have used MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) to evaluate brain activity in people reading various documents and forms of English.  They have found that writing from classic English writers, typified by Shakespeare, stimulates the brain like no other form of English.  They took classic literature, like Shakespeare, and had subjects read samples of the original as well as more "modernized" variations of the poems and literature.  

 

Researchers state that such formal readings, "increases activity in the right hemisphere of the brain, an area concerned with 'autobiographical memory', helping the reader to reflect on and reappraise their own experiences in light of what they have read." The academics said this meant the classics were more useful than self-help books.  "Serious literature acts like a rocket-booster to the brain."

 

The reading of the classic version of the literature caused a "greater degree of brain activity, lighting up not only the left part of the brain concerned with language, but also the right hemisphere that relates to autobiographical memory and emotion." It seems to "trigger 'reappraisal mechanisms' causing the reader to reflect and rethink their own experiences in light of what they read."

 

The paper by Carmack is further evidence that the text of the Book of Mormon did not result from a 19th century source, Joseph Smith or others.  Rather, the text more closely reflects a 16th century use of the English language in a way that no 19th century individual could have reproduced, although many tried.  And my goofy theory offers one possible explanation for why God would want the Book of Mormon text to come forth in early Modern English.

 

By the way, in arguing that Lucy and Joseph Smith used this type of past tense syntax in their writings, I think you are oversimplifying the structures discussed by Carmack.  I don't think it is a simple matter of using the word "did" in front of verbs.  

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/9797617/Shakespeare-and-Wordsworth-boost-the-brain-new-research-reveals.html

I like it!  Dunno that I fully accept it, but a very interesting idea!

[mfbukowski]

Very interesting link. I wonder what implications this has for other countries that are using more modern versions of their language for translations of the bible (and the Book of Mormon). In France, for example, the church has no approved translation of the bible.

That gives a good rationale for why use the KJV English. But... given the past tense syntax is pre-KJV translation and given KJV only uses it 2% of the time... What is the 1500s grammar doing there. What cognitive benefit does it offer and how did it get in there?

You could postulate that God knew that 1) English speaking culture would dominate world culture (I am talking about culture- movies, the internet, academics, medicine, etc- not politics) and that 2) this particular style of English is more stimulating for people in the "latter days", perhaps because it is now "old" in our times and takes some concentration to follow and put together mentally

 

You could postulate that he chose this language style precisely to "stimulate" the spiritual minds of our now- present world culture.  Like it or not, modern English is definitely in a position to be a strong influence in world culture like never before.

 

AND you could postulate that the BOM specifically uses the MOST "stimulating" language- even more so than the KJV.  So perhaps the KJV is imitating the BOM language and not the other way around. 

 

It's a fun idea.  Like I said, dunno that I fully accept it, but it could catch on in certain circles maybe.

Edited March 12, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

Actually, I believe that it does.

 

It strengthens and confirms (to me at least) that the first quarter

and the last quarter of the Book of Mormon were "translated"

apart from a continuing rendering of the text from Mosiah onward.

 

I know that there are some skeptics, who insist that the text was

set down in the manuscript, in just the same chronological order

as we see them compiled in the 1830 book (priority of 1st Nephi).

 

But, I see also that numerous (perhaps the majority of) BoM scholars

now accept the "priority of Mosiah" -- and that the "few pages retained"

when Harris took the Book of Lehi away (and lost it) were ones beginning

the set "translated" from April 6, 1829 onward.

 

There are other reasons for accepting this transcription order, but if 

Metcalfe's paper "tells us nothing," then those additional points are

weakened and the entire "Mosiah priority" wikipedia page should be

scrapped.

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

Brent's observation tells us nothing in the way of the priority of Mosiah, which is accepted by everyone -- except maybe a yokel here or there.  The priority of Mosiah depends on completely other arguments.

 

Indeed, when an apologist for anything uses inconsequential data, he is roundly condemned as attaching himself to mere coincidence.

[canard78]

I think the answer is from my previous post, canard. Here is the relevant portion (from a Hugh Nibley quote):

I'd seen that and replied to it. But according to this new research it wasn't that Joseph chose (or was given) 17thC English... It was 16thC. With no logical reason offered why.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 

And this is exactly the problem with the past tense syntax "to go..." etc. It was apparently falling out of use by the time of the translation of the KJV. 1550s is Tudor era (Mary I or Elizabeth I) not Jacobean. The grammar is claimed to be from the 1550s. KJV translation was started in 1604, a year after James I became king.

So I repeat the question: what possible explanation can anyone give for the presence of 1550s grammar in a book translated in the 1820s with language inspired from a book published in 1611? The only satisfactory explanation I can see are:

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

The KJV is not a translation so much as a revision of previous Bibles -- especially the Geneva Bible, with its Presbyterian bent.

 

The KJV is neither Jacobean nor Elizabethan, since it actually goes back to Tyndale.

[Uncle Dale]

Brent's observation tells us nothing in the way of the priority of Mosiah, which is accepted by everyone -- except maybe a yokel here or there.  The priority of Mosiah depends on completely other arguments.

 

Indeed, when an apologist for anything uses inconsequential data, he is roundly condemned as attaching himself to mere coincidence.

 

You seem to have missed the point I made -- that the language

found in the first quarter of the book and the last quarter of the

book, is essentially the same (and, where not the same, it exhibits

practically the same variations in orthography, syntax, vocabulary,

etc.) -- while the language found in the middle portion of the book

is rather different than the "book-ends" of text, which were both

written down AFTER the mid-section.

 

You've expressed an interest in charting out various patterns of

language occurring throughout the book, as I recall.

 

I predict that the vast majority of those charts will portray word,

grammar, style, etc. patterns consistent with the first quarter and

the last quarter of the text, not only being written in sequence,

at the end of the "translation" process, but also documenting

shifts in language use occurring in that same chronological

sequence.

 

Certainly such a set of charts (say, a couple of hundred) would

provide a useful resource for serious students of the Nephite

Record and its text-critical analysis.

 

Correct?

 

UD

[rongo]

I'd seen that and replied to it. But according to this new research it wasn't that Joseph chose (or was given) 17thC English... It was 16thC. With no logical reason offered why.

Yes, you did reply. I totally missed that. Sorry!

 

I think focusing on whether it was 15th, or 16th, or 17th century English misses the point. It wasn't remotely similar to Joseph Smith's language (cf. his letters or the 1832 First Vision account). I think that the more remarkable thing is the large quantity of verbatim KJV Bible in the Book of Mormon, (with over half of the Isaiah verses actually different from the KJV). All of the fifteen or so people closely involved with the dictation/transcription of the Book of Mormon text agree that no books or papers were used or consulted. The feats of memory required are staggering, and it is clear that the language came from Joseph Smith over the course of around 70 days of dictation (without papers or books). 

 

This is what I find to be the most amazing thing.

[rongo]

I think DJBrown's post is pretty important. There is a reason why English, the language of a tiny island nation, dominates the world ---- and why the Book of Mormon and the restoration of the Church happened in that language. And, there is a reason why certain archaic versions of that language have an effect on people, even today (cf. Nibley referring to Gaster and Burrows as examples). 

 

Years ago, I taught English and science at an "end-of-the-road" high school. Students were in their young twenties, and many had ankle monitoring devices from prison and frequent probation officer visits; others were pregnant and already had other children. A really rough lot. 

 

I chose to read "Macbeth" with them, and they really ate it up. They loved it. We read the original language, not a dumbed down "No fear Shakespeare" version. While I had to help explain some idioms and phrases, they understood quite a bit just with the flow and context. They liked it so much, they wanted to read more, so we read a comedy (Comedy of Errors) and Othello as well. There is a certain power and effect of this version of English, especially with respect to religion, philosophy, etc. that is missing in more modern versions. 

 

I also think that this helps explain why this version is important, even if there are translation errors (in the minds of scholars). I think that Joseph Smith rendered things in the version of "special scripture language" he was exposed to (with superhuman and supernatural feats of memory) in conveying concepts and thoughts that occurred to him during the translation process. These don't effect the message and intent of the Book of Mormon, even where "translation errors" in the KJV are perpetuated in the Book of Mormon.

[omni]

Yes, you did reply. I totally missed that. Sorry!

 

I think focusing on whether it was 15th, or 16th, or 17th century English misses the point. It wasn't remotely similar to Joseph Smith's language (cf. his letters or the 1832 First Vision account). I think that the more remarkable thing is the large quantity of verbatim KJV Bible in the Book of Mormon, (with over half of the Isaiah verses actually different from the KJV). All of the fifteen or so people closely involved with the dictation/transcription of the Book of Mormon text agree that no books or papers were used or consulted. The feats of memory required are staggering, and it is clear that the language came from Joseph Smith over the course of around 70 days of dictation (without papers or books). 

 

This is what I find to be the most amazing thing.

 

The large quantity of verbatim KJV Bible is what I find to be the biggest single critique of the BoM's authenticity.  It is for all intents and purposes impossible for that amount of text to be translated exactly the same, especially given the number of languages involved.  In addition, there isn't any consistency in the changes.  You have verses that are identical, some with differences in meaning, but the big WTF are those that are nearly identical, but with a few changed words that offer no discernable change in meaning to the scripture.  It's almost as if JS was memorizing the Bible verses and simply missed a couple of words.  

[Uncle Dale]

 

... It's almost as if JS was memorizing the Bible verses and simply missed a couple of words.  

 

.

Several of Joseph Smith's contempories recalled that he

possessed a remarkably good memory. So said his close

associate at Nauvoo, William Law. And when Hyrum suggested

that Joseph could obtain a duplicate of the lost sect. 132,

Joseph was able to do so from memory. I challenged anybody

nowadays to read through that long text and then to be able

to recite it an hour later, let alone a month later.

 

An earlier contemporary neighbor (this one in Palmyra) said

that Joseph Smith, Sr. could read though a book one time

and then recite its entire contents from memory. Very few

people have such an ability -- and it may be a genetic trait.

 

As Joseph Smith was dictating the text of the Book of Mormon,

he was seemingly able to recall its very similar English language

passages, as printed in the KJV Bible -- without having to look

at the bible itself. Or so said Emma Smith and others: that he

had no such reference texts beside him as he "translated."

 

Even more remarkable, Joseph was seemingly able to recall

which KJV words were printed in italics and which were not. Such

a memory would have to be "photographic" I suppose.

 

And, even more remarkable, Joseph changed about half of those

italicized words, substituting his own replacements, which generally

conform to a consistent early Mormon theology and worldview.

 

On the other hand, Smith may have consulted whatever texts he

wished to dictate, away from the sight of scribes and onlookers,

during "bathroom breaks" or other times when he was alone. If so,

his remarkable memorizations may have been "refreshed" shortly 

before their respective dictation periods.

 

UD

Edited March 14, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[omni]

On the other hand, Smith may have consulted whatever texts he

wished to dictate, away from the sight of scribes and onlookers,

during "bathroom breaks" or other times when he was alone. If so,

his remarkable memorizations may have been "refreshed" shortly

before their respective dictation periods.

UD

I think it could have been a combination of a good memory and the use of aids. Witnesses claimed Joseph never used a Bible, but he wouldn't have had to. All he would have really needed were notes with the verses written down that could have easily been concealed and placed in the hat. Or if you believe Oliver was more than just a good scribe, the notes could have been in plain sight and then quickly hidden if someone came in unexpectedly. Edited March 15, 2015 by omni

[Uncle Dale]

I think it could have been a combination of a good memory and the use of aids. Witnesses claimed Joseph never used a Bible, but he wouldn't have had to. All he would have really needed were notes with the verses written down that could have easily been concealed and placed in the hat. Or if you believe Oliver was more than just a good scribe, the notes could have been in plain site and then quickly hidden if someone came in unexpectedly.

 

One of the possessions of the Smith brothers (and, I think, that

of Joseph himself) was a "pocket bible," the sort of miniature

text that fit in a reader's hand -- pages so small that they would

easily fit into a hat.

 

That is not to say that Smith tore those small pages out of his

pocket bible and inserted them into the interior of a very dimly

lit stovepipe hat. Probably if we checked that particular volume,

we would find all of its pages still bound properly together.

 

But, as you say, an especially good memory, coupled with various

small (not easily noticed) "helps," would have well suited the holy

pretensions of a "translator" who was prone to keep things secret.

 

It's been said that Joseph belonged to a speaking-listening tradition

that treated books and writing as a lower, secondary means of

transmitting and learning preserved wisdom. I've even heard it

said that his eyesight was less than 20/20 and that he may have

had some difficulty, both in reading and writing. Possibly so.

 

But he was keen to get his book published and distributed. He had

noticed the success that William Morgan's anti-Masonic revelations

had, a few years earlier (and the success still evident in 1828-29).

Batavia and Rochester (where Morgan's writings were published)

were almost "local" to Smith's extended neighborhood.

 

Josiah Priest's "Wonders of Nature" (including lengthy quotes from

Ethan Smith's Israelite Indians book) was being peddled across the

state of New York (and especially along the Erie Canal) by pedestrian 

salesmen, going from village to village, and from door to door.

 

Even if Smith belonged to that older generation, whose seniors could

recite the entire KJV Bible (and detect an error in lengthy Masonic ritual

vocalizations) -- he still knew the potential value of a book, in the hands

of receptive, uncritical recipients.

 

Somehow, he found the means to get the book (and message) he wanted

spread, into those receptive hands.

 

UD

[Calm]

Please a reference for the pocket Bible claim.

[Uncle Dale]

Please a reference for the pocket Bible claim.

 

I think you can request scans, here:

The Church History Library

 

Pages from a pocket Bible owned by Joseph Smith, undated

Call Number: MS 3543

Summary: Selected pages from a small pocket Bible printed by

H. and E. Phinney in 1825, two of which contain the signature

of Joseph Smith.

 

UD

Edited March 15, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Glenn101]

I think it could have been a combination of a good memory and the use of aids. Witnesses claimed Joseph never used a Bible, but he wouldn't have had to. All he would have really needed were notes with the verses written down that could have easily been concealed and placed in the hat. Or if you believe Oliver was more than just a good scribe, the notes could have been in plain sight and then quickly hidden if someone came in unexpectedly.

 

Was Joseph wearing glasses with lights in the frames??? Or maybe he had led eyes??? Or maybe one of the stones from the Jaredite barges was kept in the hat so he could read his notes??? And maybe he could twitch his nose and turn the pages??? This is getting better all of the time.

 

Some of the verses in the Book of Mormon do indeed read as if they were lifted directly from the Bible. And then others, purporting to quote the same author, have significant variant readings that are not found in the in the KJV.

 

John A. Tvedtnes, in his work on "Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon" says:

"Of the 478 verses in the Book of Mormon quoted from the book of Isaiah, 201 agree with the King James reading while 207 show variations. Some 58 are paraphrased and 11 others are variants and/or paraphrases."

 

So, if Joseph was cribbing from a pocket sized Bible hidden in his hat, with now ascertained knowledge that Joseph could read in the dark, and turn pages either with his nose or eyelashes, just why would he quote some verses verbatim and modify others???

 

 

Glenn

Edited March 15, 2015 by Glenn101

[Uncle Dale]

Was Joseph wearing glasses with lights in the frames??? Or maybe he had led eyes??? Or maybe one of the stones from the Jaredite barges was kept in the hat so he could read his notes??? And maybe he could twitch his nose and turn the pages??? This is getting better all of the time.

 

Some of the verses in the Book of Mormon do indeed read as if they were lifted directly from the Bible. And then others, purporting to quote the same author, have significant variant readings that are not found in the in the KJV.

 

John A. Tvedtnes, in his work on "Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon" says:

"Of the 478 verses in the Book of Mormon quoted from the book of Isaiah, 201 agree with the King James reading while 207 show variations. Some 58 are paraphrased and 11 others are variants and/or paraphrases."

Glenn

 

What you need to do, is first of all get hold of an 1820s felt

stovepipe hat -- white, or very light in color -- old, worn out,

with irregularities, holes, patches, voids along a once circular

interior brim.

 

Once you have such a large, multi-holed, thin light-colored hat,

you need to set it on a table next to a whale oil lamp, turned up

so that the wick is producing the brightest light. A kerosene

lamp will generally not be so bright.

 

Now, once you have that set-up on the table, place a couple of

playing cards inside the hat. When you peer inside, do not force

your face down with any amount of pressure. Just rest your

forehead and cheeks against the hat's edges.

 

Having done as I've suggested, I predict that you'll not only be

able to distinguish the Queen of Diamonds from the Ace of Spades,

but very likely will be able to read the fine print of the copyright

at the bottom of the spade design.

 

Try it. -- Or, just ask any experienced stage magician how best

to fool onlookers who believe they are scrutinizing your every move.

 

But, I doubt such a hat (even with a peepstone inside) will allow

you to see under the ground.

 

 

.

UD

And who was that guy who signed his letters "Old White Hat?"

Edited March 15, 2015 by Uncle Dale