Could the Book of Mormon be a 17th Century pious fraud?

[clarkgoble]

16 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

It's pretty clear to me that Quinn is simply referencing formal organization. The adherents of the BOM are, at the beginning don't even need to leave their former faith, at least from what I understand.

Yes, but again my point is that what Joseph and his family believed in the 1820s isn't necessarily entailed by what his initial followers believed. That's really all I'm saying - that Quinn is making overly broad claims from silence.

16 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Quinn rightly points out that Oliver Cowdery is involved beginning with Mosiah, and he may have influenced the fact that, according to the revelations we have now (sans the 116 pages), important ideas like baptism and authority became explicit in JS's revelations after Cowdery's arrival.

Again though this is a very speculative point made purely from silence and speculation. Again that revelation on covenants is significant. It's worth noting that in the battles over protestantism in the 1820's the relations between covenants and baptism were a big topic. I'm not saying one can't make an argument here, just that Quinn's is extremely weak as printed.

16 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

You should reread Quinn because there is more to his arguments then you remember, and there is sufficiently context for Whitmer's statement to be significant. Remember, he also doesn't pull punches on the priesthood restoration, which is another example of him resisting the transformations of early Mormonism.

I'd reread the pages you'd linked to before writing what I did. There's no doubt that the early converts opposed what Joseph was doing - really from the period of the translation of the Book of Mormon as Quinn admits. I think Quinn is right there. 

To be clear what I'm saying is that the fact we have no documents with the word baptism or authority it doesn't follow that Joseph didn't have pre-existing views at odds with these early followers that he kept to himself.  Quinn is making an argument from silence which simply is weak, especially since he has no text saying Joseph didn't believe such things. We only know that several of his earliest followers were opposed to such changes to the public discourse and the initial form of D&C 10 is ambiguous (although he portrays it as more than ambiguous) Quinn's presentation also misrepresents IMO how certain we are of the early date of D&C 10 - contrast what he writes with what's at the Joseph Smith Papers. I don't necessarily blame Quinn for that since at the time he was writing not as much work had been done on these things. So don't take this as a criticism of Quinn personally, just the strength of his argument.

Edited October 18, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

45 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Re: covenants, the covenant in 5 has nothing to do with baptism or organization. It's a promise that Martin Harris will only show the 116 to a select few. I really don't think it has much relevance, but I'd be glad to hear your thoughts.

That's a good point. I'd been reading entering a covenant as separate from translating. But I suspect your reading is better.

[champatsch]

On 10/16/2017 at 10:46 AM, Benjamin Seeker said:

I'd like to know how you deal with the argument presented by Quinn and Vogel for evolving/reversing positions in early Mormonism and JS' revelations, and if you do give credence to the argument, how you would square it with the idea that the language of early revelations was revealed.

The grammatical evidence is fundamental and describable and quantifiable.  With enough data, it is among the strongest evidence available.  A lot of the grammar is produced subconsciously.  So, it's a good diagnostic.  It's very difficult to imitate a non-native dialect in a lengthy text.  Once aspects of grammatical evidence are described, you can compare them to the textual record and what is known about English usage.  From that you can determine whether it was likely for Joseph Smith to have produced it systematically, from the implicit grammatical knowledge gained from his environment, including being exposed to biblical language.  In contrast, content is mostly produced consciously.  It's not as good a diagnostic, on average.  There are usually many possible explanations for (changing) content.  So, the content is more open to ideologically based argumentation.  If there is an outcome you prefer, you can usually find a way to argue for it by pinpointing and analyzing a variety of interesting content issues.

[Benjamin Seeker]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes, but again my point is that what Joseph and his family believed in the 1820s isn't necessarily entailed by what his initial followers believed. That's really all I'm saying - that Quinn is making overly broad claims from silence.

Again though this is a very speculative point made purely from silence and speculation. Again that revelation on covenants is significant. It's worth noting that in the battles over protestantism in the 1820's the relations between covenants and baptism were a big topic. I'm not saying one can't make an argument here, just that Quinn's is extremely weak as printed.

I'd reread the pages you'd linked to before writing what I did. There's no doubt that the early converts opposed what Joseph was doing - really from the period of the translation of the Book of Mormon as Quinn admits. I think Quinn is right there. 

To be clear what I'm saying is that the fact we have no documents with the word baptism or authority it doesn't follow that Joseph didn't have pre-existing views at odds with these early followers that he kept to himself.  Quinn is making an argument from silence which simply is weak, especially since he has no text saying Joseph didn't believe such things. We only know that several of his earliest followers were opposed to such changes to the public discourse and the initial form of D&C 10 is ambiguous (although he portrays it as more than ambiguous) Quinn's presentation also misrepresents IMO how certain we are of the early date of D&C 10 - contrast what he writes with what's at the Joseph Smith Papers. I don't necessarily blame Quinn for that since at the time he was writing not as much work had been done on these things. So don't take this as a criticism of Quinn personally, just the strength of his argument.

My mistake on overlooking your recent rereading of Quinn. Part of that misunderstanding is that there were several pieces of evidence from Quinn that you didn't address head on:

• Joseph did feel the need to add authority, baptism, and added rhetoric about "church" into these early revelations in 1835 (he also added authority into Moroni's message in 1839, which was absent in earlier accounts). True, JS could have had views on authority, baptism, etc. that are not in these texts, but his retroactive edits, at the very least, demonstrate that he was aware of the tension that these early revelations presented in relation to 1835 Mormonism.
• Quinn makes the point that D&C 10 equates "my people" with "my church" and discusses it in a way that doesn't indicate a new formal organization. Here is some of the most relevant text from the Book of Commandments:

Quote

"And now, behold, according to their faith in their prayers, will I bring this part of my gospel to the knowledge of my people. Behold, I do not bring it to destroy that which they have received, but to build it up. And for this cause have I said, if this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them. Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church: therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven: but it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments, but buildeth up churches unto themselves, to get gain; yea, and all those that do wickedly, and buildeth up the kingdom of the devil; yea, verily, verily I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the centre."

My reading agrees with Quinn's: God is not trying to bring down current institutions, but to change attitudes of adherents and especially leaders of those institutions (God isn't destroying the church, but he doesn't want people to build up churches unto themselves to get gain).

This agrees with the idea that God would "work a reformation among them," which phrase was removed in 1835 (I know we've discussed this argument from Vogel before, but it really fits this interpretation of the text, so it's worth bringing up here).

Another reason to give credence to Quinn's reading D&C 10:67-68, is a comparison with later text in 3 Ne. 11:33-34, and 38-40 . Here is a side by side comparison

Quote

D&C 10

67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.

68 Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.

vs.

Quote

3 Nephi 11

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

...

38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

These passages, from this vantage point, look like an expansion of the passages from D&C 10. There is shared terminology and shared ordering (borrowing a couple of Nick Frederick's criteria for evaluating intertextuality), only 3 Nephi 11 adds baptism, perhaps so that it can't be listed in the "more than this" category.

As for the dating of D&C 10, this discussion of baptism could be even more relevant. Given the revelation and translation timeline, and the apparent dependence of the passages from 3 Nephi 11 on those in D&C 10, it appears that JS received D&C closely prior to 3 Nephi 11. It's even possible that D&C 10 inspired conversation/discussion/debate, which then inspired the text of 3 Nephi 11. What we know for sure is that 3 Nephi is what clarified to JS and Cowdery the need for baptism and authority. Oliver Cowdery informs us that it is the Savior's "directions given to the Nephites" on "the precise manner in which men should build up His Church" were the inspiration for JS' and Cowdery's observation that "none had authority from God to administer the ordinances of the Gospel" and their desire for the "commandment to be given ‘Arise and be baptized.’"

I think there is a relevant series of events here: D&C 10 received, 3rd Nephi 11 expands and clarifies what is not included in "more than this", authority and baptism become integral to early Mormonism, JS and Cowdery are baptized, and JS adds baptism, authority, and rhetoric about church to the early revelations while removing the bit about a reformation.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

45 minutes ago, champatsch said:

The grammatical evidence is fundamental and describable and quantifiable.  With enough data, it is among the strongest evidence available.  A lot of the grammar is produced subconsciously.  So, it's a good diagnostic.  It's very difficult to imitate a non-native dialect in a lengthy text.  Once aspects of grammatical evidence are described, you can compare them to the textual record and what is known about English usage.  From that you can determine whether it was likely for Joseph Smith to have produced it systematically, from the implicit grammatical knowledge gained from his environment, including being exposed to biblical language.  In contrast, content is mostly produced consciously.  It's not as good a diagnostic, on average.  There are usually many possible explanations for (changing) content.  So, the content is more open to ideologically based argumentation.  If there is an outcome you prefer, you can usually find a way to argue for it by pinpointing and analyzing a variety of interesting content issues.

I would argue that using the grammar of the BOM as evidence that it is originally a 16th century (or whichever century you prefer) production rather than as evidence that EModE survived into the 19th century, given the nature of the production of the BOM and its dictation by JS, is also an ideologically based argument. I guess that in the future your work will be used to show that EmodE existed in some form or other in rural 19th century America, not that the BOM is a production beginning centuries earlier.

Edited October 18, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[champatsch]

The grammar and lexis of the Book of Mormon don't show that it is a 16c or 17c or 18c production. The grammar and lexis of the Book of Mormon indicate that no one who has been proposed as the author had the implicit knowledge to generate its lexis and grammar in 1828 and 1829.  The original hypothesis was that the earliest text of the Book of Mormon was a pseudo-biblical text.  The data clearly show that it is not.  So no, it's not an ideologically based argument.  And independent linguists have researched usage in many different domains by now.  Joseph's dialect is in line with what is known of late modern usage.  From a host of studies we know the differences between Early Modern English and the English of rural 19c America.

[JarMan]

20 minutes ago, champatsch said:

The grammar and lexis of the Book of Mormon don't show that it is a 16c or 17c or 18c production. The grammar and lexis of the Book of Mormon indicate that no one who has been proposed as the author had the implicit knowledge to generate its lexis and grammar in 1828 and 1829.  The original hypothesis was that the earliest text of the Book of Mormon was a pseudo-biblical text.  The data clearly show that it is not.  So no, it's not an ideologically based argument.  And independent linguists have researched usage in many different domains by now.  Joseph's dialect is in line with what is known of late modern usage.  From a host of studies we know the differences between Early Modern English and the English of rural 19c America.

There are two hypotheses (that I can think of) that seem to fit the data as I understand it.

1) The original translation occurred in the 16th Century but it was reworked a number of times over the intervening years.

2) Joseph transmitted an original translation. The translator was intimately familiar with Early Modern English as well as changes to English that happened after the 16th Century. The translator in this hypothesis could be God, an angel, or a human. Why God would do it this way, I don't know. Perhaps he wanted the Book of Mormon to sound biblical. . . only he did too good a job at it. Or imagine a resurrected Tyndale in consultation with a resurrected Moroni, learning Reformed Egyptian and then translating the text which is transmitted to Joseph. Or imagine a man sometime in the 18th or early 19th Century that natively speaks something other than English. He's a religious and biblical scholar and learns English in order to research the events of the Reformation. Since the English texts he reads are mostly from the 16th Century, he naturally writes like a 16th Century writer. However, he has some exposure to later English and his writings are colored by later forms of English, either consciously or unconsciously. This hypothetical translator is barely able to understand the Reformed Egyptian on the plates so he ends up expanding significantly based on his knowledge of the King James Bible and his readings regarding the Reformation.

I prefer hypothesis 2a, but I'm open to the others. Are there any other hypotheses that seem to fit the data we now have?

[Glenn101]

19 hours ago, JarMan said:

There are two hypotheses (that I can think of) that seem to fit the data as I understand it.

1) The original translation occurred in the 16th Century but it was reworked a number of times over the intervening years.

2) Joseph transmitted an original translation. The translator was intimately familiar with Early Modern English as well as changes to English that happened after the 16th Century. The translator in this hypothesis could be God, an angel, or a human. Why God would do it this way, I don't know. Perhaps he wanted the Book of Mormon to sound biblical. . . only he did too good a job at it. Or imagine a resurrected Tyndale in consultation with a resurrected Moroni, learning Reformed Egyptian and then translating the text which is transmitted to Joseph. Or imagine a man sometime in the 18th or early 19th Century that natively speaks something other than English. He's a religious and biblical scholar and learns English in order to research the events of the Reformation. Since the English texts he reads are mostly from the 16th Century, he naturally writes like a 16th Century writer. However, he has some exposure to later English and his writings are colored by later forms of English, either consciously or unconsciously. This hypothetical translator is barely able to understand the Reformed Egyptian on the plates so he ends up expanding significantly based on his knowledge of the King James Bible and his readings regarding the Reformation.

I prefer hypothesis 2a, but I'm open to the others. Are there any other hypotheses that seem to fit the data we now have?

Speaking from an LDS perspective, what is wrong with the hypothesis that Joseph dictated the translation as it was revealed to him? Speaking in tongues involves just such a process. There is no need for an intermediate translator intimately familiar with anything. Why God would do such does involve speculation, but it does cast doubt on the oft repeated but never substantiated assertion that Joseph did it unconsciously in trying to imitate the language and style of the Bible.

Glenn

[champatsch]

Well, there are quite a few possibilities, and they are conjectural, ultimately.  There are many things in the Book of Mormon that are biblical, and there are many archaic things that are not biblical, systematically.  Such things show implicit knowledge of extra-biblical ways of expression.  It's not a matter of trying to sound biblical and doing too good a job at it.  It's a matter of knowing the KJB extremely well, and also knowing alternate modes of expression of the period, and knowing usage before and after the Early Modern English period as well.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

9 minutes ago, champatsch said:

Well, there are quite a few possibilities, and they are conjectural, ultimately.  There are many things in the Book of Mormon that are biblical, and there are many archaic things that are not biblical, systematically.  Such things show implicit knowledge of extra-biblical ways of expression.  It's not a matter of trying to sound biblical and doing too good a job at it.  It's a matter of knowing the KJB extremely well, and also knowing alternate modes of expression of the period, and knowing usage before and after the Early Modern English period as well.

I haven't had the time to read through this thread in its entirety, but, what are the conjectural possibilities in your opinion?  Are you saying that EmodE in the book of mormon is ultimately conjectural?

[JarMan]

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Speaking from an LDS perspective, what is wrong with the hypothesis that Joseph dictated the translation as it was revealed to him? Speaking in tongues involves just such a process. There is no need for an intermediate translator intimately familiar with anything. Why God would do such does involve speculation, but it does cast doubt on the oft repeated but never substantiated assertion that Joseph did it unconsciously in trying to imitate the language and style of the Bible.

Glenn

I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with that from an LDS perspective (which is why I favor what I called hypothesis 2a). But I've always assumed a certain level of 19th Century expansion. As I look at the Book of Mormon from a 16th Century perspective I see significant correlations that I cannot ignore. It's becoming clear to me the Book of Mormon describes many of the religious and political practices, writings and assumptions of Reformation-era Europe. This puzzles me. . .

[JarMan]

53 minutes ago, champatsch said:

It's not a matter of trying to sound biblical and doing too good a job at it.

I was partly joking, but the point is that if the Lord, as translator, wanted the Book of Mormon to sound "biblical" why would he limit himself to merely the "known" i.e. biblical EModE grammar? If you know the language of the time you may as well go all out. 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I was partly joking, but the point is that if the Lord, as translator, wanted the Book of Mormon to sound "biblical" why would he limit himself to merely the "known" i.e. biblical EModE grammar? If you know the language of the time you may as well go all out. 

I think maybe that you have missed Stanford's point. Most of the EmodE in the Book of Mormon predates and is not found in the Bible.

[JarMan]

32 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I think maybe that you have missed Stanford's point. Most of the EmodE in the Book of Mormon predates and is not found in the Bible.

The way I understand it most of the EModE in the Book of Mormon seems to be roughly contemporary with the KJ Bible with just a little that is either before or after. But what makes it interesting is that so much of the EModE in the Book of Mormon, though it's from the same time period as the Bible, it's not found anywhere in the Bible. 

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

 I see significant correlations that I cannot ignore. It's becoming clear to me the Book of Mormon describes many of the religious and political practices, writings and assumptions of Reformation-era Europe. This puzzles me. . .

I gave a response in my earlier post on parallelism, where I demonstrated that the BOM was clearly written in the 20th century.  The parallels are astonishing  --Darwinism, the Taliban, the Cold War, casa nostra, etc

Edited October 20, 2017 by cdowis

[JarMan]

21 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I gave a response in my earlier post on parallelism, where I demonstrated that the BOM was clearly written in the 20th century.  The parallels are astonishing  --Darwinism, the Taliban, the Cold War, casa nostra, etc

Your point is well taken. But I think the notable difference is that you have chosen ubiquitous things that could be correlated with many cultures. I brought up the burning of heretics since this was a practice that (on any notable scale) occurred only in Western Europe in medieval times, and more particularly during the 16c. And there are particular similarities to how it was practiced that cannot be mere coincidence. I noted some similarities earlier but I'll recount them again, with a few more I didn't previously mention:

1) The heretic was given a chance to recant in order to save his life

2) Accused heretics were sometimes forced to watch others burn in order to persuade them to recant

3) Heretical books were sometimes burned with the heretics

4) There were both mass burnings and individual burnings

5) Women and children (as well as men) were sometimes burned

6) The charge of heresy was brought against those calling the people to repentance (prophets)

7) The accused heretic prophesies destruction on his persecutors as an act of God's vengeance

8 ) The accused heretic's last words as he is being burned are memorialized

 In another thread I also showed what I believe to be clear evidence of William Tyndale's writings in King Benjamin's speech.

Quote

We also serve, not as servants unto masters; but as they which are bought with Christ’s blood serve Christ himself. We be here all servants unto Christ. For whatsoever we do one to another in Christ’s name, that do we unto Christ, and the reward of that shall we receive of Christ. The king counteth his commons Christ himself; and therefore doth them service willingly, seeking no more of them than is sufficient to maintain peace and unity, and to defend the realm.

These same points are made by King Benjamin in Mosiah 2, only in reverse order.

Quote

14 And even I, myself, have labored with mine own handsthat I might serve you, and that ye should not be ladenwith taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne—and of all these things which I have spoken, ye yourselves are witnesses this day.
15 Yet, my brethren, I have not done these things that I might boast, neither do I tell these things that thereby I might accuse you; but I tell you these things that ye may know that I can answer a clear conscience before God this day.
16 Behold, I say unto you that because I said unto you that I had spent my days in your service, I do not desire to boast, for I have only been in the service of God.
17 And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the serviceof your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.
18 Behold, ye have called me your king; and if I, whom ye call your king, do labor to serve you, then ought not ye to labor to serve one another?
19 And behold also, if I, whom ye call your king, who has spent his days in your service, and yet has been in the service of God, do merit any thanks from you, O how you ought to thank your heavenly King!

There are several more parallels, as well, between King Benjamin and his speech and Tyndale's description of how a "Christian King" ought to govern. Almost every detail known about King Benjamin can be found in Tyndale's book on the subject. The flip side of this is King Noah who was a contemporary of King Benjamin, but in another realm. Almost everything we know about King Noah can also be found in Tyndale's book as he describes the wickedness of rulers in his day.

I don't know of any other book (except the KJB, of course) that shows up so obviously in the Book of Mormon.

[cdowis]

I see a strong connection between the Taliban hiding in caves in the mountains, a standing army of thieves and robbers, and see nothing like this in European nor early American history like it.

This connection to the 20th century is very obvious.

Edited October 20, 2017 by cdowis

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

The way I understand it most of the EModE in the Book of Mormon seems to be roughly contemporary with the KJ Bible with just a little that is either before or after. But what makes it interesting is that so much of the EModE in the Book of Mormon, though it's from the same time period as the Bible, it's not found anywhere in the Bible. 

Here is a link to one of Stanford's articles. He can explain it much better than I.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-more-part-of-the-book-of-mormon-is-early-modern-english/

From what I gathered from that article and others, much of the EmodE in the Book of Mormon was obsolete at the time the KJV was being translated.

Glenn

[JarMan]

58 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I see a strong connection between the Taliban hiding in caves in the mountains, a standing army of thieves and robbers, and see nothing like this in European nor early American history like it.

This connection to the 20th century is very obvious.

You really couldn't have chosen a more ubiquitous human phenomenon. The history of Europe consists of "civilized" people being constantly threatened by "barbarian" invaders. To the ancient Greeks it was the Galatians and Scythians, to the Roman Empire it was the Germanic tribes and the Huns, during the Vikings Age it was, well, the Vikings.  In Early Modern Europe it could have been a number of peoples. If you were in the British Isles it would have been the Gaels. Much of Europe was in constant war against the Turks. Or it could have been the Barbary Pirates, who for centuries, raided coastal towns, killing and robbing and kidnapping people. Most of these barbarians were nomadic or lived in the mountains or forests. The Vikings and Barbary Pirates had their own cities and villages across the water but the atrocities all of them committed are identical with what is described in the Book of Mormon. 

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Here is a link to one of Stanford's articles. He can explain it much better than I.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-more-part-of-the-book-of-mormon-is-early-modern-english/

From what I gathered from that article and others, much of the EmodE in the Book of Mormon was obsolete at the time the KJV was being translated.

Glenn

I've read all the Carmack articles that have been posted on mormoninterpreter. The tricky thing is that even though the KJB was produced in 1611, it was essentially entirely based on earlier translations. The NT portion (and some of the OT) came largely from Tyndale's translation in the 1520's and 1530's. So the KJB was essentially translated in a window of time that lasted over 80 years. The vast majority of the language of the BofM falls in that window with a little bit being apparently obsolete before and a little bit seemingly appearing after. 

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, JarMan said:

I've read all the Carmack articles that have been posted on mormoninterpreter. The tricky thing is that even though the KJB was produced in 1611, it was essentially entirely based on earlier translations. The NT portion (and some of the OT) came largely from Tyndale's translation in the 1520's and 1530's. So the KJB was essentially translated in a window of time that lasted over 80 years. The vast majority of the language of the BofM falls in that window with a little bit being apparently obsolete before and a little bit seemingly appearing after. 

Then you probably are also aware that the KJB had an edited version published in 1769 which modernized the spelling. There were some other changes also, I don't know how many. More than likely Joseph and his family would have been reading the 1769 Oxford edition. I am wondering what the differences are between the Tyndale editions, the 1611 KJB, and the 1769 KJB.

Glenn

[Benjamin McGuire]

9 hours ago, JarMan said:

I've read all the Carmack articles that have been posted on mormoninterpreter. The tricky thing is that even though the KJB was produced in 1611, it was essentially entirely based on earlier translations. The NT portion (and some of the OT) came largely from Tyndale's translation in the 1520's and 1530's. So the KJB was essentially translated in a window of time that lasted over 80 years. The vast majority of the language of the BofM falls in that window with a little bit being apparently obsolete before and a little bit seemingly appearing after. 

This doesn't work for me. Why? Because none of this is really true. Language doesn't fit into windows like this. And so this becomes something of an illusion that appears from reading the literature. Why?

First, there is a lot of EME that remains in Modern English. Much of the Book of Mormon comes to us in this language. 1 Nephi 1:1 - "make a record" is still in current use. It isn't obsolete by any stretch of the imagination, even if it was also used in EME. So while you can claim that it EME, you can also claim that it is Modern English. So does while it may fall into "that window," it isn't evidence that it came from "that window." In the larger discussion, the fact that the King James Bible kept language in use that otherwise might have become obsolete makes this even more complicated. This is why Skousen and Carmack tend to exclude language found in the King James from much of their discussion. It isn't all that helpful in dating language, because it is language that becomes at least somewhat common across a much larger date range. So when we talk about the language in the Book of Mormon, and dating it, language that appears reasonably commonly across many of these time segments isn't very useful. Special attention is paid to language that is used in unusual ways - language that can be more narrowly dated. And this language represents a fairly small portion of the language used in the Book of Mormon.

Second, and piggybacking on this issue, this is why language that comes after these windows, while a relatively small proportion of the Book of Mormon overall, is much more significant than that proportionality indicates. Because, if we ignored for a moment EME entirely, and compared the text of the Book of Mormon to 19th century literature, we would find that a majority of the language in the Book of Mormon "falls into that window with a little bit being apparently obsolete before." So this idea that you offer isn't meaningful in the scope of the larger question - because we cannot determine any sort of narrow dating range for a majority of language in the Book of Mormon that would be meaningful in any significant manner.

This doesn't change the fact that there are elements in the Book of Mormon that seem to be obsolete by the time the Book of Mormon is produced in 1829, nor does it change the fact that there are elements in the Book of Mormon that don't seem to exist in that narrow window you specify.

Once we get to this point, our explanations need to cover both ends. Whether this means (as Carmack has recently suggested here) that there were multiple translation 'events,' or that there was some divine intervention, or some other more naturalistic explanation, these features in the language are difficult to explain purely through the idea of an original text written by Joseph Smith (and I agree with him there).

At the same time, there is another entirely different side of this research that is really necessary. I found the comments that were made in the other thread he started about the phrase "outward privilege" interesting, because of course, most of the offered suggestions didn't make a lot of sense in context. What do I mean by that? For a siege to be successful, there as to be a legitimate threat to the lives of those under siege. And while we can talk about the notion of "outward" meaning external in the sense of outside the city, that doesn't fit the context very well. On the other hand, I found a very interesting text when I spent a few minutes looking a while back:

An Humble Attempt to Investigate and Defend the Scripture Doctrine, Concerning The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit (James Purves - although the copy I link to in a moment is dated to 1819, the date of it's being completed was closer to 1784, and Purves himself passed in 1795.)

Why was it interesting? Because it defined the phrase "outward privilege" explicitly, and in a way that didn't match any dictionary expression directly, but in a way that did provide a potential explanation of the text.

https://books.google.com/books?id=7qc-AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA133#v=onepage&q&f=false

Quote

This law is divided into two tables, the first of which respects their religious exercises, and the second their civil conduct; and these ordinances are of two kinds, the one for preserving and promoting their spiritual privileges, and the other their outward privileges, or things that concern this life.

In this context, the phrase in the Book of Mormon would be referring to the essentials necessary for living - food (from crops), animals, and so on. The Book of Mormon then flips this around. because they had sufficient provisions, and those waiting outside the city did not, they had all of the "outward privileges" they needed. It was the attackers who were eventually forced to leave because they couldn't meet their own needs. The siege of course, didn't prevent the Nephites from leaving the city in any case. The book I quote from is interesting because not only does it create a specific context for the phrase, which could be used to understand the text of the Book of Mormon, but because it defines it explicitly, it suggests that the author (Purves) believed it would be necessary to define the phrase (was it uncommon? did he coin it?).

At any rate, getting back on topic, having gone through the text, and identified all of these uncommon phrases that come from the narrow window that Carmack and Skousen suggest, the next step is to go through as much early interpretation as we can find of the Book of Mormon that overlaps these areas of the text, and see how those phrases and words are interpreted by its earliest readers. In other words, did they understand it differently (even incorrectly) because the language wasn't in use anymore? Did they understand it appropriately (in which case, that argument is diminished)? You can see how this creates a check of sorts on the theory - a way to test its predictive nature.

And only at this point can we really start discussing a textual profile of the Book of Mormon at the edges of its language. What Skousen and Carmack are doing is really very important (and something I am personally happy not having to do). But it is effectively just a first leap forward in this investigation.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Benjamin McGuire

[champatsch]

18 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I haven't had the time to read through this thread in its entirety, but, what are the conjectural possibilities in your opinion?  Are you saying that EmodE in the book of mormon is ultimately conjectural?

No, the process of translation (turning one language into another), directed by the Lord, is conjectural.  Joseph translated in the sense of transference from one condition to another.

[champatsch]

10 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

From what I gathered from that article and others, much of the EmodE in the Book of Mormon was obsolete at the time the KJV was being translated.

No, just a small portion of the Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon was obsolete in the early 1600s.

Take "the more part", a transparent phrase, which was quite uncommon in the 17c, but preserved in the KJB in Acts, and in statutory language.  So legal practitioners who had occasion to refer to Elizabethan legal language would encounter the phrase, and anyone who read Holinshed's Chronicles would read instances of it.  And one can find revival usage in the late 19c by William Morris, an Oxford historian, and Robert Louis Stevenson.  But the Book of Mormon goes beyond their usage, reviving rare variants of "more part" usage: "a more part" and "the more parts".

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Once we get to this point, our explanations need to cover both ends. Whether this means (as Carmack has recently suggested here) that there were multiple translation 'events,' or that there was some divine intervention, or some other more naturalistic explanation, these features in the language are difficult to explain purely through the idea of an original text written by Joseph Smith (and I agree with him there).

If I were to constrain my explanation to a naturalistic model, I would say the Book of Mormon was produced by a writer who had another first language (perhaps Hebrew). Then the language in the Book of Mormon can be explained as a reflection of the English texts this non-English speaker had been exposed to. Since the doctrine and many other elements in the text suggest to me a correlation to reformation-era Europe, and since the language largely reflects the same era, I would suggest the writer had made extensive (but not exclusive) study of English language texts from the 16th Century. In this model the Book of Mormon has to have been produced after 1611, but the lower bound on the date would depend on determining the grammar in the Book of Mormon that developed the latest.