Nature of the Original Language of the Bk of Mormon

[Robert F. Smith]

Celebrating Two New Books in the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project

Authors Royal Skousen & Stanford Carmack will present summaries and answer questions, Sept 25, 2018, at the Hinckley Alumni Center Assembly Hall, at 7 p.m.  Free parking available East of that Center in BYU Lot 16.

Parts 3 and 4 of volume 3 of the Critical Text Project: The Nature of the Original Language of the Book of Mormon. They are being published jointly by BYU Studies and FARMS.

          The Nature of the Original Language (NOL) continues the analysis of the Book of Mormon text that was begun in Grammatical Variation (GV), parts 1 and 2 of volume 3 of the critical text, published in 2016. In that first work, Royal Skousen (with the collaboration of Stanford Carmack), discussed all the editing that the Book of Mormon has undergone, in its manuscript transmission and in the printed editions from 1830 up to the current edition. Critics of the text have viewed the nonstandard grammar of the original text (“they was yet wroth” and “in them days”) as an indication of Joseph Smith’s dialect, but Skousen and Carmack argue in GV that the so-called bad grammar of the original text was actually Early Modern English and represents language that appeared in published texts from the 1500s and 1600s. 

          Now in NOL, Skousen (again with the assistance of Carmack) argues that virtually all of the language of the Book of Mormon, not just the bad grammar, is found in Early Modern English. And not only are these words, phrases, and expressions in the text largely from Early Modern English, but a good many of them ceased to exist in English prior to 1700 (examples like but if ‘unless’, do away ‘to dismiss’, and idleness ‘meaningless words’). In all, Skousen identifies about 80 such word uses, phrases, and expressions that disappeared from English one to three centuries before the 1830 publication of the Book of Mormon. 

          In section 12 of NOL, Carmack discusses the syntax of the Book of Mormon and investigates the plural -th ending (“Nephi’s brethren rebelleth”), the periphrastic past-tense did (“they did quake”), and complex finite clausal complements (“he can cause the earth that it shall pass away”). The Book of Mormon’s extensive (and particular) use of this syntax is not found in the King James Bible, nor in Joseph Smith’s writings or in the pseudobiblical writings common to his time. But it was prevalent in the English of the second half of the 1500s. 

          Several sections of NOL are dedicated to showing that virtually every expression that scholars and critics have proposed as representing the language of Joseph Smith’s time turn out to be in earlier English, even striking expressions like “to endure the crosses of the world” and “to sing the song of redeeming love”. And some of these are truly archaic expressions that died out of English prior to 1600 and would not have been used by Joseph Smith in his own language, but there they are in the Book of Mormon, examples like “how be it”, meaning ‘however it may be’, and “never the less”, meaning ‘by no means less’. 

          NOL also lists 133 word uses, phrases, and expressions that can be found in the King James Bible. Many of these are quite rare in the biblical text, examples like require ‘to request’ and cast arrows ‘to shoot arrows’. 

          Nineteenth-century critics of the Book of Mormon typically mocked what they viewed as the inelegant phraseology of the Book of Mormon. For instance, Alexander Campbell, in his blistering 1831 critique of the Book of Mormon, identified 121 of these “Smithisms”, yet it turns out that all but one of them occurred in Early Modern English. In fact, some of them occurred in the King James Bible, but somehow Campbell, the biblical scholar, misidentified these too as “Smithisms”. 

          In Skousen and Carmack’s view, all of this linguistic evidence (along with the evidence from eyewitnesses of the translation process) strongly argues that Joseph Smith was not the author of the translated English-language text of the Book of Mormon; instead, he received it word for word from the Lord by means of his translation instrument. 

          Finally, Skousen argues that the themes of the Book of Mormon – religious, social, and political – do not derive from Joseph Smith’s time (also an 1831 claim of Alexander Campbell’s), but instead are the prominent issues of the Protestant Reformation, and they too date from the 1500s and 1600s rather than the 1800s – examples like burning people at the stake for heresy, standing before the bar of justice (often called the pleading bar in the 1600s), secret combinations to overthrow the government, the rejection of infant baptism, the sacrament as symbolic memorial and spiritual renewal, public rather than private confession, no required works of penance, and piety in living and worship. Skousen believes that the Book of Mormon would have resonated much more strongly with the Reformed and Radical Protestants of the 1500s and 1600s than with the Christians of Joseph Smith’s time. 

          Ultimately, both NOL and GV show that the Book of Mormon is a much different text than what readers have been supposing for the past 188 years. Most importantly, these two works clearly demonstrate that the day of casual claims about the language of the Book of Mormon is over, especially those general statements that the language is a crude imitation of the King James style, intermixed with Joseph Smith’s dialectal usage.

        At the end of this presentation, Dr. Skousen will address these important questions:

(1)    Is the original Book of Mormon text an Early Modern English text?

(2)    What happens to the Early Modern English hypothesis if we find clear evidence of words, phrases, and expressions dating from the second half of the 1700s?

(3)    Is the Book of Mormon English translation a literal translation of what was on the plates?

(4)    Did the Lord himself do the translation, or did he have others do it?

(5)    Why didn’t the Lord reveal the text to Joseph Smith in his English or in our current English (or in B. H. Roberts’ or James E. Talmage’s “correct” English)?

(6)    Is there a need for a modernized text of the Book of Mormon?

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Celebrating Two New Books in the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project

Authors Royal Skousen & Stanford Carmack will present summaries and answer questions, Sept 25, 2018, at the Hinckley Alumni Center Assembly Hall, at 7 p.m.  Free parking available East of that Center in BYU Lot 16.

Parts 3 and 4 of volume 3 of the Critical Text Project: The Nature of the Original Language of the Book of Mormon. They are being published jointly by BYU Studies and FARMS.

          The Nature of the Original Language (NOL) continues the analysis of the Book of Mormon text that was begun in Grammatical Variation (GV), parts 1 and 2 of volume 3 of the critical text, published in 2016. In that first work, Royal Skousen (with the collaboration of Stanford Carmack), discussed all the editing that the Book of Mormon has undergone, in its manuscript transmission and in the printed editions from 1830 up to the current edition. Critics of the text have viewed the nonstandard grammar of the original text (“they was yet wroth” and “in them days”) as an indication of Joseph Smith’s dialect, but Skousen and Carmack argue in GV that the so-called bad grammar of the original text was actually Early Modern English and represents language that appeared in published texts from the 1500s and 1600s. 

          Now in NOL, Skousen (again with the assistance of Carmack) argues that virtually all of the language of the Book of Mormon, not just the bad grammar, is found in Early Modern English. And not only are these words, phrases, and expressions in the text largely from Early Modern English, but a good many of them ceased to exist in English prior to 1700 (examples like but if ‘unless’, do away ‘to dismiss’, and idleness ‘meaningless words’). In all, Skousen identifies about 80 such word uses, phrases, and expressions that disappeared from English one to three centuries before the 1830 publication of the Book of Mormon. 

          In section 12 of NOL, Carmack discusses the syntax of the Book of Mormon and investigates the plural -th ending (“Nephi’s brethren rebelleth”), the periphrastic past-tense did (“they did quake”), and complex finite clausal complements (“he can cause the earth that it shall pass away”). The Book of Mormon’s extensive (and particular) use of this syntax is not found in the King James Bible, nor in Joseph Smith’s writings or in the pseudobiblical writings common to his time. But it was prevalent in the English of the second half of the 1500s. 

          Several sections of NOL are dedicated to showing that virtually every expression that scholars and critics have proposed as representing the language of Joseph Smith’s time turn out to be in earlier English, even striking expressions like “to endure the crosses of the world” and “to sing the song of redeeming love”. And some of these are truly archaic expressions that died out of English prior to 1600 and would not have been used by Joseph Smith in his own language, but there they are in the Book of Mormon, examples like “how be it”, meaning ‘however it may be’, and “never the less”, meaning ‘by no means less’. 

          NOL also lists 133 word uses, phrases, and expressions that can be found in the King James Bible. Many of these are quite rare in the biblical text, examples like require ‘to request’ and cast arrows ‘to shoot arrows’. 

          Nineteenth-century critics of the Book of Mormon typically mocked what they viewed as the inelegant phraseology of the Book of Mormon. For instance, Alexander Campbell, in his blistering 1831 critique of the Book of Mormon, identified 121 of these “Smithisms”, yet it turns out that all but one of them occurred in Early Modern English. In fact, some of them occurred in the King James Bible, but somehow Campbell, the biblical scholar, misidentified these too as “Smithisms”. 

          In Skousen and Carmack’s view, all of this linguistic evidence (along with the evidence from eyewitnesses of the translation process) strongly argues that Joseph Smith was not the author of the translated English-language text of the Book of Mormon; instead, he received it word for word from the Lord by means of his translation instrument. 

          Finally, Skousen argues that the themes of the Book of Mormon – religious, social, and political – do not derive from Joseph Smith’s time (also an 1831 claim of Alexander Campbell’s), but instead are the prominent issues of the Protestant Reformation, and they too date from the 1500s and 1600s rather than the 1800s – examples like burning people at the stake for heresy, standing before the bar of justice (often called the pleading bar in the 1600s), secret combinations to overthrow the government, the rejection of infant baptism, the sacrament as symbolic memorial and spiritual renewal, public rather than private confession, no required works of penance, and piety in living and worship. Skousen believes that the Book of Mormon would have resonated much more strongly with the Reformed and Radical Protestants of the 1500s and 1600s than with the Christians of Joseph Smith’s time. 

          Ultimately, both NOL and GV show that the Book of Mormon is a much different text than what readers have been supposing for the past 188 years. Most importantly, these two works clearly demonstrate that the day of casual claims about the language of the Book of Mormon is over, especially those general statements that the language is a crude imitation of the King James style, intermixed with Joseph Smith’s dialectal usage.

        At the end of this presentation, Dr. Skousen will address these important questions:

(1)    Is the original Book of Mormon text an Early Modern English text?

(2)    What happens to the Early Modern English hypothesis if we find clear evidence of words, phrases, and expressions dating from the second half of the 1700s?

(3)    Is the Book of Mormon English translation a literal translation of what was on the plates?

(4)    Did the Lord himself do the translation, or did he have others do it?

(5)    Why didn’t the Lord reveal the text to Joseph Smith in his English or in our current English (or in B. H. Roberts’ or James E. Talmage’s “correct” English)?

(6)    Is there a need for a modernized text of the Book of Mormon?

will this be broadcast?

[Robert F. Smith]

38 minutes ago, Duncan said:

will this be broadcast?

It will be videotaped for future broadcast.

[Robert Rosskopf]

Royal Skousen came to Dallas recently, where he shared his discoveries in a fireside.  Unfortunately, there is too much material to do it justice in a fireside.  He presented his conclusions, along with a few examples, which is really all one could expect him to do in such a venue.  The evidence of both mistakes and archaic language may set the stage for a new edition of the Book of Mormon.

[Robert F. Smith]

32 minutes ago, Robert Rosskopf said:

Royal Skousen came to Dallas recently, where he shared his discoveries in a fireside.  Unfortunately, there is too much material to do it justice in a fireside.  He presented his conclusions, along with a few examples, which is really all one could expect him to do in such a venue.  The evidence of both mistakes and archaic language may set the stage for a new edition of the Book of Mormon.

Skousen already published the best and most accurate edition of the BofM -- The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (Yale Univ Press, 2009). One could foresee a modern English version of that text, and the RLDS (Community of Christ) already tried that in their 1966 edition (a failure), but the real thing has only been approached in our foreign language editions.  However, these editions are based on the 1981/2013 edition, which still has some mistakes, in addition to EarlyModernEnglish throughout, so the translations simply reflect that older, outdated language.  It is a quandary.

[clarkgoble]

Should note that Skousen's expertise is actually in language evolution particularly as two languages intersect. Back in the 90's he had some fascinating code on that which could predict a lot of language evolution. He had two very interesting textbooks on the subject - I have copies somewhere. His ideas didn't necessarily catch on in the broader academic community. (See for instance this review in Language - the main issue is whether language primarily evolves due to misclassification of language features by human speakers) 

I bring this up simply to note that the issue of language evolution in the United States from its earlier archaic form is in theory right up Skousen's alley. I'm very intrigued to see what he presents here.

[Gervin]

On ‎9‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 12:10 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Ultimately, both NOL and GV show that the Book of Mormon is a much different text than what readers have been supposing for the past 188 years. Most importantly, these two works clearly demonstrate that the day of casual claims about the language of the Book of Mormon is over, especially those general statements that the language is a crude imitation of the King James style, intermixed with Joseph Smith’s dialectal usage.

Truthfully, there is language in the Book of Mormon that crudely imitates the King James style and language that is reflective of regional dialects.  There are also phrases and thoughts that mirror - and sometimes repeat verbatim - thoughts and writings from the 17th and 18th century.  These studies you refer to go a long ways toward reinforcing observations made since the Book of Mormon was first published.  Will they will help make the case for 16th or 17th century provenance?  I have my doubts.  Isn't "NOL" actually a misnomer?  I thought Reformed Egyptian was the "OL."

[Robert F. Smith]

25 minutes ago, Gervin said:

Truthfully, there is language in the Book of Mormon that crudely imitates the King James style and language that is reflective of regional dialects.  There are also phrases and thoughts that mirror - and sometimes repeat verbatim - thoughts and writings from the 17th and 18th century.  These studies you refer to go a long ways toward reinforcing observations made since the Book of Mormon was first published.  Will they will help make the case for 16th or 17th century provenance?  I have my doubts. 

Not sure what you mean by "truthfully," but this description by Professor Skousen is based on actual data, rather than on partisan declarations.  I am still surprised by it, and have no facile explanation for the nature of that original language -- the earliest English text as published by Skousen in the 2009 Yale edition of the BofM.

25 minutes ago, Gervin said:

Isn't "NOL" actually a misnomer?  I thought Reformed Egyptian was the "OL."

If we had the plates, that might make it much easier to discuss the Egyptian text.  My own study, based on numerous examples, shows that there are many instances of Egyptianisms in the BofM which do not appear in Hebrew or KJV usage.  Once again, our old assumptions about the nature of the text turn out to be misguided and out of touch with real data.  Perhaps you have a theory on what all that might mean.

[Brant Gardner]

7 hours ago, Gervin said:

I thought Reformed Egyptian was the "OL."

I think using the phrase "nature of the original language," and meaning some version of English represents Skousen's general approach. I believe he is uninterested in anything that moves into speculation about what came before there was an English version of the text. I don't know if he finds it unattainable, or simply uninteresting. In any case, I think that the idea that English might be seen as "the original language" of the Book of Mormon is quite consonant with his approach. It certainly allows for a discussion of data as opposed to speculation.

[Rivers]

Its important to distinguish between the text of the Gold Plates and the 19th century English translation of the plates.  

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Brant Gardner said:

 In any case, I think that the idea that English might be seen as "the original language" of the Book of Mormon is quite consonant with his approach.

I am fascinated by the vast implications of that sentence.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Rivers said:

Its important to distinguish between the text of the Gold Plates and the 19th century English translation of the plates.  

Perhaps not. But IS it 19th century?

[Duncan]

I've often wondered why we don't use the original version of the Book of Mormon? Why doesn't the Church just print Prof. Royal Skousen's work and we use that? pay him of course but still!

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I've often wondered why we don't use the original version of the Book of Mormon? Why doesn't the Church just print Prof. Royal Skousen's work and we use that? pay him of course but still!

I suspect it's for the same reason we still use the KJV.  At some point, having the most accurate scriptures takes a back seat to having what we are used to because of tradition.

[clarkgoble]

BTW - relevant for claims about the possible origin of the language 

 

http://www.openculture.com/2018/02/1600-occult-books-now-digitized-put-online.html

[Gervin]

On 9/18/2018 at 12:41 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Not sure what you mean by "truthfully," but this description by Professor Skousen is based on actual data, rather than on partisan declarations.  I am still surprised by it, and have no facile explanation for the nature of that original language -- the earliest English text as published by Skousen in the 2009 Yale edition of the BofM.

"Truthfully" as in the word "which" being used hundreds of times in place of the relative pronoun "who" - an artifact of speech from the KJV and wholly out of place in 19th century New York.  There's nothing partisan about that statement of truth. 

I have no qualms with any data that documents the interesting pastiche of language and vocabulary in the Book of Mormon and I think that it's healthy for you to search for an explanation.  Note, however, that an explanation that requires Deus Ex Machina will never be wrong (and will always allow for that condition).  Explanations not reliant on divine intervention will nonetheless benefit from the data collected.

Quote

 Once again, our old assumptions about the nature of the text turn out to be misguided and out of touch with real data.  Perhaps you have a theory on what all that might mean.

On the contrary, the data fits exactly what people have been saying for a century+ - the Book of Mormon contains language from a variety of eras that can be ascribed to a variety of writings, thoughts, and cultural influences.  

Quote

In all, Skousen identifies about 80 such word uses, phrases, and expressions that disappeared from English one to three centuries before the 1830 publication of the Book of Mormon. 

How does one go about concluding that a word, phrase, or expression "disappears" from the English language?  

Edited September 20, 2018 by Gervin

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Gervin said:

"Truthfully" as in the word "which" being used hundreds of times in place of the relative pronoun "who" - an artifact of speech from the KJV and wholly out of place in 19th century New York.  There's nothing partisan about that statement of truth. 

Yes, "which" is an example of supposed "bad grammar" (everyone including Joseph thought it bad grammar) which turns out not to be  bad grammar at all, but merely one more example among many of good grammar in an earlier stage of the language.  Had you read the scholarly articles by Skousen & Carmack in recent years you would understand the systematic nature of that fact.

1 hour ago, Gervin said:

I have no qualms with any data that documents the interesting pastiche of language and vocabulary in the Book of Mormon and I think that it's healthy for you to search for an explanation.  Note, however, that an explanation that requires Deus Ex Machina will never be wrong (and will always allow for that condition).  Explanations not reliant on divine intervention will nonetheless benefit from the data collected.

On the contrary, the data do not depend on a divine theory as their basis.  The data are not partisan or skewed.  They merely tell us that it is impossible for Joseph Smith to have had any hand in authoring the BofM.  He dictated a text to his scribes which he could not have created -- the language he used no longer existed in his time.  It had to have been authored a couple of centuries before Joseph.  I asked whether you had an explanation for the data, but you don't really seem to understand those basics.

1 hour ago, Gervin said:

On the contrary, the data fits exactly what people have been saying for a century+ - the Book of Mormon contains language from a variety of eras that can be ascribed to a variety of writings, thoughts, and cultural influences.  

False.  The data completely disallow the wanton anti-Mormon theories which have been so common since 1830.  Saying that you don't want to be confused by the facts is a typical reaction, but it doesn't deal with the actual data.

1 hour ago, Gervin said:

How does one go about concluding that a word, phrase, or expression "disappears" from the English language?  

One way is to chart the actual usage of such words, phrases, etc., through time.  The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) does this quite nicely, providing examples and the dates of use.  It shows when they came into, and when they went out of use.  Some scholars go beyond that and systematically search the huge database of published works from very early periods on through the 19th century.  That is what Carmack and Skousen have done.  If their work is false, then it is a simple matter to show that fact through similar research.

[RevTestament]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, "which" is an example of supposed "bad grammar" (everyone including Joseph thought it bad grammar) which turns out not to be  bad grammar at all, but merely one more example among many of good grammar in an earlier stage of the language. 

Robert,

I wonder if you would be so kind as to list a source or two for the assertion that Joseph considered the BoM to have bad or strange grammar - this is not a CFR in case you are not in the mood. But if you know a handy source, I would certainly appreciate it for my own purposes. 

[clarkgoble]

15 hours ago, Gervin said:

How does one go about concluding that a word, phrase, or expression "disappears" from the English language?  

There are some standard corpuses you can search against. The limit is of course that written language and spoken language aren't always the same. Records for spoken language simply aren't really there before the 19th century and ethnographic studies of language are very limited even in the 19th century. So I think some caution is in order. Still written works is typically a good proxy for mainstream normative speech - just not local dialects.

The typical recent critic response to Carmack is that esoteric occult texts may have given Joseph access to more archaic language. That's why I noted the link above which scanned in many of those texts. I think it a reasonable way to test against this claim. It would be somewhat time consuming since I don't believe they're in a single searchable corpus. 

Edited September 20, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Robert,

I wonder if you would be so kind as to list a source or two for the assertion that Joseph considered the BoM to have bad or strange grammar - this is not a CFR in case you are not in the mood. But if you know a handy source, I would certainly appreciate it for my own purposes. 

I am basing that claim solely upon Joseph's strong effort to edit out that "bad grammar" in the 2nd and 3rd editions (1837 & 1840) in his own handwriting.  In his 2009 Yale edition of the BofM, R. Skousen comments that the second edition "shows major editing by Joseph Smith towards standard English." (page 739)  Skousen says that the third edition "shows minor editing by Joseph Smith (including a few restored phrases from the original manuscript);" (p. 740)  Some of these changes are indicated in the long list from pp. 745-789.  Also, at the beginning of that Yale edition, both Grant Hardy's Introduction and Skousen's Preface discuss that phenomenon.  My 3-volume Book of Mormon Critical Text (FARMS, 1984-1987) demonstrates in detail throughout that very phenomenon, even though I did not understand at that time that the apparent "bad grammar" was actually good grammar in Early Modern English (Joseph Smith was likewise ignorant of that fact).  Stan Carmack's detailed articles in the Interpreter in recent years provide the best analysis and specific examples.

[Glenn101]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The typical recent critic response to Carmack is that esoteric occult texts may have given Joseph access to more archaic language. That's why I noted the link above which scanned in many of those texts. I think it a reasonable way to test against this claim. It would be somewhat time consuming since I don't believe they're in a single searchable corpus.  

esoteric:

1. understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest; recondite:poetry full of esoteric allusions.

2. belonging to the select few.

3. private; secret; confidential.

And from the information from your link:

Quote

Visitors should be aware that these books are written in several different European languages. Latin, the scholarly language of Europe throughout the Medieval and Early Modern periods, predominates, and it’s a peculiar Latin at that, laden with jargon and alchemical terminology. Other books appear in German, Dutch, and French. Readers of some or all of these languages will of course have an easier time than monolingual English speakers, but there is still much to offer those visitors as well.

 

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

There are some standard corpuses you can search against. The limit is of course that written language and spoken language aren't always the same.

Of course we are specifically talking about written language here, are we not?

Glenn

[Physics Guy]

The basic problem with Skousen's and Carmack's conclusion seems to remain, at least for non-Mormons.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that no other books published in the 1830's used language like the Book of Mormon. One explanation for this fact would then be that it was neurologically impossible for anyone in the 1830's to write in the Book of Mormon way, no matter how hard they might have tried. An alternative explanation is equally consistent with our assumption, however: that lots of people could have written that way in the 1830's, but nobody wanted to do it.

Even if that second explanation were very implausible, it would strike non-Mormons as much more plausible than the angel story. In fact it is by no means implausible. However grammatical the Book of Mormon language might have been in 1500, it struck readers in the 1830's as badly written. Authors do not usually want to write badly. 

The only new idea from Skousen and Carmack seems to be the claim that the grammar of the Book of Mormon would have been easy for someone in 1550 or so to produce, because it would have matched the colloquial grammar of that time. Supposing we grant this claim, though: how does the grammar being easy for a 1500's writer make it impossible for an 1800's writer?

To skeptics the Book of Mormon grammar has always seemed perfectly possible for an 1800's writer, even when we thought of it as an artificial hodgepodge dialect that had never previously been spoken naturally by anyone, because it was the accidental product of Smith's inexpert attempt to ape King James English. if in fact it was not such a unique grammatical specimen, but had once been a natural English grammar, that should logically only make it easier for an 1800's writer to produce—not harder.

 

[Exiled]

4 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

The basic problem with Skousen's and Carmack's conclusion seems to remain, at least for non-Mormons.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that no other books published in the 1830's used language like the Book of Mormon. One explanation for this fact would then be that it was neurologically impossible for anyone in the 1830's to write in the Book of Mormon way, no matter how hard they might have tried. An alternative explanation is equally consistent with our assumption, however: that lots of people could have written that way in the 1830's, but nobody wanted to do it.

Even if that second explanation were very implausible, it would strike non-Mormons as much more plausible than the angel story. In fact it is by no means implausible. However grammatical the Book of Mormon language might have been in 1500, it struck readers in the 1830's as badly written. Authors do not usually want to write badly. 

The only new idea from Skousen and Carmack seems to be the claim that the grammar of the Book of Mormon would have been easy for someone in 1550 or so to produce, because it would have matched the colloquial grammar of that time. Supposing we grant this claim, though: how does the grammar being easy for a 1500's writer make it impossible for an 1800's writer?

To skeptics the Book of Mormon grammar has always seemed perfectly possible for an 1800's writer, even when we thought of it as an artificial hodgepodge dialect that had never previously been spoken naturally by anyone, because it was the accidental product of Smith's inexpert attempt to ape King James English. if in fact it was not such a unique grammatical specimen, but had once been a natural English grammar, that should logically only make it easier for an 1800's writer to produce—not harder.

 

These are great points. Saying it would have been impossible for Joseph Smith to make use of the language in the 1611 bible and perhaps other texts is a hard conclusion to defend. Perhaps because he wanted his work to seem like it came from an ancient native american christian, he deliberately used the archaic english of the 1611 bible. Also, the printer's manuscript could have been easily composed in the EmodE/1611 biblical style during the years since he announced the plates or at least during the more than 9 month period from the rock and hat show until the actual printing. It just seems to be a tall order to eliminate the universe here.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Exiled

[mfbukowski]

On 9/18/2018 at 10:11 PM, cinepro said:

I suspect it's for the same reason we still use the KJV.  At some point, having the most accurate scriptures takes a back seat to having what we are used to because of tradition.

At some point, one has to wonder what "accuracy" even means, when we don't know who the author was, whether he was inspired, the provenance of the text, etc etc etc. And that goes just as much for the bible as anything else.

We accept it on testimony, that's all we really have anyway.

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Of course we are specifically talking about written language here, are we not?

With these texts the language is quasi-ritualistic and the presumption represents speech and may thereby indirectly affect religious and quasi-religious language. Much like the KJV language did. 

You're right that the corpus contains many languages with English being a minority. That doesn't make the English they have unimportant. I should note that some of the texts may already be in the corpus Carmack was using to check his grammatical structures. As I recall it did include several pre-modern occult and mystical texts in it.

5 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

The only new idea from Skousen and Carmack seems to be the claim that the grammar of the Book of Mormon would have been easy for someone in 1550 or so to produce, because it would have matched the colloquial grammar of that time. Supposing we grant this claim, though: how does the grammar being easy for a 1500's writer make it impossible for an 1800's writer?

I'd have to check his papers but I don't think he says impossible. Just that it's extremely unlikely. The more structures you find the less likely it is. The main argument isn't about the "supernatural" nature of the Book of Mormon but just whether Joseph was the author. For those pushing a fraud model they can always say he got it from someone else. Indeed at least one person in this forum argues it was written a few centuries earlier but is still fraudulent in some sense. (Bookman)

I think the hypothesis that this is just bad mimicking of the KJV language would seem more plausible if there were other examples like that. While Carmack hasn't done an exhaustive search he has examined several pseudo-KJV like texts and not found these grammatical structures.

5 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

To skeptics the Book of Mormon grammar has always seemed perfectly possible for an 1800's writer, even when we thought of it as an artificial hodgepodge dialect that had never previously been spoken naturally by anyone, because it was the accidental product of Smith's inexpert attempt to ape King James English.

I suspect that's only an appealing hypothesis because the alternative is less palatable. Were we talking about some text with no pretense of supernatural origin I suspect the assumption of it not being 19th century would be accepted far more readily.

 

Edited September 21, 2018 by clarkgoble