Nature of the Original Language of the Bk of Mormon

[Daniel Peterson]

Rajah Manchou:  "If it was not composed during the Reformation, then why mention that the political themes of the Book of Mormon are "more reminiscent of issues that were hotly debated during the Protestant Reformation"?"

 

Because that's what the data seem to show.  It's not always about a hidden agenda.

 

I encourage people to attend the presentation on Tuesday evening and to study the books.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Daniel Peterson said:

Rajah Manchou:  "If it was not composed during the Reformation, then why mention that the political themes of the Book of Mormon are "more reminiscent of issues that were hotly debated during the Protestant Reformation"?"

 

Because that's what the data seem to show.  It's not always about a hidden agenda.

 

I encourage people to attend the presentation on Tuesday evening and to study the books.

Any idea if they plan to address early modern historical issues (as opposed to just concentrating on language and grammar) in the presentation?

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, JarMan said:

Tudor England is too early. We don’t see Book of Mormon soteriology with its strong emphasis on free agency in Europe until about 1620.

The Aristotelian, Deist, Arian, Lollard, and Arminian notion of free will had been around for a long time by then, which is why Jonathan Edwards and others railed against it.  Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609)  himself is an excellent example of this long before 1620, and such an idea had been bandied about since before the High Middle Ages, and was later adopted by Methodism.

See D. Andrew Penny, Freewill or Predestination: The Battle over Saving Grace in Mid-Tudor England, Royal Historical Society Studies in History (Royal Historical Society, 1991) .

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Aristotelian, Deist, Arian, Lollard, and Arminian notion of free will had been around for a long time by then, which is why Jonathan Edwards and others railed against it.  Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609)  himself is an excellent example of this long before 1620, and such an idea had been bandied about since before the High Middle Ages, and was later adopted by Methodism.

See D. Andrew Penny, Freewill or Predestination: The Battle over Saving Grace in Mid-Tudor England, Royal Historical Society Studies in History (Royal Historical Society, 1991) .

Just being a bit pedantic here, but while free will was attributed to Aristotle really it's the later Epicurians who usually are seen as seeing the problem first. Their conception is a bit different from the conception in the reformation, but they did recognize the problem of determinism vs. indeterminism. Many historians of philosophy also think Epicurus also saw the free will problem but that's not really a consensus view. To be fair though a lot of the figures in the reformation didn't exactly grapple with the underlying ontological issues well either. We should be careful even in the reformation pushing what they meant by free will too far. I don't think the Book of Mormon has a terribly sophisticated view either - I'd argue not even nearly as sophisticated as Epicurus' view. The Book of Mormon view is more about alternative enticements not causal chains and ontological origination.

Edited September 24, 2018 by clarkgoble

[JarMan]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Aristotelian, Deist, Arian, Lollard, and Arminian notion of free will had been around for a long time by then, which is why Jonathan Edwards and others railed against it.  Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609)  himself is an excellent example of this long before 1620, and such an idea had been bandied about since before the High Middle Ages, and was later adopted by Methodism.

See D. Andrew Penny, Freewill or Predestination: The Battle over Saving Grace in Mid-Tudor England, Royal Historical Society Studies in History (Royal Historical Society, 1991) .

I am referring to Book of Mormon soteriology as a whole, of which free will is a part. In the Book of Mormon I see a strong reaction against Five Point Calvinism. In modern times this has come to be represented by the acronym TULIP which stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints. The Book of Mormon explicitly and repeatedly addresses each of these points. It adopts a quasi-Calvinist view of total depravity that includes the Arminian idea of "prevenient grace."  It speaks strongly against unconditional election. It stresses an infinite atonement rather than a limited one. It stresses free will over irresistible grace. And it speaks strongly for perseverance (enduring to the end) over the idea that the elect will never fall away. The earliest I've been able to identify this system is in the Arminian Confession of 1621, written by Simon Episcopius 12 years after Arminius' death. Arminius was uncertain on the last point and the Five Articles of Remonstrance from 1610 is unsure on the point. So 1610 is definitely too early. (Just think of how many times the Book of Mormon stresses enduring to the end.) But we know 1610 is too early anyway because of the ubiquity of the 1611 King James Bible in the Book of Mormon.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I am referring to Book of Mormon soteriology as a whole, of which free will is a part. In the Book of Mormon I see a strong reaction against Five Point Calvinism. In modern times this has come to be represented by the acronym TULIP which stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints. The Book of Mormon explicitly and repeatedly addresses each of these points. It adopts a quasi-Calvinist view of total depravity that includes the Arminian idea of "prevenient grace."  It speaks strongly against unconditional election. It stresses an infinite atonement rather than a limited one. It stresses free will over irresistible grace. And it speaks strongly for perseverance (enduring to the end) over the idea that the elect will never fall away. The earliest I've been able to identify this system is in the Arminian Confession of 1621, written by Simon Episcopius 12 years after Arminius' death. Arminius was uncertain on the last point and the Five Articles of Remonstrance from 1610 is unsure on the point. So 1610 is definitely too early. (Just think of how many times the Book of Mormon stresses enduring to the end.) But we know 1610 is too early anyway because of the ubiquity of the 1611 King James Bible in the Book of Mormon.

I'd feel a whole lot better about the KJV if it was not mostly a rehash of the Geneva Bible, Great Bible, Bishops Bible, and the translations of Wycliffe, Tyndale, and Coverdale.  However, I'd like to see you narrow your range down to a specific terminus a quo.

[JarMan]

39 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I'd feel a whole lot better about the KJV if it was not mostly a rehash of the Geneva Bible, Great Bible, Bishops Bible, and the translations of Wycliffe, Tyndale, and Coverdale.  However, I'd like to see you narrow your range down to a specific terminus a quo.

My understanding is that there are KJB-isms in the Book of Mormon that cannot be found in any of the earlier bibles. I haven't independently verified this but I have spent some time comparing Tyndale's bible with the KJB and I think it's clear the biblical language of the Book of Mormon is closer to the KJB than to Tyndale. Plus we have the obvious problem that Tyndale wasn't able to do a translation of Isaiah before he was martyred. I haven't studied those intermediate bibles closely for comparison, though. A few weeks ago Stan Carmack made the comment that the biblical language in the Book of Mormon was closest to KJB versions after about 1630. He indicated this was a preliminary conclusion, though, and more work needed to be done on that front.

As for an earliest date I feel pretty good right now with 1632. This was the year Galileo published his "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems." We've discussed some of what I have identified as Galileo-isms in the past and this work is crucial in order to be confident in a heliocentric model as per Helaman 12:15.

As for the latest date I would say 1645: the year of Grotius' death. The English translation would presumably have come soon after this 1632-1645 range, though this is hard to support with content clues in the Book of Mormon. I will point out, though, that I can find nothing in the Book of Mormon that would indicate an Enlightenment or post-Enlightenment production.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

My understanding is that there are KJB-isms in the Book of Mormon that cannot be found in any of the earlier bibles. I haven't independently verified this but I have spent some time comparing Tyndale's bible with the KJB and I think it's clear the biblical language of the Book of Mormon is closer to the KJB than to Tyndale. Plus we have the obvious problem that Tyndale wasn't able to do a translation of Isaiah before he was martyred. I haven't studied those intermediate bibles closely for comparison, though.

My point was not Tyndale, but the stream of translations made upon which the KJV is deeply dependent (over 80% of it comes from previous translations).  The KJV translators were not making a new translation.

Quote

 A few weeks ago Stan Carmack made the comment that the biblical language in the Book of Mormon was closest to KJB versions after about 1630. He indicated this was a preliminary conclusion, though, and more work needed to be done on that front.

The problem is that we have BofM Bible quotations which also follow translations earlier than the KJV.  Skousen, Carmack, and I have noted such instances (see Isa 48:10 in 1 Ne 20).  How do we explain that?  And, if we can localize some KJV quotations to specific editions (say the 1828 Phinney Bible, which BofM quotations often follow against both 1611 and modern LDS KJV), what does that mean?

Quote

As for an earliest date I feel pretty good right now with 1632. This was the year Galileo published his "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems." We've discussed some of what I have identified as Galileo-isms in the past and this work is crucial in order to be confident in a heliocentric model as per Helaman 12:15.

As for the latest date I would say 1645: the year of Grotius' death. The English translation would presumably have come soon after this 1632-1645 range, though this is hard to support with content clues in the Book of Mormon. I will point out, though, that I can find nothing in the Book of Mormon that would indicate an Enlightenment or post-Enlightenment production.

Interesting.

Edited September 24, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

My point was not Tyndale, but the stream of translations made upon which the KJV is deeply dependent (over 80% of it comes from previous translations).  The KJV translators were not making a new translation.

The problem is that we have BofM Bible quotations which also follow translations earlier than the KJV.  Skousen, Carmack, and I have noted such instances (see Isa 48:10 in 1 Ne 20).  How do we explain that?  And, if we can localize some KJV quotations to specific editions (say the 1828 Phinney Bible, which BofM quotations often follow against both 1611 and modern LDS KJV), what does that mean?

Interesting.

Previous bible versions in the Book of Mormon are not a problem at all. Perhaps the writer was familiar with previous versions and preferred them in certain places. Perhaps he even was familiar with the Greek and Hebrew and used his own translation in places. There’s only a problem if we find a bible version in the Book of Mormon later than, say, 1650. I don’t think we will find this.

[RevTestament]

22 hours ago, JarMan said:

I am referring to Book of Mormon soteriology as a whole, of which free will is a part. In the Book of Mormon I see a strong reaction against Five Point Calvinism. In modern times this has come to be represented by the acronym TULIP which stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Perseverance of the saints. The Book of Mormon explicitly and repeatedly addresses each of these points. It adopts a quasi-Calvinist view of total depravity that includes the Arminian idea of "prevenient grace."  It speaks strongly against unconditional election. It stresses an infinite atonement rather than a limited one. It stresses free will over irresistible grace. And it speaks strongly for perseverance (enduring to the end) over the idea that the elect will never fall away. The earliest I've been able to identify this system is in the Arminian Confession of 1621, written by Simon Episcopius 12 years after Arminius' death. Arminius was uncertain on the last point and the Five Articles of Remonstrance from 1610 is unsure on the point. So 1610 is definitely too early. (Just think of how many times the Book of Mormon stresses enduring to the end.) 

I certainly can see a conclusion that the BoM reacts to TULIP principles. I've never even really noticed that. Perhaps the Lord simply doesn't like those ideas, and knew they would rise up among the Gentiles. It seems almost that the BoM couldn't be more deadset against the five principles of Calvinism. However, I have noticed that throughout the history of religion, it seems the devil has been expert at countering the main points of YHWH's religion or teachings. This is not some new phenomenon restricted to the BoM. I could point to many other "Christian" teachings which are in direct opposition to what I consider to be the most reasonable biblical interpretation. It seems opposition arises on every Biblical point. The main difference is that it is easier to claim that the BoM is a "reaction" to some of these things because it was published afterwards rather than before some of these teaching arose. Nevertheless, many atheists charge that all of Christianity is merely a reaction to earlier Savior figures in pagan religions - Krishna in Hinduism, Horus in Egyptian mythology, Mithras, etc. I do commend you for your connection of the BoM to anti-TULIP ideas. Over my 20 years on the internet, it also seems to me that Calvinists are among the most hostile towards LDS Christianity. I can now perhaps appreciate why Calvinists and Reformed Church members have a stronger reaction to LDS Christianity - reading the BoM would seem a direct affront to their life-long central teachings and indoctrination into their privileged elected status.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, JarMan said:

Previous bible versions in the Book of Mormon are not a problem at all. Perhaps the writer was familiar with previous versions and preferred them in certain places. Perhaps he even was familiar with the Greek and Hebrew and used his own translation in places. There’s only a problem if we find a bible version in the Book of Mormon later than, say, 1650. I don’t think we will find this.

So you are not impressed by the unique 1828 Phinney Bible parallels?

[JarMan]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you are not impressed by the unique 1828 Phinney Bible parallels?

I’m not aware of this. Is there a source you could point me to?

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I’m not aware of this. Is there a source you could point me to?

Yes.  My 3-volume Book of Mormon Critical Text (2 editions, 1984-1987) includes that comparative data in the footnotes to biblical quotations.  See the 2nd ed online at https://publications.mi.byu.edu/periodical/orig-farms-bom-critical-text/ .

[JarMan]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes.  My 3-volume Book of Mormon Critical Text (2 editions, 1984-1987) includes that comparative data in the footnotes to biblical quotations.  See the 2nd ed online at https://publications.mi.byu.edu/periodical/orig-farms-bom-critical-text/ .

I obviously haven’t had a chance to read this yet, but if there are similarities in the Printer’s Manuscript and a contemporary bible, isn’t the most likely explanation that Oliver consulted a bible when he made the copy? It seems we need portions of the Bible that appear on the extant Original Manuscript. I would be very surprised if the Original Manuscript was closer to an 1828 bible than to a pre-1650 bible. The critical text project, though, provides the tools to do just this sort of analysis. 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

I obviously haven’t had a chance to read this yet, but if there are similarities in the Printer’s Manuscript and a contemporary bible, isn’t the most likely explanation that Oliver consulted a bible when he made the copy? It seems we need portions of the Bible that appear on the extant Original Manuscript. I would be very surprised if the Original Manuscript was closer to an 1828 bible than to a pre-1650 bible. The critical text project, though, provides the tools to do just this sort of analysis. 

Correct.

[JarMan]

Just for fun here are a couple of variations from the KJB that could help us date the Book of Mormon:

Isaiah 49:13 (third word) is "heavens" in the current edition of the KJB and the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 21:13). The 1611 KJB had "heaven" (no ending "s"). This was changed to "heavens" in the 1629 KJB. This indicates the Book of Mormon text is post-1629.

From the same verses (Isaiah 49:13 and 1 Nephi 21:13) we have "for the Lord hath comforted". The 1611 KJB had "for God hath Comforted". This was changed in the 1638 version to its present reading indicating the Book of Mormon text is post-1638.

Now let's go to Isaiah 10:34/2 Nephi 20:34 where the current KJB has "thickets of the forest" but the Book of Mormon has "thickets of the forests". It turns out the 1611 KJB agrees with the Book of Mormon and uses  forests (plural). This wasn't changed in the KJB until the 1769 version indicating the Book of Mormon is pre-1769. Edited to add that the 1828 Phinney also uses "forests" here but this isn't necessarily significant. 

These three examples would lead me to believe the Book of Mormon text was produced sometime between 1638 and 1769. This isn't overwhelming evidence by any means, but we should be able to go through all verses in the Book of Mormon that have corresponding biblical verses and do a similar analysis.

Edited September 25, 2018 by JarMan

[Physics Guy]

On 9/22/2018 at 4:20 PM, Glenn101 said:

Actually the post facto discovery of of the Early Modern English is the opposite of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Royal Skousen was not looking for Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon. He, and just about every other person (including Joseph Smith) thought that those phrases were KJV types or bad grammar, as evidenced by Joseph's editing of some of the phrases as he became more knowledgeable of correct 19th century English Grammar. The discovery of the Early Modern English was a bit of serendipity, and quite the surprise.

The fallacy here is not exactly about surprise.

Why would it be very hard to imitate a given foreign dialect? A major reason is that there are lots of little ways to screw it up. If I set you the task of writing a book in 1925 Brooklyn dialect, and you pull it off, then I'll say "Wow, authentic 1925 Brooklyn written in 2018!" That's impressive, because it would have been all too easy to slip up on just a few phrase and structure patterns and thereby come out with something that was more like 1935 Bronx. And then instead of saying "Wow!" I'd have said, "Wrong! That's 1935 Bronx!"

But what if the precise dialect for you to imitate wasn't assigned in advance, but rather inferred afterward from the product? Now you have wiggle room. If it came out 1925 Brooklyn I could still go, "Wow! Authentic 1925 Brooklyn!" but now if it came out 1935 Bronx am I going to say "Wrong!"? No, instead I'll be saying, "Wow, authentic 1935 Bronx!" So a whole lot of what were chances for you to fail, when the target dialect was given ahead of time, have now become chances for you to succeed, when you get to choose your target after the fact.

Whatever dialect you do come out with, it will have been a much easier task for you to produce it if you didn't have to commit yourself to a particular target in advance. If you nonetheless try to claim full credit for imitating a particular given dialect, even just by telling the story without clearly emphasizing that the particular dialect was post-selected rather than pre-assigned, then you are painting your bullseye around the bullet hole.

Quote

If your linguist wife has not been following this saga as it has unfolded, maybe you could ask her a question without poisoning the well. Ask her if it is possible for a person to write facilely in an archaic English dialect if such person has not been exposed to it. That is Stanford's contention. He has been scouring every possible online corpus of texts looking for possible influences.

This stuff is far from my wife's fields. The problem here though is the claim "to write facilely". You make it sound as though producing the Book of Mormon was just like being able to converse indefinitely as a native speaker of Early Modern English. I think this is pulling a fast one. Nothing so grand has been established, and so we are not talking about whether or not Joseph Smith in 1830 could have done everything that a native speaker of Early Modern English could possibly have done. The only issue is the much narrower one of producing the Book of Mormon text.

The language of the Book of Mormon is what it is. How easily Smith could have written that particular text is the question; how easily a speaker of Early Modern English could have written it is an entirely separate question. To declare that Smith could not have written it because he didn't speak Early Modern English naturally is like declaring that I cannot possibly sink a 3-point shot in basketball because Lebron James can sink them routinely and I am not Lebron James. Indeed I am not Lebron James, but the logical argument is simply absurd. There are plenty of things that James can do very well which I can do just as well. Tying our shoes, for example. James's skill has no bearing whatever on my chances of doing anything. His facility does not add to my difficulty. The reason that I am very unlikely to sink a 3-point shot is that this is really hard for most people, not that it's easy for Lebron James.

So to come back to the Book of Mormon, the point that has to be made is not that the Book of Mormon language would have been easy for an EModE speaker, but that it would be really hard for Joseph Smith. No amount of evidence that it was EModE can say anything about that. The only reason it even seems to say anything about it is that you pull the fast one of labelling Carmack and Skousen's results as "facilely writing Early Modern English" and then go on as if writing the Book of Mormon amounted to proving perfect fluency in an archaic dialect.

Quote

Whatever the case with peer review, the information is out there for anyone to observe and to take potshots. So far no skeptical linguist has stepped forward. There may be weaknesses to Stanford's methodology but the data and references are accessible to be checked by anyone who is interested in actually doing the leg work rather than peremptory dismissal.

If all you want to say is that Carmack has claimed some stuff, fine. Scientific authority does not exist by default, however. No-one is presumed correct until proven wrong. It's the other way around: truth is really, really hard to establish, and so everything is presumed to be wrong until it has at least been checked out by a few unbiased experts. Is that "peremptory dismissal"? Maybe it is. It's how science works, though—and given how many crackpots with claims there are in the world, even crackpots with fine credentials and claims that would take a lay person a lot of work to disprove, it's the only sensible approach. 

[Physics Guy]

On 9/23/2018 at 1:15 AM, clarkgoble said:

The providence of the text would make [publication of the Skousen-Carmack theory in a mainstream journal] rather difficult as you know. There's politics involved making it extremely difficult if not impossible to do in a peer reviewed fashion even if the "science" were unassailable. 

I really don't see this. The Book of Mormon is a well-known text thought to be from 1830. Whether it was really composed in 1600, or not, doesn't say anything about its status as revelation, one way or the other. Mormons seem to be fine with it being divinely revealed to Joseph Smith while also composed in Early Modern English, but they are also happy to consider it revelation if it is not EModE. Non-Mormons would deny it to be divine revelation whether it was written by Joseph Smith or by John Dee.

If the analysis were really sound, a journal would be happy to publish something Mormon-related but clearly neutral because it would show admirable academic broadmindedness. A few years ago John Tvedtnes got some articles about Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon into the Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics that was edited by Geoffrey Khan, the Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge. Merely having a Mormon connection, even a strong one, is by no means a thematic kiss of death for academic publication. Neither, of course, does it imply that scholars have been convinced of Mormon religious claims.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, JarMan said:

Just for fun here are a couple of variations from the KJB that could help us date the Book of Mormon:

Isaiah 49:13 (third word) is "heavens" in the current edition of the KJB and the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 21:13). The 1611 KJB had "heaven" (no ending "s"). This was changed to "heavens" in the 1629 KJB. This indicates the Book of Mormon text is post-1629.

From the same verses (Isaiah 49:13 and 1 Nephi 21:13) we have "for the Lord hath comforted". The 1611 KJB had "for God hath Comforted". This was changed in the 1638 version to its present reading indicating the Book of Mormon text is post-1638.

Now let's go to Isaiah 10:34/2 Nephi 20:34 where the current KJB has "thickets of the forest" but the Book of Mormon has "thickets of the forests". It turns out the 1611 KJB agrees with the Book of Mormon and uses  forests (plural). This wasn't changed in the KJB until the 1769 version indicating the Book of Mormon is pre-1769. Edited to add that the 1828 Phinney also uses "forests" here but this isn't necessarily significant. 

These three examples would lead me to believe the Book of Mormon text was produced sometime between 1638 and 1769. This isn't overwhelming evidence by any means, but we should be able to go through all verses in the Book of Mormon that have corresponding biblical verses and do a similar analysis.

 

 

"having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy, being filled with compassion toward the children of men, standing betwixt them and justice, having broken the bands of death, having taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them and satisfied the demands of justice." - Mosiah 15:9

"To satisfy the demands of justice, it pleased the Father to send his own Son in the likeness of sinful man, to take upon him our nature, and to suffer in his stead." - The Christian Observer, vol 15, Boston: 1816

Does this mean the Book of Mormon is post 1816?

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

I really don't see this. The Book of Mormon is a well-known text thought to be from 1830. Whether it was really composed in 1600, or not, doesn't say anything about its status as revelation, one way or the other. Mormons seem to be fine with it being divinely revealed to Joseph Smith while also composed in Early Modern English, but they are also happy to consider it revelation if it is not EModE. Non-Mormons would deny it to be divine revelation whether it was written by Joseph Smith or by John Dee.

I think though that while EModE is indicative of 17th century language and composition it's not really sufficient. But more to the point, it's the connection with apologetics that'd taint it politically. Unless one could demonstrate clearly that there was no apologetic taint I don't think most journals would accept it just because of those political issues. So I think Carmack and Skousen would be completely barred just because of how that would reflect on the journal.

Note I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing - while I think politics in academics is a big problem leading to group think in this case I can completely understand. Indeed were I a journal editor I'd most explicitly avoid anything smacking of apologetics precisely to maintain the prestige of the journal.

Now of course I'm not in linguistics, so I'm just going more by fields where I'm more familiar. Perhaps linguistics simply has a very different political situation. However I think at best one would have to find a quasi-middle ground such as say Taves has with her embrace of certain elements of cognitive science.

3 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

If the analysis were really sound, a journal would be happy to publish something Mormon-related but clearly neutral because it would show admirable academic broadmindedness. A few years ago John Tvedtnes got some articles about Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon into the Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics that was edited by Geoffrey Khan, the Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge. Merely having a Mormon connection, even a strong one, is by no means a thematic kiss of death for academic publication. Neither, of course, does it imply that scholars have been convinced of Mormon religious claims.

That's a fair point. Again I'll admit my relative ignorance of this particular publishing field. I wonder if such linguistic analysis has been done with other texts. I think with the case of Hebraisms that particular work was also focused on Hebraisms in contemporary literature - of which there's a lot. So it's a slightly different issue. If there's already literature on 16th and 17th century grammatical forms in more recent works, then I think you'd have a stronger case. Ironically that'd imply my point that it'd be more likely to be accepted for publication if the evidence was less useful apologetically.

[JarMan]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

"having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy, being filled with compassion toward the children of men, standing betwixt them and justice, having broken the bands of death, having taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them and satisfied the demands of justice." - Mosiah 15:9

"To satisfy the demands of justice, it pleased the Father to send his own Son in the likeness of sinful man, to take upon him our nature, and to suffer in his stead." - The Christian Observer, vol 15, Boston: 1816

Does this mean the Book of Mormon is post 1816?

This phrase is attested much earlier than 1816. But yours is a completely different comparison anyway. I'm looking specifically at the KJB. There are only a few hundred word changes in the KJB between 1611 and 1829. Several of these verse are included in the Book of Mormon so if a KJB was being used as a resource to produce the Book of Mormon we can see which versions are most similar. I've done a preliminary analysis using this source (Appendices A and C) to determine where the KJB has changed. I'll list some of my preliminary results.

I have found 10 (possibly 11) instances where the KJB changed a word between 1611 and 1829 and there is a corresponding Book of Mormon instance. The 11th instance is the spelling of a proper noun. I have generally not included spelling changes, but since it's possible Joseph spelled out this proper noun, as he was known to do, I have included it here as a possibility. The relevant verses are listed:

Isaiah 6:8/2Nephi 16:8; Isaiah 8:6/2 Nephi 18:6; Isaiah 10:26/2 Nephi 20:26; Isaiah 10:34/2 Nephi 20:34; Isaiah 49:13/1 Nephi 21:13 (two instances); Isaiah 51:16/2 Nephi 8:16; Malachi 3:4/3 Nephi 24:4; Malachi 4:2/3 Nephi 25:2; Matthew 5:22/3 Nephi 12:22; Matthew 6:3/3Nephi 13:3.

The Book of Mormon matches the 1611 version in 3/11 instances.

The Book of Mormon matches the 1638 version in 9/11 instances.

The Book of Mormon matches the 1769 version in 8/11 instances.

The Book of Mormon is a closest match to 1638. One of the two non-matches is Isaiah 6:8/2 Nephi 16:8 where the Book of Mormon actually agrees with the original 1611. So this leave only one problematic instance for an early modern model. This is Isaiah 8:6/2 Nephi 18:6. The 1611 has "For so much"; the 1629 has "Forsomuch"; the 1762 has "Forasmuch"; the Book of Mormon has "Forasmuch". However, I don't think this one example breaks the early modern hypothesis for reasons I will discuss later if I have some time.

[Physics Guy]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

.. it'd be more likely to be accepted for publication if the evidence was less useful apologetically.

The claim that Skousen and Carmack are making isn't like trying to claim that some fossil you found in your garden proves the Earth to be six thousand years old. Instead what they're saying is something consistent with an unusual but natural event, namely someone in 1830 finding an old manuscript from 1600 or so. It would be an amazing story for scholars but not an unbelievable one. 

Publishing it would maybe be a bit like publishing a new theory about who really wrote Shakespeare, only not so hard because the Book of Mormon isn't as big a deal as Shakespeare to non-Mormons. Getting past peer review would be tough because it's an unorthodox theory about which everyone will surely be skeptical, but it would by no means be impossible if they've got the right stuff.

So do Skousen and Carmack have a clear-cut case that is just there whatever one wants to make of it, or not? If so, I just don't see how it could be so hard to publish. If not—if it's too iffy to publish as mainstream linguistics—then Mormon apologists should stop touting this EModE stuff as if it were established fact that rules out contemporary authorship of the Book of Mormon.

EDIT: Actually I have another question now. In what way is this EModE theory useful for Mormon apologetics? Suppose for the sake of argument that it rules out composition by Joseph Smith. From a skeptical point of view, that just implies that Smith copied from some old manuscript. In other words it's a variant of the "he had help" variant of the fraud theory, with some 17th century writer filling a role previously assigned to the likes of Sidney Rigdon. Is promoting a variant of a variant over the simplest fraud model really such an apologetic coup?

On the other hand EModE raises some troubling questions for the Mormon account, like why on Earth God would choose this kind of translation in 1830.

The only apologetic usefulness I can see in EModE is that it makes the Book of Mormon seem mysterious. What am I missing?

Edited September 26, 2018 by Physics Guy

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

So do Skousen and Carmack have a clear-cut case that is just there whatever one wants to make of it, or not? If so, I just don't see how it could be so hard to publish.

I confess I'm still dubious and think you're downplaying the politics too much. But it'd definitely be worth asking them. Skousen is on the editorial board of Journal of Quantitative Linguistics and is reasonably well published so I'm sure he's quite familiar with the issues. Linguistics is just a field I'm not that extensively familiar with let alone knowing the politics behind the scenes. So I'll fully admit I'm just not informed in my skepticism.

Edited September 26, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Physics Guy]

Indeed it would be worth asking them, but it's not an obscure question that won't have occurred to them. It's an obvious question and it's weird that they haven't already brought up the issue themselves by now. 

[JarMan]

28 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

EDIT: Actually I have another question now. In what way is this EModE theory useful for Mormon apologetics? Suppose for the sake of argument that it rules out composition by Joseph Smith. From a skeptical point of view, that just implies that Smith copied from some old manuscript. In other words it's a variant of the "he had help" variant of the fraud theory, with some 17th century writer filling a role previously assigned to the likes of Sidney Rigdon. Is promoting a variant of a variant over the simplest fraud model really such an apologetic coup?

On the other hand EModE raises some troubling questions for the Mormon account, like why on Earth God would choose this kind of translation in 1830.

The only apologetic usefulness I can see in EModE is that it makes the Book of Mormon seem mysterious. What am I missing?

I think you've hit on the issue here. The EModE theory is really more harmful than it is helpful from an apologetic standpoint. It's just that the apologists have gotten to the issue first and put their spin on it. They're ahead of the game. . . for now. The most obvious conclusion here is that Joseph copied an early modern manuscript. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that position.  But it makes the most sense, particularly if you're looking for a naturalistic explanation.