Skousen & Carmack Lecture Take Aways

[Benjamin Seeker]

I went to the Skousen/Carmack lecture last night at BYU, which was really great. There was some impressive presentation of the specifics of the evidence they've found as well as some nice overview. Since EmodE comes up on the board fairly regularly, I thought people would appreciate some of my notes. Here they are:

• The usage of vocabulary and phrases in the BOM fits the 1530s-1730s.
  • Every word in the BOM original text had entered the English language by 1730 (except two that appear to be unique creations at the time the text was dictated: hinderment and another I can't remember).
  • There are at least 80 examples of archaic usage (I think I'm remembering this right), where the intended meaning of the word is archaic and obsolete in 1830.
  • There isn't a single word in the BOM text, except in KJV quotation, that is unrecognizable, so the intended meaning may have been archaic, but the word was still recognizable English.
  • Most of the phrases that have been identified as 19th-century verbiage (infinite atonement, secret combinations, saved from their sins not in, etc.) can be found in early periods. The meaning of secret combinations from the 1500s actually fits the usage in the BOM better (plots to overthrow the government) than the 1800s usage (Freemasonry).
• The syntax ranges from the 1500s forward but the largest correlation is with the second half of the 1500s.
  • I asked if they had made any correlation with genre and Carmack responded that he's found correlations with chronicles (historical accounts) and poetry.
  • The syntax is not found in JS' 1832 history nor is it found in JS' early correspondence.
  • The syntax does not correlate with the KJV.
  • The syntax hasn't been correlated with any specific Early Modern English author (if they find someone, they'll let us know).
• Themes from the BOM don't fit the 19th century
  • Burning at the stake for heresy (1500s)
  • Baptism of children (anabaptist in the 1500s)
  • The trinitarianism of the BOM fits better with the Gospel of John than 19th century trinitarianism, also evidenced by JS' fine tuning of the Gospel of John in the JST.
  • There were more 1500s examples, but I'm not remembering them.
• The text interweaves or "blends" phrases of the KJV with a fluent complexity (check out Nick Fredrick's work on this if you're wondering what this means).
  • The BOM is dependent on the KJV for the English translation.
  • The heavy amount of blending suggests that the English text of the BOM isn't a straightforward translation of the plate text (this was stated explicitly by Skousen, and though it's something most academically minded people are already aware of, it's worth reinforcing).
  • I asked if they had pinned down a version of the KJV, and Skousen responded that he was working on it. He doesn't think he'll get to a specific version, but a time period. As of right now, that time period looks like it spans from 1750-1830.
• Skousen asked, should the BOM be considered an Early Modern English text? The answer is no.
  • There are some syntax and usage that doesn't fit the time, and at least one grammatical structure that doesn't fit any English.
  • The blending with the KJV also rules out the text being an EmodE text.

I'm sure there were more interesting bits, but this what I can remember. If anyone else attended, please add whatever else was significant and make any corrections needed.

[Physics Guy]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

There are at least 80 examples of archaic usage (I think I'm remembering this right), where the intended meaning of the word is archaic and obsolete in 1830.

Was it clear what "archaic and obsolete" meant precisely? Merely that no new books published in 1830 contained these "usages"? Or that nobody in 1830 would have had a clue what they meant? 

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

• • I asked if they had pinned down a version of the KJV, and Skousen responded that he was working on it. He doesn't think he'll get to a specific version, but a time period. As of right now, that time period looks like it spans from 1750-1830.

This is not what I heard his answer to be. I heard him say that the Book of Mormon was most similar to the KJB of the late 1630's and that is was definitely not the original 1611 version. He did mention the late 1700's as well. I did a preliminary analysis which I posted here that confirms the similarities to the 1638 version.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

• Skousen asked, should the BOM be considered an Early Modern English text? The answer is no.
  • There are some syntax and usage that doesn't fit the time, and at least one grammatical structure that doesn't fit any English.

I think Skousen is missing a key tool in his analysis. An early modern English scholar would certainly have known Latin and French. Some of the things he has not found in EModE can be found in early modern French or Latin. One example is "derangement" which could have easily been a borrow-word from French. A woman at the lecture made a comment that the grammatical construction he had touted as being not part of English in any time period was actually a French construction. I can't remember the phrase, but I'm hoping somebody else who was there can remember. Skousen has a relatively small list of items that he claims are not EModE. My prediction is his list will get significantly smaller, maybe even zero, once we look for French- and Latin-isms.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

• • The blending with the KJV also rules out the text being an EmodE text.

I didn't understand him to say this. What I heard him say was that the blending was a philological achievement that Joseph couldn't have been capable of.

Stan Carmack made an interesting comment in response to a question about genres related to the Book of Mormon. He mentioned similarities to poetry and medieval annals. I actually think the Book of Mormon, in some places, resembles the classical Roman annals from writers such as Sallust and Tacitus. And the observation about poetry in the Book of Mormon is spot-on.

[Benjamin Seeker]

26 minutes ago, JarMan said:

This is not what I heard his answer to be. I heard him say that the Book of Mormon was most similar to the KJB of the late 1630's and that is was definitely not the original 1611 version. He did mention the late 1700's as well. I did a preliminary analysis which I posted here that confirms the similarities to the 1638 version.

I think Skousen is missing a key tool in his analysis. An early modern English scholar would certainly have known Latin and French. Some of the things he has not found in EModE can be found in early modern French or Latin. One example is "derangement" which could have easily been a borrow-word from French. A woman at the lecture made a comment that the grammatical construction he had touted as being not part of English in any time period was actually a French construction. I can't remember the phrase, but I'm hoping somebody else who was there can remember. Skousen has a relatively small list of items that he claims are not EModE. My prediction is his list will get significantly smaller, maybe even zero, once we look for French- and Latin-isms.

I didn't understand him to say this. What I heard him say was that the blending was a philological achievement that Joseph couldn't have been capable of.

Stan Carmack made an interesting comment in response to a question about genres related to the Book of Mormon. He mentioned similarities to poetry and medieval annals. I actually think the Book of Mormon, in some places, resembles the classical Roman annals from writers such as Sallust and Tacitus. And the observation about poetry in the Book of Mormon is spot-on.

Thanks for the additional commentary. However, he did make the statement about the blending with the KJV being a reason that the text shouldnt be considered an EmodE text. This was in his questions we’d hypothetically ask at the end of the presentation. He asked should the BOM be considered an EModE text. His answer was no, and one of the points backing up that answer on the PowerPoint was the blending with the KJV.  I don’t remember if he discussed it much, but it was there, and I guess that it will then also be published in his BYU studies article that he was quoting from in that last section of the presentation.

On the version of the KJV, I wasn’t sure exactly what he answered, because he started with one date for the lower bound then corrected himself. Also, If I were you I’d make sure Carmack sees you KJV analysis so that he can pass it on to Skousen.

Edited September 26, 2018 by Benjamin Seeker

[JarMan]

14 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Thanks for the additional commentary. However, he did make the statement about the blending with the KJV being a reason that the text shouldnt be considered an EmodE text. This was in his questions we’d hypothetically ask at the end of the presentation. He asked should the BOM be considered an EModE text. His answer was no, and one of the points backing up that answer on the PowerPoint was the blending with the KJV.  I don’t remember if he discussed it much, but it was there, and I guess that it will then also be published in his BYU studies article that he was quoting from in that last section of the presentation.

On the version of the KJV, I wasn’t sure exactly what he answered, because he started with one date for the lower bound then corrected himself. Also, If I were you I’d make sure Carmack sees you KJV analysis so that he can pass it on to Skousen.

It doesn't make sense to me that blending is evidence against EModE. I guess I will have to watch the presentation again when it is released and see if I can understand what he is saying.

As far as my analysis on the KJB versions, I'm quite sure Skousen has done this and much more already.

[Benjamin Seeker]

EmodE is already antiquated once the KJV rolls around, so blending with a late Middle English text (? I think that’s how he described the KJV) takes it out of the soley EmodE category.

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

EmodE is already antiquated once the KJV rolls around, so blending with a late Middle English text (? I think that’s how he described the KJV) takes it out of the soley EmodE category.

EModE is definitely not antiquated at the time of the KJB. The KJB is squarely EModE. The only possible exceptions in the KJB would be earlier than EModE, not later.

[Benjamin Seeker]

31 minutes ago, JarMan said:

EModE is definitely not antiquated at the time of the KJB. The KJB is squarely EModE. The only possible exceptions in the KJB would be earlier than EModE, not later.

We’re definitely out of my comfort zone here, but I now can see why the blending shouldn’t be a problem for an early modern text. Maybe Carmack will see our conversation and clarify.

Also, I’m obviously remember it garbled to some extent. He wouldn’t have described the KJV as a late Middle English text, but maybe he did describe it as a late Early Modern text.

Edited September 27, 2018 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

6 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Was it clear what "archaic and obsolete" meant precisely? Merely that no new books published in 1830 contained these "usages"? Or that nobody in 1830 would have had a clue what they meant? 

They clarified that many of these usages were dying out in the late 1600s and were very rare in the 1700s.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

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

• The usage of vocabulary and phrases in the BOM fits the 1530s-1730s.
  • Every word in the BOM original text had entered the English language by 1730 (except two that appear to be unique creations at the time the text was dictated: hinderment and another I can't remember).
  • There are at least 80 examples of archaic usage (I think I'm remembering this right), where the intended meaning of the word is archaic and obsolete in 1830.
  • There isn't a single word in the BOM text, except in KJV quotation, that is unrecognizable, so the intended meaning may have been archaic, but the word was still recognizable English.
  • Most of the phrases that have been identified as 19th-century verbiage (infinite atonement, secret combinations, saved from their sins not in, etc. [endure the crosses of the world, plan of redemption]) can be found in early periods. The meaning of secret combinations from the 1500s actually fits the usage in the BOM better (plots to overthrow the government) than the 1800s usage (Freemasonry).  [debate of Tyndale & More over elder vs priest, congregation vs church, love vs charity, repent vs penance]
• The syntax ranges from the 1500s forward but the largest correlation is with the second half of the 1500s.
  • I asked if they had made any correlation with genre and Carmack responded that he's found correlations with chronicles (historical accounts [Hollingshead's Chronicles]) and poetry.
  • The syntax is not found in JS' 1832 history nor is it found in JS' early correspondence.
  • The syntax does not correlate with the KJV.
  • The syntax hasn't been correlated with any specific Early Modern English author (if they find someone, they'll let us know). [however, they did mention George Downham; and Caxton, The Golden Legend]
• Themes from the BOM don't fit the 19th century
  • Burning at the stake for heresy (1500s)
  • Baptism of children (anabaptist in the 1500s)
  • The trinitarianism of the BOM fits better with the Gospel of John than 19th century trinitarianism, also evidenced by JS' fine tuning of the Gospel of John in the JST.
  • There were more 1500s examples, but I'm not remembering them.
• The text interweaves or "blends" phrases of the KJV with a fluent complexity (check out Nick Fredrick's work on this if you're wondering what this means).[see Mosiah 18:21 for seamless blend of Eph 4:5, Coloss 2:2, Ps 133:1, and 1 Thess 3:12]
  • The BOM is dependent on the KJV for the English translation.[for the KJV quotations]
  • The heavy amount of blending suggests that the English text of the BOM isn't a straightforward translation of the plate text (this was stated explicitly by Skousen, and though it's something most academically minded people are already aware of, it's worth reinforcing).
  • I asked if they had pinned down a version of the KJV, and Skousen responded that he was working on it. He doesn't think he'll get to a specific version, but a time period. As of right now, that time period looks like it spans from 1750-1830.  [likely 1620s to 1820s, and Skousen says they are currently working on that question]

I would say that the 1828 Phinney Bible is the prime candidate, not only because it was available in E. B. Grandin's Bookstore, but because the BofM text agrees with it most often against the 1611 KJV and the modern LDS KJV.

Quote

• Skousen asked, should the BOM be considered an Early Modern English text? The answer is no.
  • There are some syntax and usage that doesn't fit the time, and at least one grammatical structure that doesn't fit any English.
  • The blending with the KJV also rules out the text being an EmodE text.

................................. Conclusions:

We do not know how the translation was done.  However, the BofM is a creative, cultural translation, and Joseph is definitely not the translator.

The article which all this encompasses is just out in the latest issue of BYU Studies.

The lecture was Royal Skousen & Stanford Carmack, "The Language of the Original Text of the Book of Mormon," BYU Alumni Center, Sept 25, 2018.

Edited September 27, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

44 minutes ago, JarMan said:

EModE is definitely not antiquated at the time of the KJB. The KJB is squarely EModE. The only possible exceptions in the KJB would be earlier than EModE, not later.

Not so.  It was pointed out that the KJV actually excluded some obsolete language of earlier translations -- from the EModE period.  There is an ongoing stream of linguistic change in process when the KJV was published.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Was it clear what "archaic and obsolete" meant precisely? Merely that no new books published in 1830 contained these "usages"? Or that nobody in 1830 would have had a clue what they meant? 

Archaic and obsolete are good terms to use in reference to EModE terms which no longer had currency in 1830 and before.  People would indeed see an English word or phrase, but completely misunderstand the actual intended meaning -- if reading an EModE book.  This has happened repeatedly with the BofM itself.

[JarMan]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not so.  It was pointed out that the KJV actually excluded some obsolete language of earlier translations -- from the EModE period.  There is an ongoing stream of linguistic change in process when the KJV was published.

1611 English is EModE. I would think this is beyond dispute.

[JarMan]

12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I would say that the 1828 Phinney Bible is the prime candidate, not only because it was available in E. B. Grandin's Bookstore, but because the BofM text agrees with it most often against the 1611 KJV and the modern LDS KJV.

I will do an analysis on the Phinney Bible when I can get to my notes. I started looking into it and my preliminary assessment is that the 1638 KJB is a closer match than the 1828 Phinney Bible.

[Rajah Manchou]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

 

• I asked if they had made any correlation with genre and Carmack responded that he's found correlations with chronicles (historical accounts) and poetry.

No mention of the names of these chronicles?

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Since EmodE comes up on the board fairly regularly, I thought people would appreciate some of my notes.

Thanks a ton for this. I wish I could go to things like this. Alas my baby daughter has had hip surgery which pretty well means no lectures until at least next year.

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Every word in the BOM original text had entered the English language by 1730 (except two that appear to be unique creations at the time the text was dictated: hinderment and another I can't remember

I assume they mean "normal" words and not unique names or strange animals like cureloms. 

Hinderment (Mos 27:9) is interesting. I wouldn't have guessed that was an unique word. Seems like something obvious to construct. It's definitely used before Joseph though. A quick Google finds lots of non-Mormon examples. It's even in The English Dialect Dictionary from 1900 composed at Oxford although that doesn't necessarily tell how common it was before Joseph. I found some early 19th century philosophical journals that used it. I also found a book from 1810 that quotes someone in 1602 using it. So I think Carmack/Skousen are wrong here.

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

• There are at least 80 examples of archaic usage (I think I'm remembering this right), where the intended meaning of the word is archaic and obsolete in 1830.
•  There isn't a single word in the BOM text, except in KJV quotation, that is unrecognizable, so the intended meaning may have been archaic, but the word was still recognizable English.

Anyone know if this list is available online? I'm curious to check this.

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

• Most of the phrases that have been identified as 19th-century verbiage (infinite atonement, secret combinations, saved from their sins not in, etc.) can be found in early periods. The meaning of secret combinations from the 1500s actually fits the usage in the BOM better (plots to overthrow the government) than the 1800s usage (Freemasonry).

It'd be helpful to know which they didn't find in the earlier period. That said just doing a Google search a few months back I found the same thing. (I think we discussed it here in one of the myriad of threads on the subject) I also agree on "secret combination."  I think I mentioned David Hume using the phrase in his History of England. That's not to deny a masonic parallel, just that the political ones seem to fit better.

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

• Themes from the BOM don't fit the 19th century
• Burning at the stake for heresy (1500s)
• Baptism of children (anabaptist in the 1500s)
•  The trinitarianism of the BOM fits better with the Gospel of John than 19th century trinitarianism, also evidenced by JS' fine tuning of the Gospel of John in the JST.

Surprised they got into those issues. Although I'd disagree somewhat. While those are definitely big controversies in the 16th century, baptizing children was still a way protestants criticized "papists" in the 19th century bigotry. Just a quick google finds lots of 19th century books where the dispute is still raging. While burning heretics at the stake was 16th century, Fox's Book of Martyrs made it still a contemporary well known topic. So I don't think those are good examples to use. Likewise while I don't think the Book of Mormon teaches trinitarianism or modalism, I'm also a bit skeptical it's Johanine either. I don't see how the JST changes to John would be evidence of that. If anything I'd think it'd be evidence of the opposite - that the Book of Mormon is changing how to read John.

Anyway, I think this conflates when something happens as a living (violent) conflict versus when it was discussed.

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

• The heavy amount of blending suggests that the English text of the BOM isn't a straightforward translation of the plate text (this was stated explicitly by Skousen, and though it's something most academically minded people are already aware of, it's worth reinforcing).

Yes. This is the loose translation model (versus Skousen's theory of tight control based upon witness accounts of the U&T).

9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

• Skousen asked, should the BOM be considered an Early Modern English text? The answer is no.
• There are some syntax and usage that doesn't fit the time, and at least one grammatical structure that doesn't fit any English.
• The blending with the KJV also rules out the text being an EmodE text.

That's the most interesting part. Clears up for me what Skousen's theory is a bit.

6 hours ago, JarMan said:

I think Skousen is missing a key tool in his analysis. An early modern English scholar would certainly have known Latin and French. Some of the things he has not found in EModE can be found in early modern French or Latin. One example is "derangement" which could have easily been a borrow-word from French.

That's a really good point. While "adieu" obviously is well known enough as to not count for much it would line up with familiarity with French. I'm trying to remember when French language went through its radical simplification. Any one remember? I think it was a century prior to early modernism but I could be wrong. Anyway it'd be interesting to know if there were Old French grammatical structures versus middle or modern French. As I recall though even though in early modernism French becomes standardized, there were still plenty of places speaking Old French.

6 hours ago, JarMan said:

What I heard him say was that the blending was a philological achievement that Joseph couldn't have been capable of.

I wonder if he means something more specific and technical by blending. Otherwise I'd just assume that in the highly religious KJV infused culture of early America that blending was a rather natural thing to do. Even people who aren't religious often blend KJV phrases into their speech in that era.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Archaic and obsolete are good terms to use in reference to EModE terms which no longer had currency in 1830 and before.  People would indeed see an English word or phrase, but completely misunderstand the actual intended meaning -- if reading an EModE book.  This has happened repeatedly with the BofM itself.

While I'd expect that given the audience of the Book of Mormon which largely was relatively uneducated, I'd be skeptical that proper use was alien to the era. Hard to say much without examples though.

 

[Physics Guy]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Archaic and obsolete are good terms to use in reference to EModE terms which no longer had currency in 1830 and before.  People would indeed see an English word or phrase, but completely misunderstand the actual intended meaning -- if reading an EModE book.  This has happened repeatedly with the BofM itself.

Okay, but to be clear, this level of "archaic and obsolete" describes Shakespeare's English, and yet it wouldn't be all that hard to imitate that English today, because Shakespeare is still on lots of shelves. Shakespeare's language is obsolete but still extant as an archaic dialect that people no longer commonly speak but that is still sometimes heard or read.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

Okay, but to be clear, this level of "archaic and obsolete" describes Shakespeare's English, and yet it wouldn't be all that hard to imitate that English today, because Shakespeare is still on lots of shelves. Shakespeare's language is obsolete but still extant as an archaic dialect that people no longer commonly speak but that is still sometimes heard or read.

Any of us might read or hear Shakespeare and understand the general thrust of its archaic language simply because we have seen it performed or read it in school.  That does not in any sense mean that we or an expert could successfully imitate it in some original or creative way.  That is not how such language is used.  Indeed, it would be virtually impossible for any of us to create an imitation of EModE in an original or creative manner. We simply don't have that ability.  An ability which comes with actually living in and being part of such a world.  The complexities of EModE meaning and syntax are simply too great, and they were dead long before Joseph 'Smith was born.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

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

I wonder if he means something more specific and technical by blending. Otherwise I'd just assume that in the highly religious KJV infused culture of early America that blending was a rather natural thing to do. Even people who aren't religious often blend KJV phrases into their speech in that era.

Not in the manner done in the BofM.  In fact, only someone intimately familiar with Scriptural texts could combine such diverse sources in a seamless verse.  Such a person would be very rare.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

While I'd expect that given the audience of the Book of Mormon which largely was relatively uneducated, I'd be skeptical that proper use was alien to the era. Hard to say much without examples though.

Plenty of examples were given, and it has to do with educated not uneducated responses.  The whole point of EModE being obsolete in Joseph's time is that it could not be understood in his time, even by the best educated people.  The response was uniformly one of a text rendered in horrible grammar.  Alexander Campbell was no fool.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

No mention of the names of these chronicles?

Hollingshead's  Chronicles.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

I will do an analysis on the Phinney Bible when I can get to my notes. I started looking into it and my preliminary assessment is that the 1638 KJB is a closer match than the 1828 Phinney Bible.

Good.  Line up the differences in columns.  And include italics.

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Not in the manner done in the BofM.  In fact, only someone intimately familiar with Scriptural texts could combine such diverse sources in a seamless verse.  Such a person would be very rare.

Well I think the point is that most people were intimately familiar with Scriptural texts. So the question then becomes what is unique about the Book of Mormon manner. That is how are Carmack and Skousen quantifying this as beyond how KJV perfused much of the language of the era.

[Physics Guy]

27 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It would be virtually impossible for any of us to create an imitation of EModE in an original or creative manner. We simply don't have that ability.  ... The complexities of EModE meaning and syntax are simply too great ... .

Yes, I understand that's the argument of Skousen and Carmack. I'm not a linguist, but for what it's worth none of the talks I've heard at linguistics conferences or overheard from linguists around dinner tables have seemed to say much about concepts like "complexity of meaning and syntax", "originality", or "creativity". Those concepts sound pretty subjective. The argument that Smith could not have achieved such creative complexity doesn't sound very technical.

Do they have any quantitative measures for creativity and complexity, which can be compared to established ranges of quantified fluency that are needed to attain the given complexity levels? Or are they just saying, "Look, this is really creative and complex!" with no more authority in that judgement than anyone else would have?

Edited September 27, 2018 by Physics Guy

[JarMan]

48 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Good.  Line up the differences in columns.  And include italics.

I don’t think italics (or spelling or punctuation for that matter) is relevant to a dictated text transcribed with no punctuation. 

[JarMan]

50 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

Yes, I understand that's the argument of Skousen and Carmack. I'm not a linguist, but for what it's worth none of the talks I've heard at linguistics conferences or overheard from linguists around dinner tables have seemed to say much about concepts like "complexity of meaning and syntax", "originality", or "creativity". Those concepts sound pretty subjective. The argument that Smith could not have achieved such creative complexity doesn't sound very technical.

Do they have any quantitative measures for creativity and complexity, which can be compared to established ranges of quantified fluency that are needed to attain the given complexity levels? Or are they just saying, "Look, this is really creative and complex!" with no more authority in that judgement than anyone else would have?

Let me suggest you go read Carmack’s papers. You will find the answers to your questions.