Marcus wrote: ↑Mon May 26, 2025 7:37 pm
That would also very strongly apply to the Early Modern English approach, in my opinion. Carmack started out by (in my opinion) casually coming up with so many matches that he presented as Early Modern English after a non-rigorous approach (again in my opinion) and thought people would just accept his analysis, especially believers. He ended up having to retract around 70-80% of his findings as his analysis became more rigorous. I still disagree with his premise, and still don't believe it's anything but fiction, but the discussions, especially here and over on Jeff Lindsay's blog, were very helpful in analyzing his works. (If I recall correctly, you participated on Lindsay's blog quite a bit during the Early Modern English discussions, or at least I was pretty sure it was you! Always a pleasure to see logic introduced, especially with Carmack's claims and Jeff's 'just try to believe' politeness.
Over on Lindsay's blog:
https://www.arisefromthedust.com/possib ... of-Mormon/
We have this (third paragraph down):
Kirk Magleby’s blog post “English in the Book of Mormon,” Book of Mormon Resources, March 23, 2015, describes a presentation from Stanford Carmack in 2015 where during Q&A, people asked about the reason for Early Modern English. While he has consistently pointed out that we don’t know, he did mention the “plainness” of the English as a potential benefit. Here is an excerpt from Kirk’s notes from that presentation:
The question on everyone’s’ lips after Carmack’s rapid-fire delivery was why? Why would the Lord have revealed a text in 1829 in a language that had not been spoken anywhere on earth for several generations? Carmack gave four cogent answers:
1. KJV affinity. This language has an old-fashioned biblical feel.
2. Witness of the gift and power of God. This makes the Book of Mormon miracle even that much more astonishing. No other 19th century work uses Early Modern English syntax, not even pseudo biblical texts that are consciously mimicking KJV style. This is simply beyond human capability.
3. Translation facility. The Book of Mormon is translation literature. The Lord knew this text would be widely translated (113 languages currently).
4. Shakespeare and the Bible are the most translated bodies of literature in history, so Early Modern English provides a good base text to support translations.
Plainness. Even though Early Modern English syntax sounds odd, even erroneous to modern ears, the meaning is seldom in doubt. Some of modern English’s ambiguities were not yet in the language in the Early Modern English era.
I used all of that as a prompt:
Prompt: In an LDS conference/gathering Carmack brought out these points in regards to early modern english in the Book of Mormon: The question on everyone’s’ lips after Carmack’s rapid-fire delivery was why? Why would the Lord have revealed a text in 1829 in a language that had not been spoken anywhere on earth for several generations? Carmack gave four cogent answers:
1. KJV affinity. This language has an old-fashioned biblical feel.
2. Witness of the gift and power of God. This makes the Book of Mormon miracle even that much more astonishing. No other 19th century work uses Early Modern English syntax, not even pseudo biblical texts that are consciously mimicking KJV style. This is simply beyond human capability.
3. Translation facility. The Book of Mormon is translation literature. The Lord knew this text would be widely translated (113 languages currently). Shakespeare and the Bible are the most translated bodies of literature in history, so Early Modern English provides a good base text to support translations.
4. Plainness. Even though Early Modern English syntax sounds odd, even erroneous to modern ears, the meaning is seldom in doubt. Some of modern English’s ambiguities were not yet in the language in the Early Modern English era.[/i]
This was the response:
It sounds like you're referring to a presentation by LDS scholar and linguist Brant A. Carmack, likely given at a BYU conference or similar gathering. His points regarding the use of Early Modern English (Early Modern English) in the Book of Mormon are quite insightful and are often discussed within the Latter-day Saint intellectual community.
Let's break down the points you've listed:
KJV Affinity (Old-fashioned Biblical Feel): This is a widely recognized point. The King James Version of the Bible (published in 1611) is the most prominent example of Early Modern English in the English-speaking world. For 19th-century Americans, and indeed for many today, this linguistic style instantly evokes a sense of sacredness and antiquity, aligning with the Book of Mormon's claim to be an ancient scriptural text.
Witness of the Gift and Power of God (Beyond Human Capability): Carmack's argument here highlights the unique linguistic fingerprint of the Book of Mormon. If, as he suggests, no other 19th-century text consistently employs Early Modern English syntax (even those attempting a biblical style), it lends weight to the claim that its production was not a mere literary exercise but involved divine intervention. The idea is that Joseph Smith, an uneducated young man, could not have spontaneously generated such a consistent and complex linguistic style on his own.
Translation Facility (Good Base Text for Translations): This is a fascinating and less commonly discussed point. Carmack, as a linguist, would be well-suited to analyze this. Early Modern English, being an earlier stage of English, might possess certain structural or semantic features that make it a more robust "source" for translation into a wide variety of other languages. The idea that Shakespeare and the Bible (both largely Early Modern English texts) are highly translated would support this. The "plainness" point (below) likely feeds into this as well.
Plainness (Less Ambiguity): This is another strong linguistic argument. While Early Modern English can sound archaic or even grammatically "incorrect" to modern ears (e.g., "ye," "hath," subject-verb inversions), Carmack suggests that its meaning is often surprisingly clear. Modern English, with its evolving idioms, slang, and more flexible syntax, can sometimes lead to greater ambiguity. Early Modern English might have a more direct and less convoluted way of expressing certain concepts, which would contribute to its "plainness" and, as a result, its translatability.
These points collectively offer a compelling apologetic for the distinctive language of the Book of Mormon, moving beyond simply attributing it to "old-fashioned" style and suggesting deeper, more purposeful reasons for its linguistic form. It's a testament to the kind of scholarly inquiry that seeks to understand the Book of Mormon on multiple levels, including its unique linguistic characteristics.
Building on this (A.I. already had the whole of the above information/quote) I then asked:
Prompt: Go into more detail on number 3
Carmack's argument regarding "Translation Facility" is one of the more sophisticated points he makes about the Book of Mormon's language. Here's a deeper dive into why Early Modern English (Early Modern English) might provide a superior "base text" for widespread translation:
The Nature of Translation and "Plainness"
This point is intricately linked to the "Plainness" argument. While modern English can sometimes be more concise or idiomatic, it can also introduce ambiguities. Early Modern English, in contrast, often exhibits a more direct and less elliptical syntax. Think of it this way:
Explicit vs. Implicit: Early Modern English tends to be more explicit in its grammatical structures. For example, the use of "do/did" as an auxiliary verb was more varied and often used for emphasis or simply to complete a verbal phrase, rather than strictly for questions or negatives as in modern English. While this might seem redundant to modern ears, it can clarify the verb's intent. Similarly, the more consistent use of subject-verb agreement (e.g., "he hath," "they say") can reduce ambiguity.
Reduced Idiomaticity: Modern English is rife with idioms, phrasal verbs, and colloquialisms that are often difficult to translate directly into other languages. Early Modern English, while not devoid of such elements, might present fewer of these linguistic "traps." A text with fewer culture-specific or time-specific idioms is generally easier to translate accurately, as it reduces the need for translators to find equivalent cultural concepts or to "interpret" meaning rather than simply convey it.
Closer to Universal Grammatical Structures: While all languages differ, some linguistic structures are more universally understood or easily rendered across a wide range of language families. Carmack's suggestion implies that Early Modern English, in certain aspects of its syntax (e.g., complementation, the way clauses are linked), might align more closely with common grammatical patterns found in a majority of the world's languages, compared to the more idiosyncratic developments of later English. For instance, some research suggests the Book of Mormon's high rate of "complementation" (how clauses are linked using words like "that") may be particularly conducive to translation into many languages.
The KJV and Shakespeare as Precedents
Carmack points to the King James Bible and Shakespeare as the most translated bodies of literature in history. This isn't just a casual observation; it suggests a powerful precedent:
Robustness of Early Modern English for Translation: The fact that the KJV and Shakespeare have been successfully translated into countless languages over centuries demonstrates that Early Modern English is a highly translatable form of English. If these works, despite their age, translate well, it suggests that the linguistic characteristics of Early Modern English are inherently robust for cross-linguistic rendering.
Established Translation Traditions: The KJV, in particular, has had an immense impact on translation traditions globally. Many early Bible translations into other languages were either directly influenced by the KJV or were produced in a similar linguistic environment. This means there's a long-standing history and established methodologies for translating Early Modern English texts. The Book of Mormon, sharing this linguistic foundation, benefits from this existing infrastructure of translation knowledge.
Implications for the Book of Mormon's Divine Origin
This argument, when combined with the "Witness of the gift and power of God" point, becomes even more significant:
Intended for Global Dissemination: If the Book of Mormon was revealed in Early Modern English precisely because it facilitates global translation, it strongly supports the Latter-day Saint belief that the book was intended from its inception to be a worldwide scriptural text. This foresight in its linguistic composition would suggest a divine origin, as it's highly improbable that Joseph Smith (or anyone else in 1829) would have intuitively chosen a linguistic style for its optimal translatability into over a hundred languages.
Beyond Coincidence: For Carmack, the consistent and unique Early Modern English syntax in the Book of Mormon, particularly its specific features like complementation, goes beyond what a 19th-century author merely mimicking the KJV could achieve. If these features also happen to be beneficial for translation, it suggests a deliberate design, pointing to an intelligence beyond human capability.
In essence, Carmack's "Translation Facility" argument proposes that the Book of Mormon's Early Modern English isn't just about sounding "biblical" or demonstrating a miracle, but about being pragmatically engineered for its ultimate purpose: to be a widely accessible, plain, and universally understandable scripture in an ever-growing number of languages.
Google Gemini A.I.
Lindsay responds:
I think the last two ideas that Magleby gleaned, “plainness” and “translation facility,” both may support the idea that the Book of Mormon’s particular blend of Early Modern English and modern English may be useful in creating translations in many languages.
I find the response dealing with #3 very interesting. Any holes in the information/argument? I would be interested in someone's expert analysis of this A.I. response to #3.
It's simply being posted as food for thought and further exploration/comment.
Regards,
MG
