Early Modern English and the Translation of the BOM

#Early Modern English and the Translation of the Book of Mormon

#Introduction

Fundamental to the introduction of this topic is a knowledge of the exact process by which the Book of Mormon was translated. If you are not completely comfortable with just how that translation took place, see appendix A of volume two in Ye Shall Known of the doctrine.

For several years, scholars interested in the process of the translation of the Book of Mormon have entertained three ideas or theories as to exactly how much divine control was exerted over the Book of Mormon text during the translation. These have included the following:

• Iron-clad control. The Lord (or the interpretive process itself) would not allow any error to be made by the dictator, the scribe, or the typesetter, including the spelling of words. In other words, the Lord would not have allowed any imperfection in the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon.

It has been easy to eliminate the validity of the theory of iron-clad control because of the presence of many errors in both the original and printer’s manuscripts. In addition, there were no punctuations or paragraph divisions in the printer’s manuscript.

• Loose control. Ideas or concepts were somehow revealed to Joseph during the translation process, and he put the ideas into his own language. This theory has been widely advocated by several Church authorities and Book of Mormon scholars over the years. These have included B. H. Roberts (“The Translation of the Book of Mormon”, Improvement Era, April 1906, 428–29), John A. Widtsoe (Joseph Smith: Seeker after Truth, Prophet of God, Salt Lake City, Deseret News, 1951, 42), Sidney B. Sperry (Answers to Book of Mormon Questions, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1967, 184– 86), Daniel H. Ludlow (A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1976), 141–42, 163), Robert L. Millett (“The Book of Mormon, Historicity, and Faith”, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2.2, 1993: 1–13, 5), Brant Gardner (The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford, 2011), 187), and Orson Scott Card (“Joseph Smith: Reader or Translator?” Vigor: Advice & Commentary on Mormon Life 16 [extra], September 1998).

Those who have advocated the idea of loose control have pointed out many instances of nonstandard English in the text which presumably did not come from the Lord. We would presume, would we not, that the Lord would speak only “correct” English? Advocates of the loose control theory have suggested that these many instances of nonstandard English (“grammatical errors”) originated with Joseph Smith’s level of education and his own vernacular. Even Elder B. H. Roberts expressed puzzlement as to the nonstandard English in the earliest edition of the Book of Mormon.

Again, the idea of the loose control theory is that at times during the translation process, the Lord seems to have instilled into Joseph Smith’s mind certain ideas and simply allowed Joseph to express them in his own words. One example is Jacob 7:27 where the prophet Jacob is concluding his book. He says, “I bid farewell, hoping that many of my brethren may read my words. Brethren, adieu.” Joseph’s use of the French word adieu, according to these advocates is easily explainable by his living in upstate New York, close to French-speaking Canadians. Adieu would have been part of his vocabulary.

Dr. Stanford Carmack has compellingly addressed the arguments of Brant Gardner and Orson Scott Card and effectively discredited their arguments, and the arguments of anyone else advocating for the “loose control” theory in Carmack’s article “Joseph Smith Read the Words,” (Interpreter, A Journal of Mormon Scripture, volume 18:41-64, 2016).

• Tight control. Joseph saw specific words written out in English, and he read them off to the scribe. The accuracy of the resulting text depended on the care taken by Joseph, his scribe and the typesetter.

Due to relatively recent and most exciting discoveries, our idea has changed regarding the theory of just how much control the Lord maintained over the process of translation. It is now clear that the Lord did, in fact, maintain tight control over the process. But, then, how do we explain the many embarrassing examples nonstandard English in the book? And why would the Lord have used the French word “adieu” in the text? We will learn in this chapter that the specific language used and provided to Joseph during the process of “translation” was not the English vernacular of Joseph Smith’s day―of the early nineteenth century. Rather it was provided to Joseph word for word in a completely correct earlier form of English, largely “Early Modern English.” Also, there are words and phrases of “Middle English” and even some non-English, Hebrew-like constructions.

Middle English was spoken and written beginning in the early 1300s and extended to sometime in the late 1400s. Early Modern English was spoken and written from about 1500 to 1700 (some scholars say 1470 to 1700).

It’s also important to note that these language forms are used, in many cases, independently of the King James Bible. That is, while some of these early English forms are included in the King James Bible, the earliest text of the Book of Mormon contains a greater array of examples of these early language forms, including some particulars of the early English language forms that are not found in the King James Bible.

The word “adieu” is now known to be part of Early Modern English, in fact it is often heard in some of Shakespeare’s plays. Shakespeare was born in 1564 and died in 1616. Hence he spoke and wrote Early Modern English.

It is also obvious that the “tight control” theory is fully compatible with the process of translation described by Dr. Royal Skousen.

#The Resources for This Article

The material in this chapter is gratefully attributed to Dr. Royal Skousen (see a brief biography of Dr. Skousen in The Process of Translating the Book of Mormon, volume 2, appendix A in Ye Shall Know of the Doctrine) and Dr. Stanford Carmack. Dr. Carmack has a law degree and a bachelor’s degree in linguistics from Stanford University, and a PhD in Hispanic Languages and Literature from the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Dr. Skousen has long and painstakingly researched and published what he refers to as the “Earliest Text” of the Book of Mormon. This text is The Book of Mormon, The Earliest Text (Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2009). In this chapter, Skousen’s book will be used as the reference work for the original manuscript. It, of course, contains none of the emendations made in the book by Joseph Smith and others over the past one hundred and fifty years. These emendations have been made, ostensibly to “bring up to a modern standard” the book’s English language. In the remainder of this chapter, we will refer to this work of Dr. Skousen’s as the “Yale edition.” Again, all Book of Mormon quotes in this chapter will be taken from the Yale edition and not from our present-day, emended version.

#Early English Language Forms

Just why the Lord chose to give Joseph and Oliver the Book of Mormon text in these early English language forms is not entirely clear, but the extensive inclusion in the original and printer’s manuscript of these sophisticated and complex language forms provides compelling evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Neither Joseph nor Oliver, nor anyone in their environment, could have known anything of these complex language forms. It is obvious that God deliberately chose the language variety that was delivered to Joseph Smith, despite its archaic and obsolete character, consistent with his divine purposes.

Dr. Carmack has speculated about what he calls a “divine faculty” in the celestial heaven that may have been assigned to make an English translation of the Book of Mormon plates (the plates of Mormon and the small plates of Nephi). It is logical to suppose that this translation had to be made prior to revealing the English translation to Joseph Smith.

A private musing of mine, for which I certainly claim no divine inspiration, pertains to just who it might have been that the Lord called upon to make such a translation. Who better to chair that committee, which would bring an important new English scripture to the world, than William Tyndale (1494–1536), a true Christian hero for daring to make the first English translation of the Greek Bible at the expense of his life. It is notable that Tyndale, while on earth spoke Early Modern English.

There is a significant irony that surrounds the question of the early English language forms used in the “translation” of the Book of Mormon. It is that if the Lord intended this language for the Book of Mormon text as a profound evidence for the authenticity of the book, then the repeated emendations made to the Book of Mormon since its initial publication in 1830 by Joseph Smith and others have tended to obscure that particular “evidence.” It is obvious that Joseph and the others were inspired, or at least allowed, to make these emendations, by the Lord or perhaps by Moroni, but they have certainly obscured our ability to see that the text of the Book of Mormon was given to Joseph, in an early English syntax (syntax means pattern of formation of sentences and phrases from words).

The early reviews of the English in the Book of Mormon were highly critical and even poked fun at the book for its nonstandard English forms. (See, for example, E. D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed [sic] (Painesville, OH: E. D. Howe, 1834), 23–24; Mark Twain, Roughing It (Hartford, CT: American, 1872), 127–28, 135; and Bernard DeVoto, “The Centennial of Mormonism.” The American Mercury 19.73 (1930: 5); and compare E. B. T. Spencer “Note on the Book of Mormon.” The Methodist Review. Ed. William V. Kelley. Vol. 87—5th series, Vol. 21. New York: Eaton & Mains, (1905: 33–38).

All of these made many specific criticisms but they all clearly reveal a lack of knowledge of any early English language forms or Hebrew language forms. Even Elder B. H. Roberts 1857-1933), one of the seven presidents of the First Council of Seventy of the Church had some misgivings about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. He wrote a series of articles on the Book of Mormon which were not published until after his death in 1985. He raised several misgivings about the book, one of which was the several incidents of substandard English in the first edition of the book. No one who ever lived has, I’m sure, been more thrilled with the many scholarly corroborations of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon than Elder Roberts.

#Specific Examples of “Nonstandard” Modern English in the Book of Mormon

My intent, for the remainder of this chapter is to provide some representative examples of phrases and expressions from the earliest Book of Mormon text―the Yale edition―along with either explanations of those examples or examples of the use of those phrases and expressions written in the days when the early English languages were spoken (Middle English and Early Modern English). I will not attempt to provide a comprehensive comparison between the Yale edition and examples of the early English forms. For that I would refer you to a series of articles written by Stanford Carmack and published in Interpreter, A Journal of Mormon Scripture. These are found in volume 11, 2014, 209-62; volume 13, 2015, 175-217; volume 14, 2015, 119-86; volume 18, 2016, 79-108; and volume 18, 2016, 109-37.

First, I will provide some representative examples of words and phrases from the Yale edition (BOM) alongside examples of those same words and phrases in the early English languages written in the days that version of English was spoken and written (EME).

BOM Helaman 7:8; 13:37 “in them days”

EME “To Samaria and them partes” H. Clapham Bible History 92, 1596

“The warres and weapons are now altered from them days” Barret Theor. Warres i. i. 4, 1598. Ainsworth Annot. Pentat. Gen. xviii. 6, 1621

BOM 1 Nephi 4:19; Alma 20:30; Ether 15:31 “I had smote”

EME “He Caused . . . the Citie of the Priests to be smote with the edge of the sword” Beard Theatre God’s Judgment (1612) 309, 1597

“The goose-quill hath smote antichrist under the fifth rib.” Manton Exp. Jude verse 3. Wks., V. 98, 1658

BOM 1 Nephi 4:4; Mosiah 18:17; 29:36; Alma 9:31; 9:32 “they was yet wroth” EME “About this time [sc. 1656] I was moved to sett uppe ye mens Quarterly meetinges throughout ye nation though in ye north they was setled before.” G. Fox Jrnl. (1911) I. 267, 1675–7

“Which Veyns and Mines, if they was . . . Set to Work, by any that understands them, Would . . . prove as Rich.” T. Houghton Royal Instit. Ded. A 3, 1694

“You was our drowrie and our days darling.”H enryson Mor. Fab. 19, 1450 “In dud frese ye was schryned With better frese lynyd.” Skelton Poems agst. Garnesche 46, 1529

BOM “hid up” found 10 times in the Book of Mormon, including twice

in the title page.

EME “That so his sublime and recondite doctrine might be the better hid up therein” J. Smith Sel. Disc. vi. 200, Oxford English Dictionary, 1652

BOM 1 Nephi 17:6 “we was”; Alma 7:18 “Ye was”

EME “About this time [sc. 1656] I was moved to sett uppe ye mens Quarterly meetinges throughout ye nation though in ye north they was setled before.” G. Fox Jrnl. (1911) I. 267, 1675–7.

“Which Veyns and Mines, if they was. . . . Set to Work, by any that understands them, would . . . prove as Rich.” T. Houghton Royal Instit. Ded. A 3, 1694

“You was our drowrie and our days darling.” 30 Henryson Mor. Fab. 19, 1450 “In dud frese ye was schryned With better frese lynyd.” Skelton Poems agst. Garnesche 46, 1529

BOM Alma 7:18 “I had much desire that ye was not in the state of dilemma” 1 Nephi 18:25 “there was beasts in the forests of every kind”

Alma 4:9 “there was envyings and strifes”

Mormon 9:19 “if there was miracles wrought”

Ether 13:26 “there was robbers”

3 Nephi 4:4 “Therefore there were no chance for the robbers to plunder and to obtain food”

3 Nephi 11:31 “Nevertheless . . . it did pierce them that did hear to the center, insomuch that there were no part of their frame that it did not cause to quake”

Mormon 1:2 “peace did remain for the space of about four years, that there were no bloodshed”

EME “Whereoff there were no dowte but that right haboundant stremys shuld from his most liberall magnyfysence be dereuyed . . .” Cromwell in Merriman Life & Lett. (1902) I. 30, 1523

“Put the case that we neither loued her nor her kynne, yet there were no cause why [etc.].” Hall Chron., Edw. V 9, 1548

“There were no way . . . to be compared vnto it, neither for the truenesse, easinesse, nor readinesse of working thereby.” Blundevil Exerc. v. (1636) 592, 1594

“I and my Watch going my morning Rounds, and finding your door open, made bold to enter to see there were no danger.” Otway Soldier’s Fort. v. (1687) 61, 1681

BOM 1 Nephi 18:25 “there was beasts in the forests of every kind”

Alma 4:9 “there was envyings and strifes”

Mormon 9:19 “if there was miracles wrought”

Ether 13:26 “there was robbers”

3 Nephi 4:4 “… and they were in one body. Therefore there were no chance for the robbers to plunder and to obtain food save it were to come up in open battle against the Nephites”

EME “Whereoff there were no dowte but that right haboundant stremys shuld from his most liberall magnyfysence be dereuyed…” Cromwell in Merriman Life & Lett. (1902) I. 30, 1523

“Put the case that we neither loued her nor her kynne, yet there were no cause why [etc.].” Hall Chron., Edw. V 9, 1548

“There were no way . . . to be compared vnto it, neither for the truenesse, easinesse, nor readinesse of working thereby.” Blundevil Exerc. v. (1636) 592 , 1594

“… I and my Watch going my morning Rounds, and finding your door open, made bold to enter to see there were no danger.” Otway Soldier’s Fort. v. 61, 1681

#Noun Phrases and Plural or Singular Verbs

Several “noun phrases” are found in the Book of Mormon. An example is: “arms of mercy” (Mosiah 16:12). In this phrase the “head” or initial noun is “arms.” Nowadays in our modern English, we base the plurality or singularity of the following verb on the head noun. In EME, there is a tendency to base the plurality or singularity of the verb of some of these noun phrases on the second noun―the noun that is nearest (proximate) to the verb.

Examples of this usage in the Book of Mormon (the earliest text) include:

1 Nephi 18:15 “the judgments of God was upon them”

Mosiah 27:8 “the sons of Mosiah was numbered among the unbelievers

Alma 25:9 “the words of Abinadi was brought to pass”

Ether 12:1 “the days of Ether was in the days of Coriantumr”

3 Nephi 7:6 “the regulations of the government was destroyed”

In each of these phrases, the initial or “head” noun precedes the second noun. Two corresponding noun phrases in EME include:

“The assautes of deth was fyers and sharpe.” Fisher Wks. (1876) 279, 1508 “All the pippes of it was of Sylver to be sleaven on a long speare staffe.” Rites & Mon. Church of Durham (Surtees) 79, 1593

In the earliest text of the Book of Mormon there are also several noun phrases that base the plurality / singularity of the verb on the head noun. And this “variable use” of the verb tenses is also found in EME.

#Has / Hath Pattern

Excluding biblical passages and the witness statements, hath occurs 724 times (91%) in the Yale edition, but has only 76 times (9.5%). With the several emendations the Book of Mormon has undergone, hath occurs only 288 times (36%) and has 512 times (64%). The highest rate of use of has is in Mosiah and Alma, the lowest rate is in the small plates. The King James Bible doesn’t use has (not even the original 1611 text).

So, is the presence of has in the Book of Mormon an instance of bad grammar? No. On the contrary, it is directly in line with pre-Shakespearean Early Modern English usage. The Oxford English Dictionary indicates that at the middle of the Early Modern English period the has usage rate was 7.5%. Hence, the Book of Mormon Yale edition is right at home with 16th century has / hath usage rates.

#Faith On the Lord

The Book of Mormon uniquely and consistently uses the phrase “faith on the Lord” (Jesus Christ). This phrase is not found in the King James Bible which only uses “faith in.” The Book of Mormon also uses “faith on the name of the Lord” several times.

Royal Skousen has found these relevant 17th century examples in Early English Books Online (EEBO):

“by faith on his name wee may haue life Johann Gerhard,” The conquest of temptations, 1614

“and when all faile, renew thy faith on his Name,” Thomas Godwin, A child of light walking in darknessse, 1636

“They are altogether sufficient for that, inasmuch as Faith on the Lord Jesus Christ, and obedience to his Commandments . . .” The Racovian Catechism, 1652 “he makes them to see their sins, and bewail them, and raise them by renewing and strengthening faith on the Lord Jesus Christ,” Obadiah Sedgwich, The bowels of tender mercy sealed in the everlasting covenant, 1661

#If It So Be (That)

The emphatic hypothetical “if it so be (that)” is used 41 times in the Book of Mormon (almost always with that).

It isn’t found in the King James Bible. In the biblical text “if so be” is used almost 20 times (half the time with that), and the verbal phrase if it be so / if it were so (which is more like Modern English syntax) is found three times, never with that.

In view of this, is if it so be an error on the part of the Book of Mormon? No, on the contrary, the hypothetical phrase if it so be (that) is well-attested in the Oxford English Dictionary (8 times), the last time in 1534. Quotations include two by these famous authors:

“If it so be thou wolt with-outen slouthe Bileue aright.” Chaucer 2nd Nun’s T. 258, ca. 1386

“If it so be [that] a man . . . perceiueth that in welth & authoritie he doth his own soule harme. . . .” More Comf. agst. Trib. ii. Wks. 1200/2, 1534

The structure found in the Book of Mormon constitutes evidence of the independence of the book’s language vis-a-vis the King James Bible and testifies to the historical depth of its syntax.

#Impersonal

#Verb Phrase―“It sorroweth me”

“It sorroweth me” is found four times in the Book of Mormon but is not found in the King James Bible.

Early Modern English examples:

“me supposeth that they toke that vyce of kynge Hardekunt,” Caxton polychronicon, 1482

“It sorroweth me to thinke of the Ministers of England,” Adam Hill, The crie of England, 1595

“The ague that held you, sorroweth me.” Hellowes Gueuara’s Fam. Ep. (1577) 189, 1574

“It sorrows me that you misprize my love.” Heywood Royall King ii. iv, 1637 The presence of this impersonal verb phrase in the Book of Mormon is an indication of the historical range of the book’s language.

#Past Participle of the Verb Arrive―Arriven

Arriven is found five times in the Book of Mormon. The verb arrive is not used in the King James Bible.

There are two relevant late ME entries in the Oxford English Dictionary with aryven:

“In a forest she is aryven.” Torr. Portugal Fragm., 1435

“To morwen schole e hem alle se To londe aryven. . .” [Tomorrow you will see

ȝ

them all arrived to land]. Lovelich Grail xliv. 113, 1450

#The “more part of” the people

The obsolete though transparent phrase “the more part of” occurs 24 times in the Book of Mormon but is not found in that exact form in the King James Bible. It is, however, used twice without “of” (Acts 19:32; 27:12). More as used in this phrase carries a sense of “greater in number,” which became obsolete in the 17th century.

The OED provides several examples with “the more part of” from the late ME period and the Early Modern English period (from 1380 to 1610). Here are two quotations from the 16th century:

“The more part of their temptynge spretes they haue made she deuyls.” Bale Eng. Votaries Pref. A iij, 1546

“Palm trees: of the fruit of which trees, the more part

of the inhabitants . . . are nourished.” T. Washington tr. Nicholay’s Voy. i. xviii, 1585

The phrase fell out of use at the beginning of the Modern English period.

#The people “having loved Nephi exceedingly”

This type of construction goes by the rather awkward name of nominative absolute construction. The Book of Mormon uses this type of construction frequently, clearly, and differently from the King James Bible.

Jacob 2:10-11 “The people having loved Nephi exceedingly—he having been a great protector for them, having wielded the sword of Laban in their defence, and having labored in all his days for their welfare—wherefore the people were desirous to retain in remembrance his name.

The clarity of the syntax is heightened in the Book of Mormon because almost always (1) an overt subject precedes the present participle (“I Nephi having been born,” “the people having loved Nephi”), (2) a logical, adverbial connector (therefore / wherefore) is used between the clauses, and (3) even if the subject of the main clause is the same as the one in the nominative absolute clause, it is repeated following the logical connector (“therefore I was taught,” “wherefore the people were desirous”).

Here is a biblical example taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, also showing the way the Book of Mormon might have expressed it:

Now Iacobs Well was there. Iesus therefore, being wearied with his iourney, sate thus on the Well 1611 Bible John iv.

Book of Mormon style: Jesus being wearied with his journey, therefore he sat thus on the well.

Here are two more examples from the King James Bible which demonstrate the relative clarity of Book of Mormon nominative absolute style because of the overt initial subject and the use of therefore at the clausal junction:

Acts 2:33: Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

Book of Mormon style: He being . . . exalted, and having received . . . the promise of the Holy Ghost, therefore he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

Romans 5:1: Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Book of Mormon style: We being justified by faith, therefore we have peace . . ..

#The verb beseech used with the personal preposition of

The King James Bible and the Book of Mormon differ in the following way in their use of the archaic verb beseech:

King James Bible: I beseech you / thee (46 times)

Book of Mormon: I beseech of you / of thee (4 times―Jacob 6:5; Alma 34:33; 36:3; Moroni 7:19.)

Is this use of beseech defective syntax on the part of the Book of Mormon? Is it a bad imitation of the King James Bible? No. The use of the personal preposition is old syntax found in both the late Middle English period and in Early Modern English, and the personal preposition can come before or after the verb.

“[He] of hyme besekys To ansuere .e alyenes wyth austerene wordes.” Morte Arth. 305, 1400

Mirr. Mag. Induct. xliv. 7, 1563 “And to be yong againe of Joue [he would] beseke.”

This use of of before the person who is besought may seem like a minor, inconsequential difference, yet the Oxford English Dictionary clearly distinguishes between these constructions and declares the one used in the Book of Mormon to be obsolete. Furthermore, the usage in the texts is distinct and consistent. The most rigorous statistical test for this pattern of usage gives the odds that this difference in the texts occurred by chance at five in one million.

#The use of should following beseech

What about the use of should in the clause that follows besought in the following Book of Mormon passage? This specific usage is absent in the King James Bible: Now when [Korihor] had said this, he besought that Alma should pray unto God that the curse might be taken from him (Alma 30:54―see also Moroni 7:19).

In the King James Bible only would (cf. Alma 15:5) or might is used after besought (15 uses in the New Testament). And when present-tense beseech is used, then only will and may are used, never shall. This King James Bible usage is consistent with the meaning of the verb as: to supplicate, beg earnestly . The auxiliary will / would in particular, with its notion of voluntary action, is a good semantic fit for the clause following beseech because the meaning of the full verb directly implies that notion.

On the other hand, when the auxiliary should is used with beseech, the meaning is somewhat different since there is a combination of some degree of compulsion or command as well as supplication.

th

Nevertheless, the usage of should following beseech is found in 14 - and 15th century quotations. The important thing to notice in these quotations is the co-

‑

occurrence of besought and should (a rough translation for the first two excerpts is given below):

“Unto the god ferst thei besoughten As to the substaunce of her Scole, That thei ne scholden noght befole Her wit upon none erthly werkes, Which were ayein thestat of clerkes, And that thei myhten fle the vice Which Simon hath in his office.” Gower Conf. I. 10, 1390. This passage seems to say that the clergy besought God so they wouldn’t foolishly squander (scholden noght befole) their intellect on earthly matters, and so they’d be able to avoid (myhten fle) the corruption of Simon Magus (Acts 8:18–24). Interestingly, both should and might are used in the same syntactic sequence after besought; both these auxiliaries are also used immediately after besought in Alma 30:54—one in the same way [should], the other in a related purposive clause [might].) In the 1390 quotation the clergy themselves wanted God to compel them to engage in worthy study (should), and also evinced a desire to have the ability to avoid corruption (might).

“Thanne the quene after kneled tofore her lorde, and besought hym that men shulde do semble iustice to Amon the seneschall.” Knt. de la Tour 87, 1450. In this excerpt a queen knelt before her lord and besought him to compel others to similarly show deference to a steward.

“A notable historie containing foure voyages … which aboue all thinges besought vs that none of our men should come neere their lodgings nor their Gardens.” The passage is quoted from Richard Hakluyt (1599) The principal nauigations, voyages, traffiques and discoueries of the English nation, from Early English Books Online.

As a result of these findings, we learn that the use of should with beseech in the Book of Mormon reflects a well-formed early structure found in both late Middle English and in Early Modern English. And we also learn that Korihor made a forceful plea to Alma (even perhaps one of a commanding nature). Otherwise the auxiliary would would have been used (as used in Alma 15:5 with Zeezrom). The use of should with besought, like the use of beseech of, reveals the depth of Book of Mormon language.

#The variable grammatical mood following “if”

The hypothetical word “if” can introduce two types of verbs or “moods.” The first type is subjunctive verbs―verbs that suppose something is true but is not. The second type is indicative verbs―a command verb that states a realistic possibility. An example of the subjunctive is, If I were you. An example of an indicative verb is, If you come, I will be pleased.

Subjunctive verbs can be identified by being simple, present tense verbs such as confess, repent, cry, be, do

Indicative verbs, on the other hand, are present tense verbs with “-eth” or “-iest” added to the verb. Examples include: confesseth, repenteth, criest, is, doest

The use of these two moods is well standardized in Early Modern English and should be found in the Book of Mormon. Some of these specific standards include:

Passages may include both patterns in phrases containing “if.” Three book of Mormon passages illustrate this phenomenon. It should be noted that the second “if” in these verses may be simply implied. This will be pointed out. Such a missing but implied if is referred to as an ellipsis or an elliptic “if.” These three verses are:

1. Mosiah 26:29: “. . . And if he confess his sins before thee and me and [if he] repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive.”

Note that the bracketed words are the ellipted “if.” Note also that the first “if” is followed by a subjunctive verb (“confess”) and the second elliptic “if” is followed by an indicative verb (“repenteth”). This sequence, when there are two “ifs” in the passage is always the subjunctive first and the indicative second―never the indicative first and the subjunctive second. The ellipted second “if” renders it more likely that the second expression is indicative. Both statements, however, might be indicative or both subjunctive. In this case, we note that the Book of Mormon verse is true to this Early Modern English rule.

2. Helaman 13:26: “. . . if a prophet come among you and [if he] declareth unto you the word of the Lord . . .”

Note that the same comments apply for this verse as applied for Mosiah 26:29. Again, the Book of Mormon is true to the pattern of Early Modern English.

3. 3 Nephi 27:11: But if it be not built upon my gospel and [if it] is built upon the works of men or upon the works of the devil . . .”

The ellipted second “if” renders it more likely that the second expression is indicative.

Here is an example that seems to break the above rules. It is Alma 22:16: “But Aaron saith unto him: If thou desirest this thing, if thou will bow down before God—yea, if thou repent of all thy sins and [if thou] will bow down before God and [if thou] call on his name in faith, believing that ye shall receive—then shalt thou receive the hope which thou desirest.”

Again, note the ellipted words in brackets. In this doctrinally powerful verse there is one instance of the indicative after “if” at the outset (“desirest”), and then four cases of the subjunctive—bow down, repent, bow down, call. Lamoni’s father has just indicated his desire to Aaron, and so desirest, in the indicative, conveys that Aaron entertains no adverse opinion as to the truth of the statement. The hypothetical if therefore conveys a notion akin to “given or granted that or supposing that.” After that, however, the subjunctive is used four times, conveying the notion that Aaron is faced with a normal lack of certainty surrounding the realization of his statements. This is therefore a good example of the Earliest Text elucidating meaning, while well-intentioned (conjectural) emendations have obscured it. It also tells us that at a deep level the Book of Mormon is an intelligently crafted, sophisticated text.

#Much horses or many horses?

How about the strange use of the adjective much found in the Yale edition with plural nouns? Taken collectively: much afflictions / much fruits / much threatenings / much horses / much contentions / much provisions. Is this a reflection of nonstandard U.S. dialectal use?

No, usage in the 16th and 17th centuries definitively says otherwise. Half of the above phrases have been emended through the years, with the noun usually suffering the change and thereby affecting nuance. Perhaps the motivation for emendation was because the King James Bible clearly shows this use only once (“much goods” in Luke 12:19), or perhaps because it’s nonstandard Modern English. Yet the 16th-century. textual record has many examples of this use. For example:

“The same Emperour after much disputations and conferences had with the Arrians . . . commanded [etc.].” Stapleton tr. Bede’s Hist. Ch. Eng. Ded.,1565

“You. . . . haue through so much enuiengs . . . perseuered in your attempts.” J. Hooker Ireland Ep. Ded. in Holinshed Chron., 1586

th

Many of the 16 -century examples use both much and many. In fact most Early Modern English quotes used many more frequently than much. Helaman 3:3 nicely illustrates this variation in use: “. . . there were much contentions and many dissensions. . ..”

#Did go or didst Go

th

Let’s consider this late 16 century quotation taken from the Oxford English Dictionary:

“Many of the Gentlemen of the cittie did go vnto the Spaniards to visite them . . . in the which visitation they spent all the whole day.” Parke tr. Mendoza’s Hist. China 190, 1588

“Did go” is found in the Book of Mormon but not in the King James Bible. This particular wording is a grammatical structure that is familiar to any serious reader of the Book of Mormon and is currently used in modern English for emphasis and contrast. Back in the 1500s and early 1600s did go could be used without indicating any emphasis at all. When it was used in that way, it simply conveyed the same meaning as went. “Did go” appears many times in the Book of Mormon. And it is used 54 times with the infinitive go, either as did go or didst go.

On the other hand, the King James Bible uses went or wentest more than 1,400 times, but never did(st) go. There are a few usages of did eat in the King James Bible. The Early Modern English usage of expressing did plus an infinitive peaked in the latter half of the 16th century. This is additional evidence that the Book of Mormon’s syntactic center of gravity is this time period.

#In the which

th

Look again at the late 16 century quotation taken from the Oxford English Dictionary:

“Many of the Gentlemen of the cittie did go vnto the Spaniards to visite them . . . in the which visitation they spent all the whole day.” Parke tr. Mendoza’s Hist. China 190, 1588

Although “in the which” is found in the King James Bible, it is not used with a linked noun as it is with visitation in the 1588 quotation above. This occurs a handful of times in the Book of Mormon: in the which things / in the which rebellion / in the which strength / in the which alliance / in the which time.

More than a dozen examples of this prepositional phrase with the adjective which are to be found in the Oxford English Dictionary. The earliest ones noted in that dictionary come from the late Middle English period. The Book of Mormon has both in the which things and for the which things.

Consider the following examples:

“In the which thing Itrowe . . . at god dispensith.”Chaucer Boeth. iv. pr. vi. 109 (Camb. MS.), 1374

“In the which . . . mese . . . the Chapelayn . . . shold haue a dwellyng to serue by the tymys succedyng.” Godstow Reg. 352, 1450

“Preamble, In the which Acte . . . the seid Francis Lovell was ignorauntly lefte oute and omitted.” Act 11 Hen. VII, c. 63, 1495

“In the which wound, we must impose a silvern or goulden pipe.”A. M. tr. Guillemeau’s Fr. Chirurg. 26/3, 1597

“Which bedds are deuised of Cotten wooll, and hung vp betweene two trees . . . in the which flagging downe in the middle, men and their wiues and their children doe lie together.”Abp. Abbot Descr. World, Peru V iv, 1617

#All the (your) whole

Yet again look at the late 16th century quotation taken from the Oxford English Dictionary above:

“Many of the Gentlemen of the cittie did go vnto the Spaniards to visite them . . . in the which visitation they spent all the whole day.” Parke tr. Mendoza’s Hist. China 190, 1588

Note the expression: “all the whole day.” This same syntactic form occurs once in the Book of Mormon in Mosiah 2:21—“all your whole soul.”

#By the way of Gentile

One item in the title page of the Book of Mormon is worth mentioning here. The phrase “by the way of Gentile” is an obsolete use of way. The use of way in this phrase is noted in the Oxford English Dictionary but only one 16th century example is provided:

“The 29th of October last, I wrote to you from Paris by the waye of Monsieur de Chantonet.” Sir N. Throgmorton in Wright Q. Eliz. I. 49, 1560

“By the way of” is frequent in the King James Bible but it is used exclusively in locative expressions and is not used with persons. So “by the way of” used with a person or people with the meaning of “through the medium of” is non-King James Bible Early Modern English, and perhaps rare, if the scarcity of examples in the OED is any indication.

#Command Syntax

The term “command syntax” refers to the ways the Lord’s commands in the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible are expressed―the patterns of wordings and phrases that are used to express them. The command syntax in the Book of Mormon is sophisticated, complex, and principled, and uses patterns clearly seen in Early Modern English. All the evidence indicates that Joseph Smith did not attempt to produce the patterns found in the King James Bible, nor did he use the patterns from his own early 1900s language. The overall patterns of command syntax seen in the Book of Mormon strongly support the view that the Lord revealed specific words to Joseph Smith, not simply ideas―again, a pattern consistent with the “tight control” model.

We will consider carefully the systematic use of the verb command when it governs another verb, in both the 1829 Book of Mormon, and later we’ll look the patterns used in the 1611 King James Bible. We will learn that there are more than 150 instances of command syntax in each text, but there are profound differences between the two scriptural texts.

We will learn that the specific form of English used in expressing the instances of the command expressions of the Book of Mormon plates is Early Modern English. But by the time of the translation of the early documents from which the King James Bible was translated, the language had begun to change and the specific command sequences used in the Book of Mormon began to become extinct and hence in some ways the specific language of the Book of Mormon differs from that of the King James Bible.

We will learn that the Book of Mormon is a relatively strong match with an important 1483 English translation out of Latin of a document called Legenda Aurea by the early printer/publisher/translator William Caxton. From this match we can conclude that the Book of Mormon’s systematic use of command syntax is not unheard of in the annals of English literature. Yet, in the mid portion of the Early Modern English period the pattern began to change so the specific patterns of command sequence in the Book of Mormon are not commonly found in the examples of Modern English.

The complex vocabulary associated with the command syntax. Linguists have a vocabulary all their own, and we non-linguist readers can struggle to understand it. I will attempt here to introduce the reader to this vocabulary. I will utilize examples of command syntax taken from the Book of Mormon and other Early Modern English sources to illustrate the features of command syntax. My goal is to enable the reader to become familiar and comfortable with how linguists think, talk and write.

Two most common forms of command syntax. I will begin by providing hypothetical illustrations of the two most common forms of command syntax in the King James Bible and the Book of Mormon. I will then provide and discuss examples of each.

Infinitival command syntax. The first of the two common types is found more commonly in the King James Bible. Its pattern is as follows:

X commanded Y to do something.

In most of the command syntax examples there are two clauses. The main clause is “X commanded.” The second clause is called the embedded clause. Here it consists of “Y to do something.” An embedded clause is a group of words that includes a subject and a verb, and the embedded clause is the direct object of the main clause. Information related to the sentence topic is place into this embedded clause to give the reader more information and enhance the sentence.

This example gets its name “infinitival” from the infinitive (“to” plus a verb) found in the embedded clause. “X” is the subject of the main clause is. “Commanded” (past tense, active voice) is its verb. If the verb “commanded” were in the passive voice, it would be “is commanded” or “are commanded.” The embedded clause is the direct object of the verb, in the main clause, “commanded.” In the embedded clause, the subject is Y, and the verb is “do” which is an active voice verb and part of the infinitive (“to do”). The direct object of the embedded clause is “something.”

Finite command syntax. This second type is the most common type found in the Book of Mormon. Its pattern is as follows:

X commanded Y that Y/Z should do something.

Again, there are two clauses. The main clause is “X commanded Y.” The embedded clause is “that Y/Z should do something.”

The name of this type, “finite,” reflects the idea that the verb in the embedded clause is not an infinitive. In the main clause, X is the subject and “commanded” (again, active voice) is the verb. In this case the verb has both an indirect object (“Y”) and a direct object clause―the embedded clause―which begins with the word “that.”

In the embedded clause, the “Y” or “Z” is the embedded subject of the clause, “do” is the verb, and the embedded direct object of the clause is “something.”

If the indirect object of the main clause and the subject of the embedded clause refer to the same person (for example, they may be, in order, “me” and “I”), the scriptural passage is said to be “layered.” This is because the two pronouns refer to the same person, and each reference has a different function in the passage.

The “should” in the embedded clause is called an auxiliary indicating compulsion, a notion inherent in the semantics of command syntax. The auxiliary is sometimes rendered as “shall.”

The word “that”―the first word in the embedded clause―is referred to as a complementizer and may or may not be found in the command syntax passages.

Examples of command sequence. 3 Nephi 20:14: “the Father hath commanded me that I should give unto you this land for your inheritance”

More than half of the occurrences of command syntax in the Book of Mormon have this general structure. This is typical of the finite pattern we discussed above. Note the following features of this passage, and these terms should now be familiar to you. If they are not, please review the above discussion.

“the Father” (subject) hath commanded (present-perfect verb, active voice) me (indirect object) that I should give unto you this land (direct object clause, called the embedded clause).” Note also that the passage is finite. Why is it called finite? Unlike what is commonly encountered in Modern English and in the King James Bible, an infinitive is not employed in this clause. Hence, a finite clause is one that employs no infinitive― no “to” followed by a verb.

The embedded clause in 3 Nephi 20:14 has a verb, a direct object, and an indirect object: “that (the complementizer) I (embedded subject) should (the auxiliary) give (verb) unto you (embedded indirect object) this land (embedded direct object).

Note that both “I” and “me” refer to the same individual. Hence, the embedded clause is a layered clause.

If this verse had used an infinitive, it would have simply read: “the Father hath commanded me to give unto you this land for your inheritance” (note the infinitive “to give”). The construction with an infinitive is more compact.

Here is another example from the Alma 52:4: “he [Ammoron] did command that his people should maintain those cities which they had taken.” Note that the direct object clause is embedded, finite, and layered (considering “he” to be the same as “his people”). Again, this is the most common Book of Mormon type.

Occasionally in the Book of Mormon, an infinitival clause, or one that includes an infinitive is acceptable in clauses with command syntax. For example, see Helaman 4:22: “or that which the Lord commanded him to give unto the people.”

We may then summarize the syntax associated with the verb command in the Book of Mormon. It mostly contains embedded clauses that are finite. It prefers the auxiliary “should” but occasionally uses the auxiliary “shall.” It prefers layered syntax. It also may occasionally include infinitival, embedded, direct-object clauses, particularly after passive commands.

Here is an example of an Early Modern English statement included in the Oxford English Dictionary that has the word “to” preceding the indirect object in the main clause. It is from around the year 1400 (spelling modernized): “He commanded to all that they should forsake all that they had.” Mandeville (Roxb.) xxiv. 110. The King James Bible uses the preposition “to” prior to the main clause indirect object only once (in Daniel 3:4: “To you it is commanded”). The Book of Mormon never does use this form.

Here is a verse in the Book of Mormon with complicated command syntax that Joseph could hardly have created or even understood:

1 Nephi 19:4 “this have I done and commanded my people that they should do after that I was gone and that these plates should be handed down”

This syntax is complex. It consists of a main clause: “I commanded my people” and two embedded clauses.

First, there are three clauses in this sentence and the first has nothing to do with a command sequence. The first is “this have I done.” Or, we might reorder this phrase as “I have done this.” Note the main clause of the command sequence is “[I] commanded my people.” Note also that the subject of this main clause is “I.” This “I” is implied but not actually stated. Thus, the “I” is said to be elliptical―that is, it is implied but not actually written. The other features of the main clause include the verb, “have commanded” and the indirect object: “my people.” There are two direct objects of this main command clause. They are the two embedded clauses: “that they should do after that I was gone” and “that these plates should be handed down.” Note that the main clause is understood to be repeated between “and” and “that” in the verse, but it is elliptical and not written. If it were not elliptical, that main clause and the second of the embedded clauses would read: “[I] commanded my people that these plates should be handed down. Note also that the direct object of the first embedded clause is also elliptical. If it had been written in the first embedded command clause, that clause would have read: “that they should do [this]. The word this is found in the first, noncommand clause of the sentence, “this have I done.” Note also that the verb in the second embedded clause “be handed down” is in the passive voice.

Indeed, a deep native speaker knowledge of Early Modern English was required to achieve the regulated patterns of use found in this very complex command passage in the Book of Mormon. Joseph could not have constructed this complex command sequence sentence on his own.

Summary of King James Bible command syntax. The variety of command syntax found in the Book of Mormon is quite different from what is seen in the King James Bible. The King James Bible includes more modern syntax some of which is found in Modern English that was spoken in 1829. In addition, the King James Bible syntax has a strong preference for infinitival syntax.

In contexts where both verbs in the main and embedded clauses are in the active voice, the Book of Mormon has 84 instances of this layered syntax while the King James Bible has only nine―two in one Old Testament verse. This verse, Nehemiah 13:22, contains the last-dated example of layered syntax that is listed in the Oxford English Dictionary. That suggests that the King James Bible’s use of the structure was a vestige of an older syntax about to become obsolete.

Nehemiah 13:22: “And I commanded the Levites that they should cleanse themselves, and that they should come and keep the gates, to sanctify the Sabbath day.”

The other seven biblical instances of active-voice, obsolete layered syntax are shown below, along with two in passive constructions. First, the active-voice examples:

Genesis 3:11 “Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?”

Exodus 27:20 “thou shalt command the children of Israel, that they bring thee pure oil olive beaten for the light”

Lamentations 1:10 “whom thou didst command that they should not enter into thy congregation”

Mark 6:8 “And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey” Acts 1:4 “Jesus . . . commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father

Acts 5:28 “Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name?”

Acts 24:23 “he commanded a centurion . . . that he should forbid none of his acquaintance to minister or come unto him”

There are two examples where the main-clause command verb is in the passive voice. You note in these two passage that they have two have passive command verbs in the main clauses (“is commanded” and “was commanded”) whose grammatical subject is the “it”:

Daniel 3:4–5 ”Then an herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up. “

Revelation 9:4 “it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree”

The next example is different from the others since it involves an embedded passive verb phrase “should be stoned.”

John 8:5 “Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned.”

The embedded clause subject “such” is not related to the indirect object “us” in the same way the features in the other verses are related to each other. This verse is the only time in the King James Bible that the embedded clause subject is different from the indirect object.

Joseph and Oliver both knew King James Bible syntax. Both the King James Bible command syntax and the American usage of modern English in their day would have led them to use infinitival command sequence in the Book of Mormon had they been left to their own devices.

Overview of command syntax in the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible. According to the counts carried out for this study, there are 163 instances of command syntax in the Book of Mormon, and 170 in the King James Bible. Overall, the Book of Mormon has 92 cases of layered command syntax and the King James Bible has only 12. Consequently, had the King James Bible used layered syntax as often as the Book of Mormon, there would have been more than 300 of them in the 1611 text. Thus, the Book of Mormon is markedly different from the King James Bible in terms of rate of use of this obsolete structure. Yet because layered syntax is found in the King James Bible, the construction does not constitute evidence on its own that the Book of Mormon is independent of the King James Bible in relation to command syntax. It is the totality of usage patterns that points to independence, as is amply evident from a comprehensive analysis of the construction.

The following table breaks down command syntax in the Book of Mormon and King James Bible according to whether the embedded clause is finite or strictly infinitival:

#A Comparison of Command Syntax in the 1829 Book of Mormon and

#the 1611 King James Bible

#Embedded syntax BofM KJB

finite 129 32

infinitival 34 138

finite rate 79% 19%

The Book of Mormon uses finite command syntax nearly 80% of the time, while the King James Bible prefers compact infinitival syntax, using it slightly more than 80% of the time. In addition, the Book of Mormon uses command syntax at 2.5 times the rate of the King James Bible. Statistically speaking, there is a significant difference in usage between the two texts that almost certainly did not arise by accident. So either Joseph Smith consciously preferred and used the less-common biblical syntax, or he dictated specific, revealed words to his scribes. The latter is more plausible.

Another type of command syntax in the Book of Mormon―finite, simple. Let us now review another type of finite command syntax used less often in the Book of Mormon. It is the active voice, simple (not layered) finite syntax:

X commands that Y should/shall do something

The main clause is “X commands”. The embedded clause is: “that Y should/shall do something”. Note that the embedded clause is not layered, as there is no indirect object in the main clause that is repeated as the subject of the embedded clause.

The finite command syntax (and layered syntax) quickly became obsolete after the early 1500s and was replaced by the infinitival simple syntax. Remember that the finite or infinitival syntax is seen in the embedded clause and not in the main clause. Actually, the infinitival command syntax appeared on the scene very early―as early as the mid-1300s. By the time the King James Bible was written, the finite, layered syntax was rapidly becoming obsolete. This explains the less common use of the finite and layered command syntax in the King James Bible. Infinitival usage persists to this day and is the nearly the exclusive type. Infinitival commands are now often expressed with a different word order, as in “I was ordered to pay the fine.”

Infinitival embedded clauses are also found in the Book of Mormon, about 20% of the time as shown in the chart above.

Now let us look at some early English passages and test our knowledge of the complexity of the command syntax:

“He urgently commanded his subjects that they should let me see all the places.” Mandeville (Roxb.) xi. 41, 1400

“The university heads commanded the servants that they should neither buy nor sell with him” in W. H. Turner Select. Rec. Oxford 80, 1530

“He commanded that he should go home to his fellows without any harm.” Prose Life Alex. 41 & 76, 1420. Note that this passage is not layered because there is no indirect object in the main clause.

The use of “that” (the complementizer) in finite command syntax was optional through the centuries. The following Oxford English Dictionary quotations show the use of “should” (the auxiliary) without “that.” These have embedded passive verbs.

“Antonius . . . commanded his head and his hands should . . . be set up over the pulpit.” North Plutarch (1676) 729, 1580.

“I commanded the sleeues should be cut out, and sow’d vp againe.” Shakes. Tam. Shr. iv. iii. 148, 1596.

“Priam commanded none should mourne.” Chapman Iliad vii. 357, 1611.

This same syntax (without the complementizer “that”) at least three times in the Book of Mormon, but not in the King James Bible. The first one we consider is the following:

Mosiah 18:23 “he commanded them that they should observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, and also every day they should give thanks to the Lord their God.

The other two Book of Mormon examples without “that” are:

Alma 63:12 “save it were those parts which [had been commanded by Alma] should not go forth.”

Helaman 6:25 “it is these secret oaths and covenants which [Alma commanded his son] should not go forth unto the world.”

The Book of Mormon clearly favors the use of the “that” complementizer. Its absence in these three instances strongly suggests knowledgeable Early Modern English authorship.

As further evidence that the archaic command sequence of the Book of Mormon (finite, layered sequences, with the complementizer “that,” and the auxiliary “should” or “shall”) was obsolete by the early nineteenth century, Joseph Smith’s day, both in Britain and in America, we note that the Scottish author Walter Scott (1814-1831) and the American author James Fenimore Cooper (1820-1851) used the archaic form only 6% and 2% of the time respectively. The rest of the time they used the infinitival form.

So it is almost certain that Joseph Smith’s spoken and written language was predominantly infinitival (see JS–History 1:49,70; 1:29,48,50). And this is directly in line with what is found in the 1611 King James Bible. As a result, it is highly likely that Joseph Smith would have used infinitival command syntax at a 90% rate or higher had he been responsible for the language of the text of the Book of Mormon. Therefore, the heavy use of obsolete and archaic finite syntax in the Book of Mormon, argues strongly against inexpert 1820s authorship. It is a virtual certainty that a non-scholarly author could not have produced this mix of syntactic structures.

One other contrast between the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible is in the use of the auxiliary “shall” in embedded clauses of the finite type. The Book of Mormon uses it seven times, and there are no usages of “shall” in the King James Bible. The uses in the Book of Mormon include:

Alma 37:2 “I also command you that ye shall keep a record of this people, according as I have done.”

Alma 44:7 “I will command my men that they shall fall upon you and inflict the wounds of death in your bodies.”

Alma 61:13 “he doth not command us that we shall subject ourselves to our enemies.”

Helaman 10:11 “I command you that ye shall go and declare unto this people.” 3 Nephi 3:8 “on the morrow month I will command that my armies shall come down against you.”

3 Nephi 16:4 “I command you that ye shall write these sayings after that I am gone.”

The use of “did” “command” in the main clause. Both the King James

#+

Bible and the Book of Mormon use did + command as part of command syntax. It is also attested in Early Modern English:

Lamentations 1:10 “whom thou didst command that they should not enter into thy congregation.”

3 Nephi 15:16 “This much did the Father command me that I should tell unto them.”

“yet our Sauiour did commaund that they should pay

him tribute,” Rishton / Allen, tr., 1575.

This feature is yet another contrast between the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible, however. Did + command is characteristic of the Book of Mormon and is used more than 25% of the time to express the simple past, but less than 2% of the time in the King James Bible. The latter uses “did” + “command” noticeably only with the verb eat (and never for instance with the verb “go”). The Book of Mormon employs the syntax at a high rate and with many different verbs (about 50 times with “did go”). This is further evidence that the Book of Mormon is a mid–16th-century Early Modern English text. This usage is something Joseph Smith would not have been aware of from the King James Bible.

Instances where the indirect object in the main clause is different from the subject of the embedded clause. There are six instances in the Book of Mormon where this pattern is seen.

1 Nephi 3:2 “the Lord hath commanded me that thou and thy brethren shall return to Jerusalem.”

1 Nephi 3:4 “the Lord hath commanded me that thou and thy brothers should go unto the house of Laban and seek the records and bring them down hither into the wilderness.”

1 Nephi 7:2 “the Lord commanded him that I Nephi and my brethren should again return into the land of Jerusalem and bring down Ishmael and his family into the wilderness.”

Mosiah 18:21 “he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another.”

Mosiah 18:24 “he also commanded them that the priests which he had ordained should labor with their own hands for their support.”

Mosiah 19:11 “the king commanded them that all the men should leave their wives and their children and flee before the Lamanites.”

Here is an Early Modern English example with a passive command verb: “Ciriacus . . . was commanded that he and his fellows should delve the earth,” Caxton, tr. Golden Legend [spelling modernized], 1483

Mixed infinitival and finite syntax. Here is an interesting example where both infinitival and finite syntax are used after a single command verb. The following Book of Mormon passage shifts from infinitival to finite, focusing the command Mosiah makes about not having a king (the infinitives and finite verb are bolded):

Mosiah 29:30 “I commanded you to do these things in the fear of the Lord; and I commanded you to do these things and that ye have no king.

Embedded clause verbs used without an auxiliary. Embedded clause finite verbs are used without an auxiliary (should or shall) only 7% of the time in the Book of Mormon. Some examples are:

1 Nephi 17:48 “I command you that ye touch me not”

Mosiah 29:30 I commanded you . . . that ye have no king”

Alma 5:61 “I Alma do command you in the language of him who hath commanded me that ye observe to do the words which I have spoken unto you”

Alma 37:1 “I command you that ye take the records which have been entrusted with me”

Alma 37:27 “I command you that ye retain all their oaths and their covenants and their agreements in their secret abominations”

Alma 39:12 “I command you, my son, in the fear of God, that ye refrain from your iniquities, that ye turn to the Lord with all your mind, might, and strength, that ye lead away the hearts of no more to do wickedly, but rather return unto them and acknowledge your faults and repair that wrong which ye have done”

#Caxton’s Golden Legend (1483)

We have shown how the Book of Mormon is systematically different from the King James Bible in terms of command syntax. A prominent Early Modern English text is significantly closer to the Book of Mormon in this regard. This book—titled Legenda aurea sanctorum—is a spiritual work. Caxton published a translation in 1483 that he made from the original Latin. The book went through many editions before the middle of the 16th century. We have seen several examples from this text in the course of this discussion.

Both the Book of Mormon and this Caxton translation employ command syntax at a rate of 600 instances per million words. And both texts show a remarkable similarity along quite a few different dimensions.

#Summary of command syntax in the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible:

#•

Book of Mormon active command verb finite rate = 86%;

King James Bible active command verb finite rate = 18%

Book of Mormon passive command verb finite rate = 35%;

King James Bible passive command verb finite rate = 40%

#•

Layered syntax in active verb contexts:

Book of Mormon = 84 times (73% of finite-clause instances)

King James Bible = 9 times (38% of finite-clause instances)

#•

Finite-clause auxiliary usage:

Book of Mormon = 93%; King James Bible = 78% (never uses shall)

Book of Mormon shall usage = 7 times.

Conclusions of command syntax. Command syntax in the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible is markedly different. Caxton’s 1483 usage profile is significantly closer to the Book of Mormon’s. The principal difference between the scriptural texts lies in their rates of finite and infinitival patterns in the embedded clauses. They are opposites in this regard.

Both texts display a number of statistically significant usage patterns, and the Book of Mormon does so to an impressive degree. It prefers layered finite syntax with the auxiliary should, occasionally employing shall as an auxiliary—a less common Early Modern English usage notably absent in the King James Bible. In spite of its heavy use of finite syntax, the Book of Mormon is consistent with the strong Early Modern English preference for infinitival complementation after passive command verbs.

The Book of Mormon represents a late 15th-century form of command syntax that is less modern in construction than most of what is found in the King James Bible. It certainly does not systematically match the King James Bible in most instances, yet it incontrovertibly evinces principled usage of the grammatical construction. A linguistically unsophisticated author could not have produced the array of syntactic structures found in the Book of Mormon. Deep, native-speaker knowledge of Early Modern English was required to achieve the regulated patterns of use found in the Book of Mormon. Those involved in putting the text into writing in the late 1820s were not Early Modern English scholars but were familiar with the King James Bible. Had they composed the Book of Mormon themselves, they naturally would have used the King James Bible as a template not only to make it sound “scriptural,” as Twain put it back in 1872, but in order to fashion complex syntactic structures such as the ones this article has examined. Moreover, since the majority infinitival usage of the King James Bible was largely consistent with their own native speaker intuitions, that is exactly what they would have employed extensively, not the linguistically distant and obscure usage from more than three centuries earlier that is so prevalent in the Book of Mormon. Both the King James Bible and 19th-century American usage would have led them to adopt infinitival command syntax as the default case for the Book of Mormon because that was the most obvious feature of the King James Bible and that was also the predominant feature of their own language.

Therefore, in order to maintain a belief that Joseph Smith authored the Book of Mormon, one must assume that he chose to consciously and independently adopt an obsolete finite-clause construction as the main form of command syntax, against the King James Bible and his own language. One must also ascribe to him the ability to follow principled usage patterns not found in the King James Bible and incapable of being derived from a normal reading of that text. These include: favoring active finite and passive infinitival verb patterns, as well as heavy doses of layered syntax (both obscure phenomena to be found mainly at the beginning of the Early Modern English period).

Because syntactic knowledge is largely thought to be intuitively understood, Joseph Smith would have been unaware of such linguistic fine points, just as we are today. And because much of this language was inaccessible to him, it is possible to assert with confidence that he would have been incapable of implementing this complex syntax in the remarkably consistent fashion the text presents.

In summary, a scrutiny of command syntax in the 1829 Book of Mormon, the 1611 KJB, and Caxton’s 1483 translation of Legenda aurea (and in Early Modern English generally) emphatically tells us that the Book of Mormon is an advanced Early Modern English text in terms of its syntactic structure and that linguistic competence in earlier forms of English was necessary for its elaboration. Thus, we have further evidence in favor of Skousen’s view that Joseph Smith received specific, revealed words from the Lord. Had Smith received distinct ideas and put them in his own language or in biblical language, he would have used infinitival embedded clauses heavily, and any infrequent finite syntax would not have been predominantly of the layered variety.

The many obsolete Early Modern English aspects of the text (including command syntax in its richness and diversity) suggest that the process of translation, as we usually understand the term, occurred without mortal human participation. Yet translation—in the sense of conveyance from one condition to another—did indeed occur with human participation, by the gift and power of God. In our sphere, Joseph Smith (and his scribes) required faith, receptivity, and concentration in order to receive and set down in writing the Book of Mormon in a divinely sanctioned form. It was no easy task.

The Implications of Past-Tense Syntax in the Book of Mormon (The Use of the Auxiliary Did)

In the mid-1500s there was a short-lived surge in the use of the auxiliary did to express the past tense in English, as in Alma 52:18: “Moroni did arrive with his army to the land of Bountiful.”

The 1829 Book of Mormon contains nearly 2,000 instances of this particular syntax, using it 27% of the time in past-tense passages. The 1611 King James Bible employs this syntax less than 2% of the time. While the Book of Mormon’s rate is significantly higher than the Bible’s, it is close to what is found in other English-language texts written mainly in the mid- to late 1500s. And the usage died out in the 1700s. So the Book of Mormon is unique for its time—this is especially apparent when features of adjacency, inversion, and intervening adverbial use are considered. These will be explained later in this section. Textual evidence and syntactic analysis argue strongly against both 19th-century composition and an imitative effort based on familiarity with King James English.

Syntax resists manipulation—that is, when a person is consciously speaking a language his or her mind is primarily concerned with the content of expression, not the form. Since native-speaker linguistic knowledge is mostly tacit (intuitively understood without knowing and being able to describe the associated step-wise logic of the syntax), the form of expression is largely the result of subconscious production. As a result, syntax is extremely difficult to fake and can provide strong evidence of authorial origins.

Book of Mormon past-tense syntax could have been achieved only by following the use of largely inaccessible 16th-century writings. But mimicry of lost syntax is difficult if not impossible, and so later writers who consciously sought to imitate biblical style failed to match its “did” usage at a systematic level. This includes Ethan Smith who in 1823 wrote View of the Hebrews, a text very different from both the Bible and the Book of Mormon in this respect.

If Joseph Smith or anyone else in his day had authored the Book of Mormon, it would not have been a book with a remarkable number of Early Modern English features.

It may surprise some to learn that much can be gleaned from an examination of past-tense syntax in the Book of Mormon. But this is true, especially when we compare the text closely to patterns of use found in Early Modern English. Among other things, this section will point out the close syntactic match between the distinctive use of did in the Book of Mormon and during a short, identifiable period of time in Early Modern English. This means that the large doses of did found in the text apparently arose from an early form of English. All the evidence presents a picture of the Book of Mormon as an Early Modern English text that is difficult to refute.

Explanations of terminology. When the past tense did is used with what appears to be a present verb, the effect is a past tense verb. For example, “I did go” means the same as “I went.” The apparent present tense verb is not actually the verb being used in the present tense. Rather, it is the verb in its infinitive form.

There are two types of infinitives, “to-infinitives” and “bare infinitive.” A toinfinitive is, of course a verb used with preceding “to.” But an infinitive-form verb can be used without the marker “to.” These are verbs used after the auxiliaries do and did. There are also many other auxiliaries that may precede a verb that appears to be in its present sense but it is actually a bare infinitive.

Dr. Carmack, for convenience, has used abbreviations to refer to uses of did, do, and does as auxiliaries. It is “ADP did” or “ADP do” or “ADP does.” The “A” stands for affirmative―it confirms the truth or validity of an event. The “D” stands for declarative―it states emphatically. The “P” stands for periphrastic. This word means something like “roundabout.” Here is refers to two words being used in place of one available and appropriate word (“did go” instead of “went”). So, in the case of an expression like “he did go,” Dr. Carmack, for convenience, refers to this as an “ADP did.” Similarly, in the case of an expression like “I do go,” Dr. Carmack refers to this as an “ADP do.” And “he does go” is an “ADP does.”

Some additional terms that will be used in this section include the following:

#•

Adjacency―This refers to the adjacency of the auxiliary did to its infinitive verb form. This adjacency is particularly seen in the mid-1500s high rate period.

Examples:

Mosiah 25:18 “Alma did go forth into the water and did baptize them”

Mormon 4:23 “I did go to the hill Shim and did take up all the records”

#•

Inversion (did + subject + infinitive)―This refers to the subject being introduced between the did and the infinitive vert.

Examples:

Mosiah 9:17 “in the strength of the Lord did we go forth to battle against the Lamanites”

Alma 16:15 “thus did Alma and Amulek go forth, and also many more which had been chosen”

#•

Intervening adverbial expression (did + adverb or adverbial phrase + infinitive)―This refers an adverb (or adverbial phrase) being introduced between the did and the infinitive verb.

1 Nephi 7:3 “I Nephi did again with my brethren go forth into the wilderness” (the phrase “again with my brethren” is an adverbial phrase).

#•

did’s carrying through to a second infinitive but not Ellipsis―This refers to the

actually being written before that second infinitive.

Examples:

He did see and hear everything.

1 Nephi 16:14 “we did take our bows and our arrows and go forth into the wilderness”

#Comparison of patterns between the King James Bible and the Book of Mormon.

#KJB BofM

ADP did counts 515 1,846

Simple past tense 29,780 4,951

ADP did rate 1.7% 27.2%

Breakdown of syntax

Adjacency 61.0% 91.3%

Non-adjacency

Inversion 31.0% 5.0%

Intervening adverbial 8.0% 3.7%

Ellipses 5.7% 3.7%

There is little possibility that these two ADP did rates are accidentally different. Still, there is overlap in usage between the texts, and similar examples exist—some of these are presented in this section. But it would be wrong to seize on the occasional overlap and assert that Book of Mormon usage is based on the King James Bible. The above rates and patterns of use strongly indicate independence, and these systematic differences point to distinct stages of Early Modern English. Yet it is interesting that these periods are close in time―only decades apart.

Some examples of concentrated of ADP did usage in the Book of Mormon: 1 Nephi 16:39–17:1 “And it came to pass that the Lord was with us, yea, even the voice of the Lord came and did speak many words unto them and did chasten them exceedingly. And after that they were chastened by the voice of the Lord, they did turn away their anger and did repent of their sins, insomuch that the Lord did bless us again with food that we did not perish. And it came to pass that we did again take our journey in the wilderness. And we did travel nearly eastward from that time forth. And we did travel and wade through much affliction in the wilderness, and our women bare children in the wilderness.”

There are 9 instances of ADP did in this passage. Only “did not perish” is expected in modern English. One instance has an intervening adverb (“again”). Note the ellipsis ( a missing did) between “women” and “bare.”

3 Nephi 10:9–10 “And it was in the morning, and the darkness dispersed from off the face of the land and the earth did cease to tremble and the rocks did cease to rend and the dreadful groanings did cease and all the tumultuous noises did pass away. And the earth did cleave together again, that it stood. And the mourning and the weeping and the wailing of the people which were spared alive did cease”

There are 6 instances of ADP did, all adjacent.

3 Nephi 11:3 “it did pierce them that did hear to the center, insomuch that there were no part of their frame that it did not cause to quake. Yea, it did pierce them to the very soul and did cause their hearts to burn.”

There are 4 instances of ADP did, plus 1 negative declarative.

Mormon 4:13–14 “the Lamanites did take possession of the city Desolation— and this because their number did exceed the number of the Nephites. And they did also march forward against the city Teancum and did drive the inhabitants forth out of her and did take many prisoners of women and of children and did offer them up as sacrifices unto their idol gods.”

There are 6 instances of ADP did (1 adverb “also”).

Were there any texts in Early Modern English that had such heavy, sustained ADP did usage? Or is the Book of Mormon a thing apart in this regard? Yes, there are texts with such did usage. No, the Book of Mormon is not an isolated specimen in relation to this syntax. Here are two illustrative excerpts from a 1500s religious text.

“If we dyd vnderstand how the sinne which we dyd commit against God in the beginning dyd leaue vs, after it had once gotten power and emperye ouer vs, we should vnderstand aswel how great the loue and goodnesse of him was, that dyd redeeme and [dyd] take vs out of the same, and [dyd] deliuer vs from the condempnacion, so iustly due vnto vs for it. The diuell by sinne dyd breake in and [dyd] destroy all goodnesse that God had indued vs with, by the which we were cléerely knowen to be his owne workmanship, he did blot out the Image of god which was grauen in our soules so that the likenes of him by whom we were created, was taken quite from vs.” John Daniel tr. An excellent comfort to all Christians [Span. orig. by J. Pérez] (London: Wm. Norton), pages 11–12, 1576.

There are 9 instances of ADP did (3 elliptical).

“Euen so euer sithens the first hower that the worde of God, and the true light thereof, entred into Iermany, England, France, and this our realm of Spaine, and dyd begin to shine as the Sunne, there were persecutours which did abhorre it, and so doo continewe vntill this daye, most mortally and cruelly: and dyd, and dooe, kill all Christians, which are quickned thereby with most extremitie. They dyd alwayes will and [dyd alwayes] wish that which now they doo most wickedly.” John Daniel, page 141, 1576.

There are 7 instances of ADP do/did (1 elliptical).

The occurrence of ADP do did emerge in the mid 1500s. They are less common in the Book of Mormon than the ADP dids. While the ADP dids gives the verb expression a past tense meaning. The ADP dos, when used, gives the verb expression a present tense meaning.

Here is a variety of examples of ADP dids/dos from both Early Modern English and the Book of Mormon and the King James Bible:

“Alas, doo they not remembre me, I byleve better ye[a] than nay.” Caxton Sonnes of Aymon xxiv. 511, 1489

“Dyd not kyng Davyd a lyons jawe tere?” Hawes Past. Pleas. xliii. (Percy Soc.) 210, 1509

“He wyll saye vnto vs: why dyd ye not then beleve hym?” Tindale Matt. xxi. 25, 1526

“Did he not once for altogether . . . take awaie all autoritie from the priestes?” Udall etc. Erasm. Paraphr. Luke xxiv. 44, 1548

Moroni 10:27 “Did I not declare my words unto you, which was written by this man . . . ?”

“Dry figges and old, . . . as some do suppose, do ingender lyce, and also anoyeth the lyuer and the splene.” Elyot Castel of Helth H J, 1537

Mosiah 25:18 “Yea, and as many as he did baptize did belong to the church of God”

3 Nephi 19:14 “And the multitude did witness it and do bear record. And angels did come down out of heaven and did minister unto them.”

#Positive questions:

“But I aske of Tyndall no such farre fet whyes, but a why of hys owne dede . . . I aske hym thys why: Why dydde he translate the same by thys englyshe woorde elder?” More Confut. Tindale Wks. 427/1, 1532 Why did thei take it? Hall Chron., Hen. V (an. 8) 72 b, 1548

“Why did the Jewish people muse, Seeing all is but vaine?” Sternhold & H. Ps. ii. 1, 1549–62

Alma 30:51 “In whom did ye desire that Alma should shew forth his sign?”

#Negative declaratives:

“I departed fro my londe poure & exyled but I dyd not care for it.” Caxton Sonnes of Aymon vi. 139, 1489

“Wymen comynly do not entremete but to spynne on the distaf.” Caxton Faytes of A. i. i. 2. 1489

“Albeit she dyd not receyue in to her house our sauyour in his owne persone . . . she neuertheles receyued theim that dothe represent his persone.” Fisher Fun. Serm. C’tess Richmond Wks. (1876) 297, 1509

Ether 10:13 “And it came to pass that Kim did not reign in righteousness”

#Positive declaratives:

Alma 39:3 “for thou didst forsake the ministry and did go over into the land of Siron”

Isaiah 57:9 “thou wentest to the king with ointment, and didst increase thy perfumes, and didst send thy messengers far off, and didst debase thyself even unto hell”

Amos 1:11 “because he did pursue his brother with the sword, and did cast off all pity, and his anger did tear perpetually, and he kept his wrath for ever”

Mosiah 6:6 “king Mosiah did walk in the ways of the Lord and did observe his judgments and his statutes and did keep his commandments”

Alma 35:9 “And they did nourish them and did clothe them and did give unto them lands for their inheritance”

#Elliptical ADP did (the ellipses are marked with [e]:

Psalms 14:2 “The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and [e] seek God.”

Mormon 2:4 “we did take possession of the city and [e] make preparations to defend ourselves against the Lamanites”

#Here are several examples of multiple did ellipsis found in the Book of Mormon:

1 Nephi 9:1 “all these things did my father [e] see and [e] hear and [e] speak as he dwelt in a tent”

In this passage note the single past tense verb “dwelt” rather than “did dwell.” Helaman 6:39 “insomuch that they did trample under their feet and [e] smite and [e] rend and [e] turn their backs upon the poor and the meek”

3 Nephi 17:25 “the multitude did see and [e] hear and [e] bear record”

3 Nephi 26:13 “after that, he did shew himself unto them oft and did break bread oft and [e] bless it and [e] give it unto them”

Ether 10:22 “they were exceeding industrious, and they did buy and [e] sell and [e] traffic one with another that they might get gain”

1 Nephi 9:1 “all these things did my father see and [e] hear and [e] speak as he dwelt in a tent”

1 Nephi 10:15 “after this manner of language did my father prophesy and [e] speak unto my brethren, and also [e] many more things”

1 Nephi 17:22 “after this manner of language did my brethren murmur and [e] complain against us.”

Some other example of multiple “did ellipsis” in Early Modern English: “How be it for all that, afterwardes they did all fall, [e] feare, [e] faint, and did haue a doubt in him” J. Daniel tr. An excelent comfort to all Christians 96, 1576

“The seuenth was Sloth, . . . Who being cald, did gape, and [e] yawne, and [e] stretch.” J. Taylor (Water P.) Nipping Abuses D 1, 1614

“Some of the Disciples . . . at first did mince, and [e] sparingly speake, but afterward [e] practise and [e] loudly preach.” 1st Bk. Discipl. Ch. Scot. Pref. (1641) A 3, 1621

“And No-body did drinke, and [e] winke, and [e] scinke.” J. Taylor (Water P.) Penniless Pilgr. Wks. i. 123/2, 1630

“Parson Veron the Frenche man dyd pryche ther, for he was parson ther, and ys menyster.” Machyn Diary (Camden) 249, 1560–1

#Examples of Intervening adverbials:

Alma 55:27 “And it came to pass that they did, notwithstanding all the intrigues of the Lamanites, keep and protect all the prisoners”

Helaman 11:32 “And the robbers did still increase and wax strong, insomuch that they did defy the whole armies of the Nephites and also of the Lamanites”

Ether 2:2 “And they did also lay snares and catch fowls of the air”

Could the King James Bible have been a model for ADP did syntax in the BofM? No. Note the following table:

Some Notable ADP did Differences between the King James Bible and the Book of Mormon.

#Differences KJB BofM

Overall rate 1.7% 27.2%

ADP didst rate 23% 71%

Adjacency rate 61% 92%

Inversion rate 31% 5%

Instances of did eat 115 1

Instances of did eat & drink 20 0

Instances of did go 0 57

Instances of did cause 2 50

Instances of did come 1 41

Instances of did cry 1 31

Instances of did have 0 19

Instances of multiple ellipsis 0 6

Rate of did preach 0% 78%

Rate of did minister 6% 74%

Rate of did pursue 3% 59%

Rate of did pitch 1% 54%

Rate of did build 4% 56%

Conclusion. As a general rule, obsolete syntax is completely inaccessible to an author or speaker because of a lack of knowledge. The same is true of “lost meaning”― language that has never been encountered, language with which one is wholly unacquainted. However, some obsolete usage or “lost meaning” that a speaker or writer may know from prominent sources such as the King James Bible or Shakespeare is properly excluded from this statement. It is profoundly true, though, that writers and speakers cannot manufacture out of thin air vanished forms and lexical meaning when language shift has taken place, thereby obscuring prior usage. That of course is precisely the case of the Book of Mormon’s past-tense syntax. High-rate ADP did adjacency disappeared before the 1700s and was not generally known. So Joseph Smith had no knowledge that it was used at high rates during the 1500s and the 1600s. (The anomalous use of biblical did eat would not have told him that, just as it does not tell us that today.)

In terms of ADP did, we note a systematic match between the Book of Mormon and the syntactic usage of the Early Modern English period, exclusively. On the basis of this evidence we conclude that God, consistent with his divine purposes, chose this specific language variety and syntax as a framework for much of the past-tense narrative of the Book of Mormon. Wherefore, in this and other respects the language of the book is Early Modern English. Moreover, the pervasive use of this construction in the text and its close match with certain 1500s texts (as well as other syntactic evidence alluded to above), point directly to the idea that the book is full of Early Modern English syntax.

On the basis of the foregoing evidence and discussion, I would assert that the frequent occurrence of ADP did syntax in the Book of Mormon, as well as its deeper patterns of use, cannot reasonably be ascribed to the mind of Joseph Smith or anyone else associated with, or proposed to be associated with, the composition of the text in the late 1820s. And the odds that anyone else would have or even could have written a text in this fashion 200 years ago are vanishingly small. It seems that no one has done it since the Early Modern English period. The data discussed here are compelling, and it is hoped that the related conclusions are as well.

We have seen that some who intentionally tried to follow King James English in their writings did not match 1500s ADP did usage. Their efforts do not positively correlate with that stage of English: Snowden’s The American Revolution, Hunt’s The Late War, and Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews ended up well off the mark. Sixteenth-century texts were not readily available in the 1820s as they became later in the 1800s. As a result, the access to the relevant texts was extremely limited in the 1820s, especially to someone living away from populated eastern cities with research libraries. And the 1500s printed books containing the heavy use of this syntax were still largely to be found only in British libraries. So a compelling position—on account of the lack of any specific, credible evidence to the contrary—is that the words of the Book of Mormon were revealed to Joseph Smith through the instrument, that they came from a divine source.

Another Note on Non-Biblical Early Modern English Found in the Critical Text of the Book of Mormon.

There are several expressions in the earliest text of the Book of Mormon that have been thought be to provincialisms from Joseph Smith’s day. These include such words/expressions as: drownded, massacreed, and had ought to. It turns out that these are simply words/expressions that are found in Early Modern English. Here is evidence in support of that assertion:

“And finding that he was thus betrayed, ran into the sea and drownded himself.” EEBO A62145 Sir William Sanderson [1586?–1676] A compleat history of the lives and reigns of, Mary Queen of Scotland, and of her son and successor, James the Sixth, 1656

“Surely when you are sober you will consider, and when you are come to your selves you will be ashamed, and will not open any more your malice and wrath which hath drownded your honesty and civility” EEBO A30510 Edward Burrough [1634–1662] The memorable works of a son of thunder and consolation, 1672

“how doth he deliver his Children when we see them taken away by death, and oftimes are massacreed?” EEBO A60194 Richard Sibbes [1577–1635] A learned commentary or exposition: upon the first chapter of the second Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians, 1655

“The annals of the world some he surprized by treachery, the rest he massacreed in one night at a reveling” EEBO A64619 James Ussher [1581–1656], 1658

“and yf it be not so / than tell thou me, In what thynge he meaned, that every soule shulde be subiecte to the powers, etc. For yf euery soule hadde oughte to be subiecte to Timotheus, and Titus, In suche maner iudgemente he shulde in vayne haue sayde admonysshe them.” EEBO A07430 William Marshall, tr. [fl. 1535] | Marsilius of Padua [d. 1342?] The defence of peace, 1535

“he suffered them to come into the playne, without making any such resistance, as he had ought to haue done, because hee had giuen his word, that he would not stoppe their passage.” EEBO A07982 W. Traheron, tr. [fl. 1601] | Remigio Nannini [1521?– 1581?] Ciuill considerations vpon many and sundrie histories, 1601

The same can be said of words like attackt, bellowses, fraid, grievious, kinsfolks, Tremendious, etc. All these are cases of the earliest text employing Early Modern English.

#The Case of the Plural “Was” in the Earliest Text

Because the earliest text of the Book of Mormon it is primarily an Early Modern English text (in terms of its English language), it, understandably, employs many examples of the plural was—for example, “the words which was delivered” (Alma 5:11). It does so in a way that is substantially similar to what is found in many writings of the Early Modern period—that is, it manifests the syntactic usage, variation, and differential rates typical of that era.

In 2006, in an article on the plural was in Early Modern English, Nevalainen wrote that the use of was with plural subjects was a northern English dialect feature in the 1400s and 1500s, but it was by no means restricted to the north. In the course of the 1600s the pattern declined in frequency, but continued to be used as a minority variant even by the literate social ranks throughout the country.

So plural was was a widespread literate usage. And although plural is usage may have reinforced plural was usage, there appears to have been a greater tendency in Early Modern English to use was with plural pronouns than is.

Here is a passage with close variation exemplifying that tendency, along with a Book of Mormon example:

“the Lord saw ye was able by his grace to bear the loss of husband and childe, and that ye are that weak and tender” EEBO A57970 Samuel Rutherford [1600?–1661] Joshua redivivus, 1664

Alma 7:18–19 “I had much desire that ye was not in the state of dilemma like your brethren, even so I have found that my desires have been gratified. For I perceive that ye are in the paths of righteousness”

Adam and Eve. The following passage was frequently commented upon as an example of Joseph Smith’s failing in an attempt to imitate older language. In view of that, this is an important one to address at the outset:

1 Nephi 5:11 “and also of Adam and Eve, which was our first parents”

The following old syntax is a close match:

“A new postil conteinyng most godly and learned sermons vpon all the Sonday Gospelles not after the maner of Adam and Eue, which was made of the grounde” EEBO A06932 Thomas Becon [1512–1567], 1566

Interestingly, the charge of plagiarism has been made against Joseph Smith because of some biblical passages that have the form of Early Modern English.

In Early Modern English was was employed at a relatively higher rate after the relative pronoun which, with a plural antecedent, than it was after plural noun phrases.

It is not hard to find Early Modern English examples of “which was” preceded by plural noun phrases. Here are three examples:

“A confutation of atheism neither how Moses his rodde devoured the serpents which was made by the sorcerers of Aegipt” EEBO A69226 John Dove [1560/61– 1618], 1605

“The royall law and covenant of God and the Apostles which writ the Epistles which was to be read among the Saints” EEBO A52713 James Naylor [1617?–1660], 1655

“Politick discourses in such manner as he challenged all the Praises which was given unto him” EEBO A56530 Henry, Earl of Monmouth, tr. [1596–1661] Paolo Paruta [1540–1598], 1657

Here is a Book of Mormon excerpt that is similar to these Early Modern English examples:

Alma 9 [heading] “The words of Alma and also the words of Amulek which was declared unto the people which was in the land of Ammonihah.”

Note the variation in Mosiah 24:15 “the burdens which was laid upon Alma and his brethren were made light.”

Here both the was and the were are the verbs for the plural brethren.

These next examples match this variation.

“The hystory . . . of the warre, whiche was betwene the Peloponesians and the Athenyans But pryncipally the Brasides, whyche was adioygninge unto them, were of that intelligence and confederacy, and had bene alwayes ennemys of the Athenyans” EEBO A13758 Thomas Nicolls, tr. | Thucydides, 1550

“The true history of the ciuill warres of France the raging follies which was committed at Tholouse were incredible to report, except his owne disciples had written them in his legend.” EEBO A19179 Antony Colynet, 1591

Examples like these, along with many other verified variational matches, indicate that Early Modern English competence was part of the translation. Here are two more clear examples that demonstrate the same syntactic matching:

“An answer to a great nomber of blasphemous cauillations written by an Anabaptist That place of Paule proveth not that all the Israelites, which was called from Egypt, were within gods holie election to lief everlasting in Christ Jesus.” EEBO A04920 John Knox [1505–1572], 1560

“he praised God for that the Controversies which was amongst them, were not upon any fundamental Article.” EEBO A36910 John Dunton [1659–1733] | Frederick Hendrick van Hove [1628?–1698] The Young-students-library. 1692

“Were” followed by conjoined “and was.” Next we take a look at the agreement variation found in this passage:

Mosiah 7:7 “and they were surrounded by the king’s guard and was taken and was bound and was committed to prison.”

Here are three Early Modern English examples with the same syntactic pattern— that is, with were used right after the pronoun, and was used in conjoined predicates:

“A booke . . . to those that desire the true vnderstanding & meaning of holy Scripture Confirmation was that Ceremonie, which the Apostles did use, when they laide their handes upon those which received the holy Ghost after they were baptised of them, and was likewise ordeined by the auncient Fathers.” EEBO A06863 John Merbecke [ca. 1510–ca. 1585], 1581

“so we were put in prison again, and some hours after we were called forth again, and was had before the Governour John Indicot,” EEBO A52921 Humphrey Norton [fl. 1655–1659] et al. New-England’s Ensigne, 1659

“The invisible things of God brought to light by the revelation of the eternal spirit inwardly they were ravened from the spirit, and was gone from it into the earth, into the world, and served not the Lord Jesus Christ, but their own bellies,” EEBO A44796 Francis Howgill [1618–1669] 1659

Thus, we see that three different writers, from two different centuries, employed the same syntax found in Mosiah 7:7.

Next, we consider a variable noun/verb agreement pattern.

Alma 14:28 “and every soul which was within the walls thereof, save it were Alma and Amulek, were slain”

During the Early Modern period, “every (single noun)” could be treated as either singular or plural.

Here are three examples of “every one was”:

Lectures vpon Ionas deliuered at Yorke because the portions of the Levites and

‘‘

singers had not beene given to them, and everie one was fled to his lande” EEBO A04845 John King [1559?–1621], 1599

“For all the porches were double, and everie one was supported by pillars” EEBO A04680 Tho. Lodge, tr. [1558?–1625] Flavius Josephus Works, 1602

“For the Bores in Germany rebelled against the Princes, and Magistrates, and every one was busied with the warre of the Anabaptists.” EEBO A11516 Nathanael Brent, tr. [1573?–1652] Paolo Sarpi [1552– 1623] The historie of the Councel of Trent, 1629

Here are two examples of “every one were”:

“The most delectable and pleasaunt history of Clitiphon and Leucippe one of the passengers . . . got holde of the rope, and almost brought the boat to the ship side, and every one were made ready” EEBO A22560 William Burton, tr. [1575–1645], Achilles Tatius. 1597

“insomuch as every one thought his labour well imployed to do him seruice, and every one were desirous to question with him” EEBO A08882 Anthony Munday, tr. [1553–1633] Palmerin of England and Florian de Desart his brother, 1616

What are we to take away from this variability? Apparently at this point in the history of Early Modern English, the language was quite fluid and unpredictable in this regard.

Here is an example of the lack of proper resolution of a plural subject:

Alma 22:32 “the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla was nearly surrounded by water”

And, in Early Modern English:

The fat of Wolues and the marrow of Swyne is good to anoint bleare-eyes

‘‘

withal” EEBO A13820 Edward Topsell [1572–1625?] The historie of foure-footed Beastes, 1607

“The Towne of Romerswaell, the castell of Lodycke and the Scluse of Creeke was all carried away.” EEBO A02239 Edward Grimeston, tr. | Jean François Le Petit [1546– ca. 1615] A generall historie of the Netherlands, 1608

Here are examples of “that were” followed by “was”:

Helaman 1:7 “Paanchi and that part of the people that were desirous that he should be their governor was exceeding wroth”

“the Ladyes and all that were present, was stroken into a great maze, some for joy clapped theyr handes, and some on the other side began to weepe” EEBO A07911 Anthony Munday [1553–1633] Zelauto. The fountaine of Fame, 1580

Here are some examples of the “objectionable use” of “they was.” First the five instances of “they was” found in the earliest text of the Book of Mormon. Most readers find this language completely unacceptable:

1 Nephi 4:4 “Now when I had spoken these words, they was yet wroth and did still continue to murmur.”

Mosiah 18:17 “And it came to pass that whosoever was baptized by the power and authority of God, they was added to his church.”

Mosiah 29:36 “telling them that these things ought not to be, that they was expressly repugnant to the commandments of God.”

Alma 9:31–32 “when I Alma had spoken these words, behold, the people were wroth with me because I said unto them that they was a hard-hearted and a stiffnecked people. And also because I said unto them that they were a lost and a fallen people, they was angry with me and sought to lay their hands upon me,”

In the last example we notice close variation, in the following order: “people were”, “they was”, “they were”, “they was”.

Here is an example of close variation of “they was” and “they were”, in Early Modern English:

“The Arms of the Knights of Ely, might on a threefold title have escaped the Animadvertor’s censure: First, they was never before printed. Secondly, the Wall whereon they were depicted, is now demolished.” EEBO A40651 Thomas Fuller [1608– 1661] The appeal of iniured Innocence, 1659

Here is another example, without variation, but where “they was fitted” clearly references plural ships.

“Lewis of France . . . obtained . . . the Merchants consent for six of their own ships to joyn with that; But in the Interim, before they was fitted for that purpose, K. James dies” EEBO A62144 Sir William Sanderson [1586?–1676] A compleat history of the life and raigne of King Charles from his cradle to his grave, 1658

In Early Modern English, “they was” was a minor variant of heavily dominant “they were.” The usage rate in the Book of Mormon is also low, less than 1%.

More examples of “they was” syntax in Early Modern English:

“And than he wolde put in agayn the guttys / and they was so sore swollen that they cowde natbe handelyd” EEBO A03315 Hieronymus Brunschwig [ca. 1450–ca. 1512] The noble experyence of the vertuous handy warke of surgery, 1525

“The papists strength, principles, and doctrines when they was speaking of justifying by faith without the works of the Law,” EEBO A40227 George Fox [1624– 1691], 1525

“New-England’s ensigne and the first relation we had was concerning him, and how they was laboring to save his life” EEBO A52921 Humphrey Norton [fl. 1655–1659] et al., 1659

“Works the judgement did not come upon Corah because they was Lay-persons,” EEBO A44832 Richard Hubberthorn [1628–1662], 1663

“An answer to John Wiggans book and though the Disciples were led into all truth by the Spirit, by which they was to preach the Gospel to all Nations,” EEBO A35520 Thomas Curwen et al., 1665

“So they was a great hoost whan bothe hoostes were assembled togyder.” EEBO A71318 John Bourchier, tr. (Lord Berners) [1466/67–1533] | Jean Froissart [1338?– 1410?] Chronicles, 1523

“The reason why we were more civilized then they was, because we were not very far from the Euxime Sea,” EEBO A70988 F.G., tr. | Madeleine de Scudéry [1607 1701] Artamenes, 1653

“[the Ships] entred into the River, not knowing they was departed, and were so far engaged amongst the French Ships before they were aware,” EEBO A42277 tr. | Count Galeazzo Gualdo Priorato [1606–1678] The history of the managements of Cardinal Julio Mazarine, 1671

“by which they were brought into a bondage fear; yea they was to remember this especially.” EEBO A30211 John Bunyan [1628–1688] A treatise of the fear of God, 1679

The above excerpts contain occasional instances of were, clearly demonstrating that such variation was permissible. Again, this is like Alma 9:31–32, shown above, which has “they was / were / was”.

This leads us to another example of suspect Book of Mormon grammar: “both X and Y was.”

In the earliest text, there is one striking instance of this syntax—conjoined nouns preceded by the conjunctive adverb both—without plural number resolution:

Mosiah 18:14 both Alma and Helam was buried in the water

As might be predicted, there are examples in Early Modern English:

“In the end, I expresly demanded his Opinion, as that, whereto both he, and I was enjoyned” EEBO A28378 Francis Bacon [1561–1626] | William Rawley [1588?– 1667] Works (Resuscitatio), 1657

“after dinner, Butler and Smith were brought to the starre chamber before the privie Counsayle, where both sedition and heresie was obiected against them” EEBO A67926 John Foxe [1516–1587] Actes and monuments of matters most speciall and memorable, happenyng in the Church, 1583

“this was an evident and infallible argument, that both sinne and death was vanquished” EEBO A14710 John Bridges, tr. [d. 1618] | Rudolf Gwalther [1519–1586] Homelyes or sermons vppon the Actes of the Apostles, 1572

Here is an example of the syntax: “As X and Y was V-ing”:

Alma 20:8 as Ammon and Lamoni was a journeying thither

“not long time had passed before it happened, that as himself and train was riding through the streets to see how well this order was put in execution” EEBO A66812 Thomas Bayly [d. 1657?] Witty apophthegms, 1669

“I met the generous Falintus at his Landing, as Ventidius and I was diverting our selves upon a pleasant Strand, not far from his Palace” EEBO A53472 Roger Boyle, Earl of Orrery [1621–1679] Parthenissa, that most fam’d romance, 1676

Another case of unexpected syntax: “king and people was”:

Mosiah 21:33 king Limhi and many of his people was desirous to be baptized

Nowadays after a combination of king and people, we expect plural number resolution. But we don’t always see that in the Early Modern era:

“yet King Aram and his people was not blessed of God, nor yet wer the people of God,” EEBO A06481 Thomas Lupton A persuasion from papistrie written chiefely to the obstinate, determined, and dysobedient English papists, 1581

“The mirrour of mirth and pleasant conceits that the Kinge and all his people was so amased with feare, that they fel downe as deade” EEBO A20370 Thomas Deloney, tr. [1543?–1600] | Bonaventure Des Périers [1500?–1544?], 1583

The 1581 example above has “close variation.” This means, in that passage that “were the people” comes right after “king and people was”. Obviously such immediate variation was not only permissible, but even embraced in Early Modern English. The Book of Mormon exhibits this same phenomenon quite often, as in this example:

Alma 21:21 And he did also declare unto them that they were a people which was under him and that they were a free people,

Yet, another Book of Mormon example with close variation:

Mosiah 18:26 And the priests was not to depend upon the people for their support, but for their labor they were to receive the grace of God,

Here are some examples from the Book of Mormon of “so great was” with plural noun phrases:

1 Nephi 17:2 And so great was the blessings of the Lord upon us

2 Nephi 3:4 And great was the covenants of the Lord which he made unto Joseph.

Mosiah 24:10 And . . . so great was their afflictions that they began to cry mightily to God.

Alma 4:3 and so great was their afflictions that every soul had cause to mourn, In the Book of Mormon, there is also variation in the text, and three times we read plural were in this context:

3 Nephi 8:22 for so great were the mists of darkness which were upon the face of the land.

Mormon 5:6 for so great were their numbers that they did tread the people of the Nephites under their feet.

Ether 15:16 And so great were their cries, their howlings and lamentations that it did rend the air exceedingly.

Here are a few corresponding Early Modern English examples of the “so great was” with plural noun phrases:

“so great was the calamities of those dayes in the often chaunge of Princes and officers” EEBO A10649 Richard Rainolde [d. 1606] A chronicle of all the noble emperours of the Romaines, 1571

“Upon which, great was the acclamations of the people” EEBO A26603 George Monck, Duke of Albemarle [1608–1670] The declaration and speech . . . to the right honourable the Lord Mayor, aldermen and common-councel of the city of London, 1660

“Yet so great was the differences amongst them,” EEBO A47947 G.H., tr. | Gregorio Leti [1630–1701] The history of the cardinals of the Roman Church, 1670

“they are called Hercules Labors, so great was the pains and so infinite the Toil of them.” EEBO A55340 Andrew Tooke, tr. [1673–1732] | François Pomey [1618– 1673] The Pantheon representing the fabulous histories of the heathen gods and most illustrious heroes, 1698

Here is a different type of syntax but note these two similar examples:

3 Nephi 10:12 and it was they which had not shed the blood of the saints which were spared.

“And they perceaved that it was they which were come agayne out of captivyte,” EEBO A10349 Miles Coverdale, tr. [1488–1568] Biblia the Byble, that is, the holy Scrypture of the Olde and New Testament, faithfully translated in to Englyshe, 1535

Finally, here are some examples of “there was” with plural noun phrases. I have alternated the Book of Mormon examples with the Early Modern English examples. Each of these two sets shows a high degree of correspondence:

Ether 13:18 there was many people which was slain by the sword

“there was many people both in that Nation and elsewhere, in whom there was some true desires and breathings raised and begot” EEBO A47127 George Keith [1639?–1716] The benefit, advantage and glory of silent meetings, 1687

1 Nephi 18:25 we did find upon the land of promise as we journeyed in the wilderness that there was beasts in the forests of every kind

“When the Portingales first discouered it, there was not any beasts, nor fruite, at all within the Iland” EEBO A05569 William Phillip, tr. | Jan Huygen van Linschoten [1563– 1611] His discours of voyages into ye Easte & West Indies, 1598

Alma 4:9 there was envyings and strifes and malice and persecutions and pride, “At that time there was murmurings and plottings against the then Oppressors” EEBO A56509 John Partridge [1644–1715] An astrological judgment on the great and wonderful year 1688, 1688

3 Nephi 8:7 And there was exceeding sharp lightnings such as never had been known in all the land.

“And there was lightnings, and voyces, and thundrings, and an earthquake, and great haile.” EEBO A91909 John Robotham [fl. 1654] The mystery of the two witnesses Unveiled, 1654

Mormon 9:19 And if there was miracles wrought, then why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being?

“there was also greater miracles wrought in behalf of Truth.” EEBO A56539 Joseph Walker | Blaise Pascal [1623–1662] Monsieur Pascall’s thoughts, meditations, and prayers, touching matters moral and divine, 1688

Ether 13:26 And there was robbers, and in fine, all manner of wickedness upon all the face of the land.

“there was two thieves crucified, and one of the thieves reviled Christ” EEBO A40122 George Fox [1624–1691] The arraignment of popery when Christ was crucified, 1667

#The Case of the {-th} Plural in the Earliest Text

The earliest text of the Book of Mormon employs the {-th} plural—for example, “Nephi’s brethren rebelleth”—in a way that is substantially similar to what is found in many writings of the Early Modern period. The earliest text neither under uses nor overuses the construction, and it manifests inflectional variation and differential usage rates typical of Early Modern English. The totality of the evidence tells us that the critical text of the Book of Mormon is most reasonably classified as a 16th- or 17th-century text.

Careful readers of the Yale edition of the Book of Mormon notice the following language:

1 Nephi [heading] Nephi’s brethren rebelleth against him. He confoundeth them and buildeth a ship.

2 Nephi [heading] Nephi’s brethren rebelleth against him. The Lord warns Nephi to depart into the wilderness etc.

Some corresponding Early Modern English passages:

“as for the comon people that rebelleth about London” EEBO A71318 John Bourchier, tr. (Lord Berners) [1466/67–1533] | Jean Froissart [1338?–1410?] Chronicles, 1523. This example is ambiguous since people can be construed as either singular or plural.

“Let they that rebelleth beware” EEBO A04807 William Kethe [d. 1608?] A ballet declaringe the fal of the whore of babylone, 1548

Here are some examples of the {-th} plural form using other verbs paired with the corresponding Early Modern English examples:

2 Nephi 2:10 And because of the intercession for all, all men cometh unto God. “Many tymes of wyse yonge men cometh olde foles, And of yonge fooles customably cometh wise olde men” EEBO A02303 John Bourchier, tr. (Lord Berners) [1466/67–1533] | Antonio de Guevara [d. 1545?] The golden boke of Marcus Aurelius Emperour and eloquent orator, 1537

Mosiah 3:18 but men drinketh damnation to their own souls

“To say this worde, and fouler is the dede whan men so drinketh of the whyte & rede” EEBO A18528 William Thynne, ed. [d. 1546] | Geoffrey Chaucer [d. 1400] Works, 1542

“and so one man, or several men, drinketh by the measure, will, and appetite of another” EEBO A37049 James Durham [1622–1658] A practical exposition of the X. Commandements, 1675

Helaman 5:12 a foundation whereon if men buildeth they cannot fall.

“And that of me men . . . byldeth fayre edefyces” EEBO A07095 William Caxton, tr. [ca. 1422–1491] | Aesop The subtly historyes and fables of Esope, 1484

Here are some additional Early Modern English examples using other verbs: “But the Frensshe men knoweth all our secretes and counsayles” EEBO A71319 John Bourchier, tr. (Lord Berners) [1466/67–1533] | Jean Froissart [1338?–1410?] Chronicles, 1525

“but withal, he saith, honour that which is most excellent in the world, that which disposeth and Governs all” EEBO A61535 Edward Stillingfleet [1635–1699] A defence of the discourse concerning the idolatry practised in the Church of Rome, 1676

“being born, it nourisheth and sustains us, and at last takes us into her entrails as in our Couch, and keepeth us until our God shall call us to appear before his Tribunal” EEBO A43357 Heraclitus Christianus, or, The man of sorrow, 1677

“This goodness he despiseth, and maintains in himself the hardness of an impenitent heart, a heart that will not relent.” EEBO A45885 Nathaniel Ingelo [1621?– 1683] A discourse concerning Repentance, 1677

“for they that hath the Commandments, and keepeth them, dwelleth in Christ, and Christ in them . . . for he that manifests his faith by being obedient, he shall live for ever: for the Kingdome of God consisteth not in words, but in life and power, which is righteousness; and that procureth true peace, such peace as men and Devils can never take from you” EEBO A85476 Daniel Gotherson An alarm to all priests, judges, magistrates, souldiers, and all people, 1660

Here are some “unexpected” examples the {-th} plural form. They are unexpected because they are used with a singular verb:

1 Nephi 22:2 And I Nephi saith unto them

“Thus Paul argues this, I saith that every one of you saith, I am Paul, I am Apollo, I am Cephas, & I am Christ” EEBO A09971 John Preston [1587–1628] Grace to the humble: As preparations to receive the Sacrament, 1639

Mosiah 26:23 For it is I that taketh upon me the sins of the world, for it is I that hath created them. And it is I that granteth unto him that believeth

Ether 4:19 And behold, it is I that hath spoken it.

“O Israel, it is I, it is I, which forgeeveth thee thy sinnes.” EEBO A67926 John Foxe [1516–1587] Actes and monuments of matters most speciall and memorable, happenyng in the Church, 1583

“It is I that doth profit thereby” EEBO A08550 R.P., tr. The sixth booke of the Myrrour of knighthood, 1598

“It is I (saith the Lord) that doth sanctifie you: It is I that doth act every Grace; it is I that do put your hearts into a good frame” EEBO A09950 John Preston [1587–1628] The breast-plate of faith and Love, 1630

“it is I, that worketh in thee both to will, and to do, of my good pleasure” EEBO A45630 Sir James Harrington [1607–1680] Hor. consecrata, or, Spiritual pastime, 1682

1 Nephi 12:9 Thou remembereth the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

“He is sycke that thou asketh after.” EEBO A10245 tr. | Pythagoras A brefe and pleasaunte worke, and sience, of the philosopher, 1560

Interestingly, the {-th} plural is a minority usage both in Early Modern English and in the Book of Mormon. In general, the earliest text of the Book of Mormon offers us a wider glimpse of Early Modern English than the King James Bible does.

In the King James Bible text, verbs whose explicit subject is they never take {-th} form. Also the {-th} plural form is rare in the King James Bible, in part because the majority of the decrease in use of that form occurred before the year 1600. The peak period of syntax like “angels hath ministered unto him” (1 Nephi 16:38) appears to have been during the first half of the 1500s. It was certainly employed at a much higher rate in the year 1500 than it was 200 years later.

The relative rates of use of the {-th} plural are more important than the absolute numbers. The {-th} plural—which was verb inflection from the Middle English period— was relatively frequent in the first half of the Early Modern period, especially during the early 1500s. But it was never the dominant form, and neither is it in the Book of Mormon. By the year 1600 a large drop off in usage had occurred, partially explaining its relative absence in the King James Bible. By the 1690s the syntax was rare, and still in a downward trend. By the 1800s it is virtually nonexistent.

The {-th} plural usage in the Book of Mormon is neither biblical nor like the early 19th century. In the Book of Mormon it occurs with many more verbs besides highfrequency auxiliary verbs, and in many more contexts besides conjoined singular, abstract noun phrases. If the usage were similar to biblical usage, then it might be claimed reasonably that it was done in imitation of it.

As mentioned, the King James Bible has no examples of they with {-th} inflection. The Book of Mormon has four of these:

2 Nephi 7:2 “and they dieth because of thirst.”

2 Nephi 26:10 “for because they yieldeth unto the devil and choose works of darkness rather than light,”

Alma 55:8 “Behold, we have escaped from the Nephites and they sleepeth.” Moroni 7:17 “neither doth they which subject themselves unto him”

Here are some Early Modern English examples:

“yet they sprinkleth, boileth and welleth up.” EEBO A21119 Roger Edgeworth [d. 1560] Sermons very fruitfull, godly, and learned, 1557

“the ship drawing nere unto the land, as sone as they ar towched with the smell of the ayer, they dieth owt of hand. . . . and their possessions they kepeth for them,” EEBO A07396 Thomas Stapleton, tr. [1535–1598] | Venerable Bede [673–675] The history of the Church of Englande, 1565

“most speciall and memorable, happenyng in the Church Other mens fields they repeth,” EEBO A67922 John Foxe [1516–1587] Actes and monuments of matters, 1583

In summary, we have seen that the {-th} plural, as contained in the earliest text of the Book of Mormon, is neither biblical nor 19th-century in character. So by using syntax of the type “Nephi’s brethren rebelleth” somewhat frequently throughout the dictation, Joseph Smith went against both his own American English and biblical language.

The Book of Mormon’s {-th} plural rate appears to be less than 10%. Thus one can reasonably argue that the {-th} plural of the earliest text is not a case of consciously overusing the construction.

The Book of Mormon exhibits variation in this particular pattern that is typical of the Early Modern period:

1 Nephi [heading] “Nephi taketh his brethren and returns to the land of Jerusalem after the record of the Jews.”

Note the use of both “taketh” and “returns” in this verse. When we read the earliest text, we are reading Early Modern English!

Here are some examples of this same variation in Early Modern English:

“he taketh divers Towns, and returns to Spain” EEBO A57652 Alexander Ross [1591–1654] The history of the world, 1652

“Let us behold the Sunne, it riseth and setteth, and returnes againe to his place,” EEBO A02841 Thomas Hayne [1582–1645] The times, places, and persons of the holie Scripture. Otherwise entituled, The generall view of the Holy Scriptures, 1607

“In the meane time Philip razeth his Campe, and returnes to Corinthe,” EEBO A09833 Edward Grimeston, tr. | Polybius The history of Polybius the Megalopolitan, 1633

“in the grave it dryeth up, and returnes to dust.” EEBO A08025 Henry Isaacson, tr. [1581–1654] | Saint Bellarmino [1542–1621] Iacob’s ladder, 1638

“The body is of the dust, and returneth to dust, the soule commeth from God, and returnes to God againe.” EEBO A13752 Daniel Featly et al. Thrēnoikos. The house of mourning, 1640

“he sheweth his feruencie, and repeates the same againe” EEBO A09442 William Perkins [1558–1602] Lectures vpon the three first chapters of the Reuelation, 1604

“He assureth the Citties, and levies men with all expedition.”

“He pincheth some, and ruines others.”

“He raiseth the siege, and retires in good order, fearing a charge.”

“He dislodgeth without Trumpet, and seemes rather to flie, then retire.”

“He dischargeth two pistolls, and seekes to force the house.”

“He chargeth, and overthrowes the first he encounters.”

EEBO A11931 Edward Grimeston, tr. | Jean de Serres [1540?–1598] A general inuentorie of the history of France, 1607

Here is an syntax in the Book of Mormon not found in the King James Bible: Helaman 8:19 “ever since the days of Abraham there hath been many prophets that hath testified these things”

Here are three Early Modern English excerpts that correspond to Helaman 8:19: “there hathe ben but fewe that hathe edefyed grete places and houses” EEBO A16638 Sebastian Brant [1458–1521] The shyppe of fooles, 1509

“There hath bene Popes which hath bene poyseners” EEBO A02886 John Bale [1495–1563] A mysterye of inyquyte, 1545

“there hath bene many, that hath sclaundered you, and the Gospell of our Saviour Christe.” EEBO A67926 John Foxe [1516–1587] Actes and monuments of matters most speciall and memorable, happenyng in the Church, 1583

So the syntax of Helaman 8:19 was not Joseph Smith overdoing the biblical. Instead, it was Early Modern English usage not to be found in the King James Bible.

Here is an interesting Book of Mormon example (also in found Early Modern English) where the subject is ye (or they), and the {-th} plural only occurs following an ellipsis in the following phrase:

Helaman 13:21 “ye have set your hearts upon them and [. . .] hath not hearkened unto the words of him who gave them unto you.”

“ye have disarmed my tongue of complement, and [. . .] hath turned the edge of my own weapon against me” EEBO A50450 Sir George Mackenzie [1636–1691] Aretina, 1660

“they haue found a treasure, and [. . .] hath felt the sweetnes of this Manna” EEBO A19504 William Cowper [1568–1619] A preparatiue for the new Passeouer, 1607

“they have come sick and weakly, and have gone away so, and [. . .] hath found your promises and assurances of no effect at all.” EEBO A44800 Francis Howgill [1618–1669] Mistery Babylon, 1659

“they have ordained one another, and hath set up a trade of preaching, and [. . .] hath fill’d the world with darknesse” EEBO A44802 Francis Howgill [1618–1669] One of the Antichrists voluntiers defeated and the true light vindicated, 1660

Here is a surprising finding in the Book of Mormon unrelated to our current topic. It is an instance of the plural has. You will see that it is also attested to in Early Modern English examples:

Alma 57:36 and I trust that the souls of them which has been slain have entered into the rest of their God.

“it must be an entire heart, and none of those that has been pierced with a thousand Arrows” EEBO A70988 F.G., tr. | Madeleine de Scudery [1607–1701] Artamenes, 1653

“and strike down all those that has got the words but not the power, and reach to the life and immortality . . . are not they them that has set up all these outward things,” EEBO A40227 George Fox [1624–1691] The papists strength, principles, and doctrines, 1658

“and leave the persons for their faults to God, and them who has power to punish them.” EEBO A85769 William Guild [1586–1657] The throne of David, or, An exposition of the second of Samuell, 1659

“And now a few words by way of tender advice, to those who has been long seeking a pure Church, not a mined confused Rabble of godless Atheists,” EEBO A47152 George Keith [1639?–1716] Immediate revelation, 1668

“That the Father giveth no such gift to them that has sinned this sin; Is evident,” EEBO A30130 John Bunyan [1628–1688] Come & welcome to Jesus Christ, 1678

Look again at the example of Alma 57:36: and I trust that the souls of them which has been slain have entered into the rest of their God. There is also here a close variation pattern involving has and have. Note the same pattern in this Early Modern English example:

“the whole strain of them that has been taken off by the hand of Justice, . . . have so behaved themselves at the last cast, as if the whole Schism were upon a vie who should damn bravest.” EEBO A47819 Sir Roger L’Estrange [1616–1704] The character of a papist in masquerade, 1681

In summary, plural {-th} syntax in the earliest Book of Mormon text is very different from rare 19th-century auxiliary usage and from King James style (with occasional singular {-th} usage that looks to be plural). The systematic use of the {-th} plural in the Book of Mormon is neither overblown nor underdone. Interestingly, {-th} plural usage in the earliest Book of Mormon text is similar to 16th- and 17th-century syntactic patterns, in a number of ways.