"We seldom get into trouble when we speak softly. It is only when we raise our voices that the sparks fly and tiny molehills become great mountains of contention."
Did the Doctrine and Covenants Do Again What the Book of Mormon Did?
by Jeff Lindsay
Introduction and Overview
For
those of us puzzled over the fascinating and fairly strong occurrence
(so it seems, tentatively) of Early Modern English (EModE) in the
Book of Mormon, the way it got there is a subject of debate and
speculation.
One
hypothesis is that Joseph's natural dialect (New England?) coupled
with his attempt to sound scriptural, imitating archaic forms in the
KJV, might have produced the results we see.
The
challenge is that the KJV doesn't provide the knowledge he would need
to do much of what he did in dictating the Book of Mormon text with
so many EModE elements. Did his natural speech provide the rest?
It's
hard to say, but one suggestion has been to compare his original form
of the Doctrine and Covenants, the 1835 version, for clues. So here
are my initial observations.
My
hypothesis before I dug into the text was that Joseph, whether he was
a prophet or a fraud, would likely have maintained many subtle
aspects of the linguistic fingerprint of the Book of Mormon that he
translated/authored, so I would not expect the two texts to be
extremely different.
For
us believers in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, we may
hypothesize that Joseph's dictation of the Book of Mormon text was
largely a reflection of his own language and dialect, coupled with
KJV language, or we might hypothesize that there was often tight
control of the dictated text and that the language he dictates was
largely given by inspiration.
Either
way, I would expect the scriptural language of the Doctrine and
Covenants to preserve some
Book of Mormon elements, probably including some of the subtle ones
with EModE flavor, though I would also expect the EModE influence to
be somewhat weaker.
If
it suddenly became much stronger as modern scripture was generated,
that would be a surprise. If it was nearly as strong, perhaps that
would suggest that it was still his natural language with surprising
EMoDE remnants or that the language of revelation was, for Joseph at
least, somehow "dialed in" to an EModE-heavy dialect.
If
a significant part of the EModE in the Book of Mormon was largely
foreign to Joseph's language and seemingly the result of a puzzling
miraculous transmission of translated text somewhat predating KJV
language, as Carmack and Skousen argue, then I would expect that he
surely would have learned from his dictation and subsequent study of
the text, and would have naturally applied similar conventions and
style to some degree, but to a lesser degree, as he penned the
Doctrine and Covenants or even as he gave religious lectures.
Again,
I'd expect the EModE to be toned down somewhat.
My
surprise is just how different the Book of Mormon is from the
Doctrine and Covenants and a few other texts from Joseph that I've
explored. Though the language of the Doctrine and Covenants often has
a KJV feel, the subtle things that reveal EModE influence in the Book
of Mormon are much different in the Doctrine and Covenants.
It's
as if the EModE signal has been almost wiped out entirely. It's that
way when I look at the subtle use of did to express past
events. It's that way when I look at characteristic non-KJV phrases
with EModE flavor like "if it so be."
The
Doctrine and Covenants has a touch of those things, but just a touch.
A surprisingly light touch that points to something really remarkable
taking place in the language of the Book of Mormon, something that
appears to be surprisingly independent of Joseph's personal writing
style.
These
are tentative observations that will require further study. Maybe I'm
missing a lot. But I think when it comes to the language of the Book
of Mormon, we've all been missing a lot for a long time.
There's
a fascinating story waiting to be revealed. It may not be what we are
expecting nor what we are comfortable with. But I'm anxious to see
where it will lead in the end. The Book of Mormon invites, even
demands scrutiny. It's time we dig in more.
Background
By
way of background, Carmack examines the Book of Mormon's heavy use of
did in ways that are archaic for modern English. What's
interesting is that the way did is used in the Book of Mormon
was already somewhat archaic when the KJV text was prepared, but
statistically fits well with its usage in the mid to late 1500s.
Carmack
looks at a particular form of did, the affirmative declaratory
periphrastic did ("ADP did"), in which an
affirmative sentence expresses the past tense by using did
plus a verb, as in "Moroni did arrive with his army." ADP
usage is not intended to be emphatic ("actually, I must confess
that I did eat that donut") nor is it used in questions
("Did you eat it?" is not ADP).
ADP
did has several variants. Did can be adjacent the verb
(that's adjacency) or separated by one or more words
(ellipsis). It can occur in inverted order with the subject
after did (inversion, e.g., "thus did Alma
and Amulek go forth"). It can also have an adverb or an
adverbial phrase between did and the infinitive (intervening
adverbial use, as in "I Nephi did again with my
brethren go forth into the wilderness").
The
KJV definitely has ADP did, perhaps most famously in Genesis 3:6:
[Eve]
took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her
husband with her; and he did eat.
For
critics not willing to read and consider the analysis of Carmack,
that one bite of ADP did
is all that's needed to demonstrate how Joseph crafted past tense in
the Book of Mormon. He just glommed onto Genesis 3:6 and used that
pattern over and over. In fact, he way overdid did,
just like he overdid "and it came to pass."
But
just as subsequent analysis of the Book of Mormon annoying abundance
of "and it came to pass" actually points to long-missed
strengths in the text and authentic aspects of this usage that go
beyond merely imitating the sparser use in the KJV (see Brant
Gardner, "Does
'And it came to pass' Come to Pass Too Often?", Meridian Magazine,
July 2004; see also a relevant article
FairMormon.org), so also Joseph's seemingly clunky and annoying overuse of did
points to something more sophisticated that mindless overuse of an
infrequent KJV artifact.
What's
interesting is how widely the KJV text differs from the Book of
Mormon in how did is used. Of the 6,797 past tense counts Carmack has
found in the Book of Mormon, there are 4,951 occurrences of simple
past tense and 1,846 occurrences of ADP did,
giving a gargantuan ADP did
rate of 27.2%.
In
the Bible, with only 515 occurrences of ADP did
and nearly 30,000 cases of simple past tense, the ADP did is a meager
1.7%.
The
differences go beyond just the magnitude of ADP did occurrences, but
also in how they are broken down among variants, as shown in Table 1
from Carmack's article:
When it comes to did and especially ADP did, the KJV text has quite a different flavor than the Book of Mormon.
Alvar
Ellegård, a non-LDS scholar who dug into ADP did and its
history in English, has shown that ADP did usage had a sharp
peak in the mid-to-late 1500s, reaching an average rate of nearly
10%, while it was only around 2% in the 1520s when Tyndale's Bible
came out that heavily influenced the KJV text.
When
the KJV Bible was published, ADP did was plummeting sharply again,
being around 3%, and would continue to taper off. Today we rarely use
it.
From
documents such as the Salem Witch Trials, we can see that ADP did
persisted at relatively high level in New England speech into the
17th century, but not as high as during the peak era of EModE.
After
the 18th century, ADP did does not appear at high rates in a
sustained way as it does in the Book of Mormon, based on Carmack's
searching so far: "Sustained high-rate use of ADP did has
been found so far only in 16c and 17c texts. A good measure of this
use seems to be past-tense expression consisting of at least 20%
adjacency usage. The BofM has these high levels of use."
The
ties to EModE extend beyond the high overall rates alone. Statistics
for adjacency, inversion, and intervening adverbial use also show
rates consistent with EModE texts and removed from modern English and
from other texts of Joseph's day, including texts seeking to imitate
KJV language.
The
Bible use of ADP did is lopsided in the verbs it is applied to. More
than 115 of its 500 counts (over 20%) involve "did(st) eat",
as in Genesis 3.
In
the Book of Mormon, the most common verb used in ADP did is go,
with only 54 counts, less than 3%, pointing to a more relatively more
uniform distribution.
Analysis
of ADP did with individual verbs also shows fairly good
correspondences with EModE texts. For example, the Book of Mormon
avoids "did die," always using the simple past tense
instead — a feature consistent with other early EModE texts.
Analysis of other verbs gives mixed results, but generally consistent
with EModE usage.
During
the brief era of high ADP did usage in English, some religious texts
had rates as high as 51%, even higher than what we have in the Book
of Mormon. But did New England dialect maintain high ADP did rates?
Carmack notes that evidence from the Salem Witch Trials points to
rates as high as 3% among some New Englanders in the 1690s, when the
rate in England was generally even lower.
But
this elevated rate in New England dialect doesn't come close to
accounting for the high rates in the Book of Mormon. ADP did rates
were on the decline after the 1690s, and the low rate (1.7%) in the
KJV Bible would be expected to exert a leveling effect on any
dialects with high rates.
As
further evidence of how New Englanders used ADP did in
Joseph's day, Ethan Smith's scant use of it in View of the Hebrews
provides further evidence that the Book of Mormon's verbiage is not a
product of Joseph's environment, an issue Carmack explores at length
in his article.
Others
who wrote text with imitations of KJV language do not replicate these
high rates of ADP did. High ADP did is a surprising and
unexpected feature of the Book of Mormon's dictated text.
Ellegård,
the scholar who did the groundwork of analysis of ADP did in
English, notes that it was heavily favored by preachers and other
elites in English speaking society. Carmack builds on this to offer a
possible reason for its preference in the translated Book of Mormon
text:
[The
ADP did form] may have been chosen to adopt a plain syntax
that is more than appropriate for a formal religious text in light of
its historical development. (The plainness of the syntax follows from
its use of unmarked infinitival stems along with high frequency did
and didst, as well as usage such as they did beat which
is unambiguously past tense, as opposed to opaque they beat.)
So
ADP did may have served a useful role in creating a plain and simple
but distinctly scriptural text. Whatever the reason, the data point
to something interesting going on, something beyond a clumsy
imitation of what Joseph might have seen in Genesis 3. But was this
all just an accident, just his language, his style of writing when he
was trying to sound scriptural? Further tests might be helpful.
Exploration of the occurrence of the word did in the 1835 Doctrine & Covenants
In
searching the nearly 300 pages of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants,
including the Lectures on Faith, I was quite surprised to find that
the word did was not used much at all. It occurs just 72
times. It occurs nearly 2000 times in the Earliest Text of the
Book of Mormon. This is a dramatic difference before we even consider
the subtlety of ADP did.
Most
of the 72 occurrences interrogatory or negatives. Many are buried in
one section with a series of rather boring questions and answers
taken from Genesis ("Q. In what year did Seth die? … Q.
In what year did Enos die? … Q. In what year did Cainan die?
etc. etc.").
As
for ADP did, there are only around 11 cases, depending on how
you count them, two of which come from simply quoting Genesis 3.
So
out of hundreds of past tense statements from Joseph in this volume,
less than 10 are in ADP form. It's a rate consistent with modern
English and wildly unlike the Book of Mormon text, even though large
parts of the document are in KJV-style English, laced with "thee"
and "thou," the obvious stuff in KJV language, but quite
devoid of the subtlety of ADP did.
Here
are the 9 relevant passages (I've excluded the two occurrences quoted
from Genesis 3):
1.
For instance, Abel, before he received the assurance from heaven that
his offerings were acceptable unto God, had received the important
information of his father, that such a being did exist, who had
created, and who diduphold all things.
2.
Neither can there be a doubt existing on the mind of any person, that
Adam was the first who didcommunicate the knowledge of
the existence of a God, to his posterity; and that the whole faith of
the world, from that time down to the present, is in a certain
degree, dependent on the knowledge first communicated to them by
their common progenitor; and it has been handed down to the day and
generation in which we live, as we shall show from the face of the
sacred records.
3.
We have now shown how it was that the first thought ever existed in
the mind of any individual, that there was such a being as a God, who
had created and diduphold all things: that it was by
reason of the manifestation which he first made to our father Adam,
when he stood in his presence, and conversed with him face to face,
at the time of his creation.
4.
Behold thou knowest that thou hast inquired of me, and I did
enlighten thy mind; and now I tell thee these things, that thou
mayest know that thou hast been enlightened by the Spirit of truth;
yea …
5.
But behold I say unto you, that I the Lord God gave unto Adam and
unto his seed, that they should not die as to the temporal death,
until I the Lord God should send forth angels to declare unto them
repentance and redemption, through faith on the name of mine only
begotten Son: and thus did I the Lord God appoint unto man the
days of his probation;
6.
Thou didst baptize by water unto repentance, but they received
not the Holy Ghost; but now I give unto thee a commandment, that thou
shalt baptize by water, and they shall receive the Holy Ghost by the
laying on of the hands, even as the apostles of old.
7.
Behold I say unto you, my son, that because you did not translate
according to that which you desired of me and did commence
again to write for my servant Joseph Smith, jr…
8.
Now this is not all, their faith in their prayers were, that this
gospel should be made known also, if it were possible that other
nations should possess this land; and thus they did leave a
blessing upon this land in their prayers, that whosoever should
believe in this gospel, in this land, might have eternal life; yea,
that it might be free unto all of whatsoever nation, kindred, tongue,
or people, they may be.
9.
…and I have trampled them in my fury, and I did tread upon
them in mine anger, and their blood have I sprinkled upon my
garments, and stained all my raiment: for this was the day of
vengeance which was in my heart.
What
about other writings of Joseph Smith? Consider the famous Wentworth Letter
penned by Joseph in 1842. It uses did once, and it's not an ADP instance but an ordinary negative usage:
But
in the summer of 1836 these threatenings began to assume a more
serious form, from threats, public meetings were called, resolutions
were passed, vengeance and destruction were threatened, and affairs
again assumed a fearful attitude, Jackson county was a sufficient
precedent, and as the authorities in that county didnot
interfere they boasted that they would not in this; which on
application to the authorities we found to be too true, and after
much privation and loss of property, we were again driven from our
homes.
Doesn't
sound anything like the Book of Mormon, of course.
I
also searched for the EModE phrase "if it so be" that is
often used in the Book of Mormon. It does occur in the 1835 Doctrine
and Covenants, but only 3 times. The word if occurs about 800 times,
compared to 656 times in the Book of Mormon, which has dozens of "if
it so be" examples. The Doctrine and Covenants does use "if
it be" 10 times.
So
far I'm not seeing easy-to-find evidence that Joseph's inherent
language coupled with Bible imitation could account for the subtle
use of ADP did in the Book of Mormon text. Something else must be
going on.
It
will be interesting to explore this further and to understand what
that something is. The case for Joseph Smith as the author of
the Book of Mormon continues to weaken, though that may not be a
surprise to some of you. But there may be much more to learn and
understand as we appreciate the subtleties of the raw text itself.
Jeff Lindsay has been defending the Church on the Internet since 1994, when he launched his
LDSFAQ website under JeffLindsay.com. He has also long been blogging about LDS matters on
the blog Mormanity (mormanity.blogspot.com). Jeff is a longtime resident of Appleton,
Wisconsin, who recently moved to Shanghai, China, with his wife, Kendra.
He works for an Asian corporation as head of intellectual property. Jeff and Kendra are the parents of 4 boys, 3 married and the the youngest on a mission.
He is a former innovation and IP consultant, a former professor, and former Corporate Patent
Strategist and Senior Research Fellow for a multinational corporation.
Jeff Lindsay, Cheryl Perkins and Mukund Karanjikar are authors of the book Conquering
Innovation Fatigue (John Wiley & Sons, 2009).
Jeff has a Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from Brigham Young University and is a registered US
patent agent. He has more than 100 granted US patents and is author of numerous publications.
Jeff's hobbies include photography, amateur magic, writing, and Mandarin Chinese.