Early Modern English Question

[_moksha]

Could somebody state an accurate summary of the Early Modern English theory in no more than two paragraphs? Apologists say the Ghost Committee description is inaccurate. What do they mean by that theory? A good explanation without added rebuttal within those two paragraphs would be greatly appreciated.

[_Stem]

I'm going to fail but I'll try for fun.

The Book of Mormon is largely written with syntax largely exclusive to Early Modern English. Joseph Smith did not write in such syntax, and it would have been near impossible for Joseph to have replicated it. So, the logical conclusion is the book was written before Joseph Smith lived. And since Joseph claimed it was inspired and no one can find record of it existing before him, it must have been inspired by God.

There one paragraph. On the Ghost Committee thingy...it was a one time example explained by Skousen about how Early Modern English ended up in the Book of Mormon--the actual translator had lived in the Early Modern English era and was the one pushing the words to Joseph Smith, from the great beyond....or something like that.

I quote Stanford Carmack:

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
[Page 217]
Book of Mormon is an advanced Early Modern English text in terms of this 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.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... uthorship/

So it appears since the syntax is so old, it means it could only come from the Lord, says our good apologetic friend. I think they ran from the Ghost committee theory as soon as it hit internet ears.

[_Lemmie]

Could somebody state an accurate summary of the Early Modern English theory in no more than two paragraphs? Apologists say the Ghost Committee description is inaccurate. What do they mean by that theory? A good explanation without added rebuttal within those two paragraphs would be greatly appreciated.

Here’s my best shot, without any rebuttal:

“A proportion of the Book of Mormon’s words, phrases and usage qualify as Early Modern English language, as per Carmack’s research.

This proportion is large enough to conclude that Joseph Smith, who did not know Early Modern English well enough to imitate it convincingly, did not translate the original plates, but rather read the words of a translation by someone else off the rock in his hat. This previous translation was presumably done by someone who naturally spoke or knew Early Modern English.”

Hopefully the linguists here can weigh in, as this is just my best estimate based on my readings.

[_Kishkumen]

The Ghost Committee made Book of Mormon apologetics interesting again. Long live the Ghost Committee!

[_Dr Exiled]

H're is a valorous translat'r programeth f'r those who is't wanteth to writeth exclusively in Early Modern English:

https://lingojam.com/EnglishtoShakespearean

May the ghosts beest with thee!

[_Doctor Scratch]

Could somebody state an accurate summary of the Early Modern English theory in no more than two paragraphs? Apologists say the Ghost Committee description is inaccurate. What do they mean by that theory? A good explanation without added rebuttal within those two paragraphs would be greatly appreciated.

The Early Modern English Theory is simply this: Skouen and others claim that they have found features of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon. Of course, if you were to ask them, the Mopologists will insist that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text that was written well before the Early Modern period. Nonetheless, because they care (allegedly) about things like science and evidence, they are willing to acknowledge that those Early Modern English features are there. So, *why* are they there?

The most obvious explanation is that they're there because Joseph Smith put them there, but that undercuts the Mopologists belief that the Book of Mormon is an authentic history. Apparently as an aside, Skousen told DCP that he thought that the ghost of somebody (I forget who: the Reverend can tell you) from the Early Modern English period was dictating the text to Joseph Smith. Hence: there was a committee of ghosts from the Early Modern English period who influenced Joseph Smith to put that content into the Book of Mormon text.

Even though the Mopologists claim that we are mischaracterizing this theory, the truth is that they are reacting to the fact that we are making fun of them. It's not that we don't understand what the claims are; it's that we totally understand them and think that they're bonkers and deserving of ridicule.

[_Dr Exiled]

I think the Early Modern English theory can be summed up with one word:

Desperation.

Or perhaps it can be summed thusly:

When the church of how could Joseph have known jumps the shark?

[_Finn the human]

The Early Modern English theory is a monument to the creativity and ingenuity of modern Mormon apologists. I really don’t understand the ridicule this theory generates. Joseph said he translated by the gift and power of God. Surely ghost committees lie within the boundaries of what God is capable of. I’m glad Joseph kept the translation process vague and I look forward to newer and more creative explanations for all the head scratching stuff we find in the Book of Mormon.

[_Gadianton]

To close a gap: Skousen's theory requires a "tight translation". But a tight translation really isn't a translation. Does the sentence "Joseph Smith translated the Gold Plates" really line up with "Joseph Smith read an eBook from a stone" ?

Nevertheless, here is a stack of Gold Plates with mysterious symbols, and here is an English text. If Joseph didn't do the translation, then who did?

You might suggest "God". But if God did the translation, then why did he translate into 15th century English, rather than 19th Century English, or rather than King James English if we're assuming King James English is more holy than regular English, as Chapel Mormons think?

[_moksha]

You might suggest "God". But if God did the translation, then why did he translate into 15th century English, rather than 19th Century English, or rather than King James English if we're assuming King James English is more holy than regular English, as Chapel Mormons think?

Perhaps God is a Shakespeare fan as well as the other plays and poetry of that Early Modern English era? It was a time when people prayed for moisture rather than rain, I think. Could be due to frilly collars and codpieces.