Marcus wrote: ↑Sat Apr 11, 2026 11:54 am
Overall, those who entertain secular notions with regard to the Book of Mormon are quite credulous, in a number of ways. They are protected in their credulity by academic priorities.
Here is just one of many ways they are credulous with regard to Book of Mormon English usage.
American English speakers and writers preferred except to save; the Book of Mormon has mostly save, which is a rare thing among texts with large numbers of except.
AmE native speakers employed these two words as prepositions almost all the time; the Book of Mormon as conjunctions almost all the time.
Historically speaking, the conjunction save was used as a coordinator most of the time; in the Book of Mormon, as a subordinator almost all the time.
Conjunctive use was almost always "save that S"; in the Book of Mormon, almost always "save S."
Overall, the Book of Mormon's save usage is unique textually. It is archaic in formation, and very frequently marked for the subjunctive mood, both synthetically and analytically.
For the credulous, Joseph Smith generated the above as a matter of routine pseudo-archaism, even though there is no support for the above Book of Mormon usage among any pseudo-archaic text. (The above is also very different from biblical usage.)
Edited Thursday at 09:46 AM by champatsch
https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/11 ... 1210269158
In other words, Carmack assumes that the only alternative explanation is that Smith wrote like a typical pseudo-biblical author of his time, even though he has stated that such authors were typically more educated and more literate than Smith.
Then, he states that if Smith did NOT write like pseudo-archaic authors who were more literate and educated than he was, the only other conclusion is that more than one persons, from several previous centuries, translated the Book of Mormon first, and then dictated it to Smith. This does nothing more than push the problem of supernatural explanations further into the past, in an extremely complicated way.
Additionally, there is the problem that he had to retract somewhere around 60 to 80% of his previous findings of archaism. His research record is not strong, so simply taking his conclusions as legitimate evidence is out of the question.
The following is kind of slapped together at the spur of the moment. Forgive my lack of rigor.
Walter Scott was immensely popular in 19th-century America, becoming a literary sensation and a "best-selling" author whose works dominated the American book market. Between 1814 and 1823, over half a million volumes of his novels and poems were sold in the U.S., influencing American literature, culture, and, according to some, influencing the social structure of the South.
Sir Walter Scott frequently used the word "save" in his novels, often employing it in the archaic or formal sense meaning "except," "but," or "with the exception of." It appears regularly in his dialogue, narration, and character descriptions to convey a sense of historical, formal, or regional (Scottish) tone.
From Waverley: "But I desire to gain no adherents save from affection and conviction..."
From The Talisman: "He is the friend of man, save when man justly incurs his enmity."
From The Heart of Midlothian: Descriptions often feature the phrase, "No one saw her, save her sister..." (A common formulation in his narratives).
From Ivanhoe: In describing the knights, Scott might use phrasing like: "There was no one present, save the Knight of Ivanhoe, who dared to..." (Generic example reflecting his style in that work).
"The whole brethren, saving the lame Sacristan, had transferred themselves to Coningsburgh..." (Chapter 42)
"...seldom heard save from the tongues of the wretched and degraded serfs..." (Chapter XXVII)
"My master...will take nought from the Templar save his life's-blood." (Chapter XI)
"...save as thou art a servant of God, a freeman." (Chapter XXVII)
In Ivanhoe alone, I noticed that the word "save" in terms of "except" or "but" was used at least 40 times. It would have been used much more in his "Waverly" novels that were set in Scotland.
The following is also a curious quote from Ivanhoe regarding one of the Knights Templar:
“Bois-Guilbert? That name has been spread wide both for good and evil. They say he is valiant as the bravest of his order; but stained with their usual vices…”
